Theos-Talk Archives (June 2006 Message tt00082)

Below are a few of my notes that I have jotted down concerning some 
of the contents of Ernest Pelletier's book titled THE JUDGE CASE.

I will title this section of my notes:

MERE SPECULATION SPINNING AND A MISTAKE, TOO??!!
 
In Part 1, p. 366 of THE JUDGE CASE, Ernest Pelletier writes:

==============================================================

It is interesting to note that although Exhibit "A" was the 
prosecution's strongest piece of material evidence it was not 
mentioned openly by the main characters, other than Judge himself 
who brought attention to it in his "Reply by William Q. Judge."  
There is no doubt the intent was to use it against him.  In "The 
Case Against W.Q. Judge" Besant never refers to it, although copies 
of other letters from Judge are included.  In the above quotation 
Olcott instead dwells on the `poison' letter.  There appears to have 
been a concerted effort to discredit Judge by misleading people to 
believe he would stoop to such treachery as to imply Olcott would 
poison Besant.  This leads one to hypothesize that perhaps the 
individuals involved were unsure about the Exhibit "A" letter 
actually working in their favor.

====================================================================

Pelletier assures his readers that

"?Exhibit `A' [the letter William Judge had written to N.D. 
Khandalavala in 1884] . . . was NOT mentioned openly by the main 
characters, other than Judge himself who brought attention to it in 
his `Reply by William Q. Judge.' . . . In `The Case Against W.Q. 
Judge' Besant NEVER refers to it [Exhibit "A" letter]?."  Caps added.

But notice that in the same paragraph Pelletier goes on to state:

"?Exhibit `A' was the prosecution's strongest piece of material 
evidence?."

How does he know that?  Did the prosecution say that?  Where is 
Pelletier getting this from?

Or is this just some speculation on Pelletier's part? And what if 
anything is this speculation based on?

Pelletier goes on:

"?There is no doubt the intent was to use it [Exhibit "A" letter] 
against him?."

Again since Pelletier states that this letter was never mentioned or 
referred to by the prosecution including Mrs.Besant, then how does 
Pelletier arrive at the conclusion that there can be NO DOUBT [at 
least in Pelletier's mind???] that the INTENT was to use the letter 
against Judge???

Again is this just more speculation?  How does he know what their 
intent was?  Does he have some kind of documentation for this?

Again Pelletier comments:

"?This leads one to hypothesize that perhaps the individuals 
involved were unsure about the Exhibit "A" letter actually working 
in their favor. . . ."

Well at least here we know Pelletier is hypothesizing!

But what good is all this hypothesizing that PERHAPS the prosecution 
was "unsure" about the letter working in their favor??!!

PERHAPS they were "unsure" but PERHAPS they were NOT unsure!  Who 
knows based on what Pelletier tells us?

This kind of speculative rhetoric may lead some readers to believe 
something has been actually proven when in fact nothing has.  But we 
are left with just one supposition piled upon one or two
other suppositions.  Perhaps this, maybe that, etc. etc.

Hopefully readers will not assume that he has therefore proven 
anything substantial because as far as I can tell, he has not.

I think this paragraph by Pelletier illustrates at least one of the 
major weaknesses found THROUGHOUT this book when Pelletier writes 
about Judge and the Judge Case --- THAT IS,
PELLETIER'S PENCHANT FOR ENDLESS SPECULATION.

But UNFORTUNATELY, it would appear that in this paragraph Pelletier 
doesn't even get his basic fact(s) right in the first place!!!!
 
Again let me point out that:

Pelletier declares to the reader that the Exhibit A letter "was NOT 
mentioned openly by the main characters, other than Judge 
himself?."   Caps added

and 

"In `The Case Against W.Q. Judge' Besant NEVER refers to it?."  Caps 
added.

But contrary to Pelletier's assertion, the Exhibit A letter IS 
mentioned openly by one of the main characters!

The letter is referred to in Mrs. Besant's THE CASE AGAINST W.Q. 
JUDGE!

One need only turn to page 69 in Part 2 of Pelletier's OWN book and 
read the following:

"The mechanical difficulty of such writing is nothing for Mr. Judge, 
and a curious illustration of his facility is found in an old letter 
to Judge Khandalavala, September 17th, 1884, in which he shows how 
easily signatures may be copied by producing those of Col. Olcott, 
Mme. Blavatsky and two others."

This text IS from Mrs. Besant's book THE CASE AGAINST W.Q. JUDGE as 
reprinted in Pelletier's book.

No mention?????   No reference???????
 
In summary, this whole paragraph by Pelletier that we have been 
dealing with is basically worthless and should just be crossed out!  
I would suggest that he rewrite it for a possible second edition and 
hopefully he will NOT indulge in more speculation spinning.

Daniel Caldwell