Alex Constantine - December 9, 2008
I haven't been posting recently, but had to address this one. Nerve-wracked blogger Matt Janovic - who has no nagging doubt that the DC Madam was a "suicide," per the official story - insists that I am a "conspiracy nut" for suspecting that it was murder:
"Mr. Constantine, Like most of your ilk of parapolitical ambulance chasers ($$$), you just want to sell your merchandise. You're no different from Geraldo, George Lincoln Rockwell, Ted Nugent, Father Coughlin, Gerald L.K. Smith, or any number of demagogues in the storied history of America."
I've made precisely nothing on the DC Madam case, and don't intend to make anything on it. Janovic is a mind reader who has discerned my "greedy" motives? (What's a "storied" history? The word is "sordid.")
Janovic, I never wrote in paranoid fashion that you work for the government, as you stated at your blog. Do you have something you want to tell us about that? I suggested no such thing.
In a prior post, you stated that you only spoke to Palfrey by telephone on two or three occasions.
This is what you told her family.
Now you claim to have had EXTENSIVE contact with her - that is your contradition, not mine.
Any reasonable person would call you a liar, because both claims cannot be true.
"Conspiracy nut" is like "nigger." It is a pejorative often used by trolls to discredit legimate research.
If I am "great" at all - as you say some claim - it is due to a large body of work, and a reputation that goes back 20 years - you have only a reputation for reading minds and throwing emotional tantrums, and I doubt many people who have followed the case agree with you. Sorry, but you are a strange bird yourself, and people who disagree with you are not necessarily "nuts."
Take a poll. Your smears apply equally to a number of interested parties who are suspicious of the circumstances of her death, including her attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley.
Self-serving misstatements, smears and mind reading will not get you to the bottom of it.
FULL TEXT OF JANOVIC'S "CRITIQUE":
Like most of your ilk of parapolitical ambulance chasers ($$$), you just want to sell your merchandise. You're no different from Geraldo, George Lincoln Rockwell, Ted Nugent, Father Coughlin, Gerald L.K. Smith, or any number of demagogues in the storied history of America.
[This is called defamation - not to mention a weird and wrong-headed way to describe an anti-fascist.]
You weren't a part of her story. I was, and did my best to assist her and did general internet research for her in December of last year. This is something I can prove--can you prove any of your straw man assertions? Your "witnesses" are full of crap, incidentally.
[My "straw man assertions" were supported by documents. "Full of crap" is useless rhetoric. "General internet research" constitutes some sort of bona fidé for this murder investigation? Is it even relevant to the discussion?]
I stand behind the February 28th email that she forwarded to just about everyone on the defense team between her and journalist Jason Leopold where she stated "the bastards aren't taking me alive." Others who interviewed her have told me directly that they thought she was acting unbalanced and expressing suicidal themes.
[This is the context, the relevant passage from the note that Jeane Palfrey sent to Jason Leopold: "… let’s put it like this, the bastards aren’t going to take me alive. Of course, anytime that you want to do an interview – I will make myself available. However, I doubt that I will be doing any interviews once I am in D.C., for the trial. – Best, Jeane." "They won't take me alive" is not concrete proof of anything, and would not be admitted in any court of law as evidence of suicide because it is too ambiguous. Only a mind reader would state positively, without a shade of doubt, that this is a reference to "suicide." Janovic is stretching it here, as usual. Let's see - I'm a "nut," the witnesses are "full of crap," and Palrey was "unbalanced." Janovic, on the other hand, is a picture of mental health ... ]
Thanks, you are comparable to Roy Cohn as well, I left him out there, my slip. Your evidence for a Palfrey murder barely meets the standards of the circumstantial.
[I don't agree, but this man isn't hearing reasonable arguments - he's using insults and lies to make his case. Real persuasive. Thinks he's the last word on the "suicide." I'll leave off now and let him speak his mind. We'll take up the DC Madam in the future. - AC]
Yes, I've also looked at the comments of her former condo manager (he's a crank as well), the interviews you're mentioning, but I know otherwise because I had direct contact for ten months with the deceased. She fired at least a couple of her lawyers because they knew she was suicidal. There should have been a competency hearing, and the government prosecutors are guilty of gross negligence in this area. The Court might be as well.
The problem with you Alex is that you only see what you want to see because there's money in it, period. Your readers read it because they want a simple explanation to a complicated modern world. That's shameful. If there would be one lesson learned from the current economic crisis, it's this: "they" aren't as in control of things as you would LOVE to believe because the alternatives are personal responsibility to yourselves and others. That's more complicated than "there's been a coup!" There was one long ago, grow up.
There are very real parapolitical themes to her saga, no doubt, but this contention of murder has no solid evidence whatsoever. You have nothing, nor does that crank Alex Jones, Kurt Nimmo, or the pathetic Jeff Rense who faked a death photo and put it on his site for more hits and sales.
Sell your conspiracy snake oil somewhere else, we know the system's corrupt, we don't need you. By the way: a link to the right of this article misspells Edgar Allan Poe as "Allen," that's incorrect. Never mind...
yours, Matt Janovic
PS: It's funny how you completely ignore and fail to address the February 28th email. Also, it should be known that I never had contact with Dan Moldea during the proceedings, I don't agree with his take on the RFK assassination, and don't respect his or Mr. Constantine's work.
[PS: Janovic doesn't respect Dan Moldea, puts no credence in the RFK book (neither do I) ... but nevertheless cited him in his last message to me as more "proof" of Palfrey's "suicide." I don't believe Moldea - but janovic threw him my way - and now he's backing off. Why does he get so personal?
Is this an honest debate or a fecal toss?
Janovic, you are a piece of work. Do you really care what I believe about Palfrey's death? Why is this so important to you? I don't dislike you, despite the insults. I feel sorry for anyone suffering from anxiety, and you are ALL stressed out, bud. We "nuts" and "cranks" will just go our own way, however, because you are straining to make a case and it isn't very persuasive.]
For further punishment: "Conspiracy nut Alex Constantine writes about...little old me!i"