DCP and Quinn

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...]
What am I missing?
[...]

One cup of angst mixed with two teaspoons of obsession.

[_rcrocket]

The phrase is meaningless; "history of the case" means the massacre events and the aftermath of claimed coverup, so what I left out neither added to nor detracted from my point -- Bishop changed the confession.

I'm reading this portion of the article, and what Bob is saying here makes sense to me. What am I missing?

Gee, my wife had a baby today!

by the way...Did your wife really have a baby today? Congrats if she did.

;)

No. Another falsehood on my part. I have xx (a large number) children. I am proud of them all but no more please. One is a BYU grad; one a Cal-Berkeley grad; one is at the UofU (on a mommy break), three at BYU, one at UVSC, and the rest are kiddies.

rcrocket

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I wrote an article critiquing Bagley's book. One of the points I made was that Bagley shouldn't rely upon Lee's published confession in the San Francisco papers because Bishop altered it before it was published.

But your manipulation of the Bishop quote suggests that Bishop's added facts that make the entire book untrustworthy, when all Bishop referred to were facts related to the legal proceedings.

Bagley's book concedes that the confession is untrustworthy, as did Brooks, but he and Brooks continued to rely upon it.

Not the entire book; but you tried to do just that by manipulating Bishop's statement.

For instance, Lee says that he received orders of destruction from Apostle George Albert Smith ten days before the massacre was over. That would have put it at September 1 or 2. But, two diaries put Smith in Salt Lake on Aug. 30 and Sept. 1, and he was speaking in the SL Bowery the week thereafter, and then was at Fort Bridger in the middle of September.

I never said that Lee was right on everything in his book, and I'm fine with you going after things he wrote; I took issue with your undercutting the entire book by making Bishop appear to say something he didn't.

So I question why Bagley would make such a big deal about Smith giving these orders of destruction to Lee when the evidence from several sources challenged it.

Bagley didn't. Instead, Bagley notes on page 113 in Blood of the Prophets that George A. Smith arrived back in Salt Lake from his southern Utah tour "at 4:00 p.m. on August 31." Moreover, you note in your article that the 9/1 date is "deduced" from Lee's book.

The relevant portion says: "I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

When I used it in my article, I omitted "connected with the trial and history of the case" and replaced them with elipses. I did so just to save space; as I did with dozens of other quotes. The phrase is meaningless; "history of the case" means the massacre events and the aftermath of claimed coverup, so what I left out neither added to nor detracted from my point -- Bishop changed the confession.

I don't buy it. The point you made with Bishop's butchered quote was to question why anyone (such as Bagley) would rely on Mormonism Unveiled because Bishop said he would "add facts" -- you even go on to suggest that such "added facts" might relate to BY's and other GA's complicity in the crime, when in fact Bishop was only referring to facts connected with the legal proceedings.

I was a member of LDS-Bookshelf with Bagley. I needled him over his failure to include this letter in his book. I noted that he was a registered scholar at the Huntington. He finally said that perhaps he should have noted the letter; that he overlooked it; but, it didn't change his conclusions. But, in no event did he ever charge me with misquoting the letter.

As I suspected, you never discussed this particular issue with Bagley.

Bagley has since been interviewed regarding my article; several times. He criticizes me for getting a date wrong in a typo (the day the Indians started their attack) but does not criticize me for this.

Perhaps he will now; at least he should.

All Scratch and Rollo want to do is needle me with a complete falsehood.

I'm simply "needling" you with plain English.

I don't have a problem with that, really, but every time they bring it up in irrelevant contexts (rcrocket: Gee, my wife had a baby today! rollo: What about that manipulation of sources, Bob), then my explanation will resume.

I only bring it up when someone else brings it up first (usually you in whining about it).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I'm reading this portion of the article, and what Bob is saying here makes sense to me. What am I missing?

Read my above posts.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

All Scratch and Rollo want to do is needle me with a complete falsehood.

My experience with them suggests that all they ever want to do is to needle their chosen targets with falsehoods.

It's an extremely bizarre hobby.

Boy, that sure adds to the discussion. Since you are the editor for the journal in which Bob published his article, I guess you should bear some of the blame for that butchered quote getting through to publication. You must be so proud.

[_rcrocket]

I don't buy it. The point you made with Bishop's butchered quote was to question why anyone (such as Bagley) would rely on Mormonism Unveiled because Bishop said he would "add facts" -- you even go on to suggest that such "added facts" might relate to BY's and other GA's complicity in the crime, when in fact Bishop was only referring to facts connected with the legal proceedings.

