Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Constantine vs. Janovic
WWW--Alex is on his third-installment of a two-part piece (don't ask) about me. You know, what's so unfortunate about all of this is that I probably agree with him on numerous points on far-ranging topics.
But there's one point I doubt I'll ever agree with over--barring credible, tangible new evidence--and that's the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
Perhaps I've been wrong about his motives and he's just writing about it on some kind of tangent, I don't know or care. [Ed., 12.22.2008--Call it a "retraction," or whatever you like, but I no longer think his motive was for money.] He has his issues and I have mine. But I believe that he and others couldn't be more wrong. [Ed., 12.22.2008--On this I'll never waver unless some solid evidence is forthcoming.] I got to know this woman over the period of ten months, mainly through emails and less than a handful of phone calls, and I pitied her, I empathized with her.
Mr. Constantine can make all the defamatory allegations he wants to--they're baseless, and he should watch what his hands are typing a little more closely. These kinds of half-assed theories won't help us get any closer to the truth of this story, but that's not what I think they're designed to do. What are they designed to do? To feed someone's ego.
At this writing, I have yet to be presented with any solid proof that Jeane was murdered, zero.
That hasn't stopped several of these "conspiracy researchers"from clutching-at-straws. For example, I'm aware of Blanche Palfrey's inconsistent comments early on that she didn't notice any desperation or suicidal behavior in her daughter prior to her death. I have it on good word that Mrs. Palfrey's health and memory are in decline. Since May of this year she's corrected herself on this in the press, probably with the assistance of her remaining family members and counsel. She's 76 and has a long-term heart condition. I wish her and her family well.
Also at this writing, I have good reason to believe Mrs. Palfrey is no longer the executrix of her daughter's estate and that it's now being administered by Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe's Preston Burton, the late DC Madam's former and final criminal defense counsel. Burton was appointed (imposed might be a better term, but Palfrey accepted him) at the end by the Court with the removal of Montgomery Blair Sibley as civil/criminal counsel by the defendant.
After that, Burton did some furious jockeying to run the Palfrey Estate, even causing a commotion at her funeral, something I have on good word from a reliable source.
Why was Sibley removed? Palfrey told me she wanted it and that "things were said that cannot be taken back." It was our final telephone call, in January 2008. As much as she tried to paint the split as acrimonious, she didn't sound convincing. There are other factors: who was whispering in Palfrey's ear that his defense strategy was imperiled? In the case of why Sibley was removed--a matter of sealed court records--I also have good reason to believe this is related to her suicidal behavior and a specific utterance she made in the presence of counsel that created a legal situation. It's unknown if she made similar utterances in the presence of Preston Burton at any point.
A suggestion to Mr. Constantine and other researchers: look into the period that Sibley was replaced as counsel, it's crucial and it was unusual as most of the entire legal proceedings and trial were. There's another narrative here, and it's not the accepted one that was swept under the rug by the press, prosecution, and the Court. You might want to look into the strong possibility that Palfrey under-reported her earnings in a major way, perhaps the easiest thing to prove in a case with charges of money laundering, misuse of the mails, and the presence of the IRS in the investigation.
Why wasn't she charged with under-reporting her income? Her properties and assets don't jibe with the accepted narrative that she made $2 million from 1993-2006, it doesn't fit. There are reasons to believe she might have had offshore accounts and that the government was and is aware of them.
Why not take a look at what we do know? Why not look at the smoke rather than concocting something unprovable--blank hearsay--out of whole cloth? Because it's easy. That's all I have to say about Alex Constantine and his dubious theories regarding the suicide of Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
Postscript, 12.22.2008: Alex is now writing on his site that I've "defamed" him, even while he's called me a "liar" over and over again, which could easily fit into that category. My personal take? He has no more basis than anyone to claim injury, I could just as easily claim it from him. But I won't, because I respect the right of others to their opinions and that speech is free and protected under the First amendment. Nothing I wrote about Constantine was done with knowing intent--I never wrote anything I knew for a fact to be wrong, the blank truth.
All this said, I would be happy to share various pieces of information from the Palfrey case itself with Mr. Constantine, he might be able to offer his own insights. I'm willing to admit that they could be very valuable. It's his call. Again, it wasn't a murder, he and others have it wrong, he and others have nothing solid to prove the assertion with, and yes, there are issues of real importance that should be dealt with like having a rudimentary knowledge of the Palfrey saga. I don't believe Alex Constantine does by a long shot, and that's OK.
But, hey, at least Constantine has written recently about Jeffrey A. Taylor. That's what bothers me so much about all this--we probably agree on a lot more than we don't. In fairness, we have both been wrong in our approach to all things Palfrey. But it hasn't just been about him, and I no longer think his motives were necessarily "bad," just wrong-headed and reactionary.
The majority of my comments have been directed at multiple-theorists, including Alex Jones, Kurt Nimmo, and Jeff Rense, so Constantine shouldn't feel left out, I've written on them as well and in even starker terms. I am not out to get him, but the theory is flat-out wrong. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it like anyone else. What kind of message he's trying to send by threatening to sue someone for disagreeing strenuously with him on specific points about the death of someone is beyond me.