Lee had three defenses at trial. First, that the evidence did not support his being there. Two, that others were more responsible than he and where were they? Three: BY made him scapegoat and manipulated the jury to get a conviction.

Bishop gave repeated press interviews saying that BY was responsible. Lee refused to cooperate with Bishop to implicate Young. Lee was offered a presidential pardon to turn on BY; he didn't take it.

A jailer, Spear, claimed that the US Attorney deleted from the confession (a second confession was given to the US Attorney) the part implicating BY. The US Attorney denied the charge.

A second jailer claimed the same thing. The US Attorney denied it and then pointed out that the jailer's affidavit was forged by a former Lee lawyer whom Lee had fired.

So, the part that Bishop would have wanted to improve upon was the implication of BY, and BY's role in the massacre and related violence. Lee's confession contains a lot of detail about BY's role in this which Lee could not possibly have known first hand. One of Lee's biographers (not Brooks) maintain that Lee's confession was altered, although she/he does not identify the culprit. I identified it with the letter I found in the Huntington.

The facts added (of course, how am I really going to know that; all I have is a letter saying it will be done) are most likely those pertaining "the facts of the case." The part I omitted. The part that would have strengthened my papers very slightly had I inserted it. So what I left out did not strengthen my paper in any respect.

But Rollo and Scratch know that, fully well. I don't care that they continue to raise it in irrelevant contexts. I'll just keep responding when they do.


rcrocket

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Lee had three defenses at trial. First, that the evidence did not support his being there. Two, that others were more responsible than he and where were they? Three: BY made him scapegoat and manipulated the jury to get a conviction.

Bishop gave repeated press interviews saying that BY was responsible. Lee refused to cooperate with Bishop to implicate Young. Lee was offered a presidential pardon to turn on BY; he didn't take it.

A jailer, Spear, claimed that the US Attorney deleted from the confession (a second confession was given to the US Attorney) the part implicating BY. The US Attorney denied the charge.

A second jailer claimed the same thing. The US Attorney denied it and then pointed out that the jailer's affidavit was forged by a former Lee lawyer whom Lee had fired.

So, the part that Bishop would have wanted to improve upon was the implication of BY, and BY's role in the massacre and related violence. Lee's confession contains a lot of detail about BY's role in this which Lee could not possibly have known first hand. One of Lee's biographers (not Brooks) maintain that Lee's confession was altered, although she/he does not identify the culprit. I identified it with the letter I found in the Huntington.

The facts added (of course, how am I really going to know that; all I have is a letter saying it will be done) are most likely those pertaining "the facts of the case." The part I omitted. The part that would have strengthened my papers very slightly had I inserted it. So what I left out did not strengthen my paper in any respect.

It's one thing to suspect that Bishop added facts unrelated to the legal proceedings (he may have), but changing a quote to bolster that argument (when the quote actually says something quite different) is the problem here. I have no problem with your making the argument as you did -- my beef solely relates to your changing Bishop's statement in a way that helped your argument. Bottom line: you substituted the ellipses because they helped your suggestion that Bishop added facts unrelated to the legal proceedings (such as BYU's complicity in the crime); in so doing I thought you crossed a line.

But Rollo and Scratch know that, fully well. I don't care that they continue to raise it in irrelevant contexts. I'll just keep responding when they do.

As I will respond when you whine about it.

[_rcrocket]

It's one thing to suspect that Bishop added facts unrelated to the legal proceedings (he may have), but changing a quote to bolster that argument (when the quote actually says something quite different) is the problem here. I have no problem with your making the argument as you did -- my beef solely relates to your changing Bishop's statement in a way that helped your argument. Bottom line: you substituted the ellipses because they helped your suggestion that Bishop added facts unrelated to the legal proceedings (such as BYU's complicity in the crime); in so doing I thought you crossed a line.

But Rollo and Scratch know that, fully well. I don't care that they continue to raise it in irrelevant contexts. I'll just keep responding when they do.

As I will respond when you whine about it.

"Facts of the case" are those unrelated to the legal proceedings but which are brought into the legal proceedings. BY's complicity was the ONLY governmental theory in the first trial. So, I reiterate, the omitted material was meaningless. As I continued to whine away.

rcrocket

[_Rollo Tomasi]

"Facts of the case" are those unrelated to the legal proceedings but which are brought into the legal proceedings.

Bishop referred to facts "connected with the trial and history of the case."

As I continued to whine away.

Indeed.

[_rcrocket]

"Facts of the case" are those unrelated to the legal proceedings but which are brought into the legal proceedings.

Bishop referred to facts "connected with the trial and history of the case."

As I continued to whine away.

Indeed.

Agree with you on point 1. Thus, I win.

Agree with you on point 2.