Thomas D. wrote:
And Claire Corbu's testimony about Marie Denarnaud saying to her:"You're walking on gold, you can feed the village for a hundred years and you'd still have some left over"She's on TV testifying this on camera (at 5:45)
but hey if this piece of evidence doesn't fit your pet theory then you can ignore it and carry on regardless. Calling everyone stupid who isn't beguiled in the same way that you have been.
But hey it's only evidence.
To be fair, Roscoe, its not evidence really. It's unsupported heresay from a less than impartial witness. It is however one of those quotes that has been accepted without question endlessly because it feeds the mystery.
In the same way the report about the dinner party is third hand, regardless of which language it was said in. Shorn of its original context it can be used and mis-used at will.
Without any consideration of the source, context and meaning they become rather less than conclusive.
That's a fair point, but if we restricted ourselves to evidence in the "Would this stand up in a court of law" sense, then we would have little to discuss. I think it's more a case of considering the source and context, as you say yourself above, and then trying to gauge the plausibility of what one's being told.
In that sense, the two examples cited above are good comparisons. The dinner party quote recently under discussion comes from Gerard de Sede, who is a very compromised source given his association with Plantard and de Cherisey, who fed him most of his information, and it also relates to a conversation, recounted in direct quotations, that neither de Sede, nor de Cherisey nor Plantard could possibly have witnessed themselves. The Claire Corbu quotation about walking on gold, by contrast, is a first-hand report of a conversation by someone who actually knew Marie Denarnaud, and as such it is far more believable. I know one could argue that Claire Corbu made it up, but there is no reason to doubt her integrity, and so one is minded to believe her, and trust the accuracy of her recollection. Of course, that doesn't mean that Marie wasn't talking nonsense herself, but I think that is what we should be interrogating, rather than the quote, which I have no reason to disbelieve. To return to the courtroom analogy I used above, I consider Claire Corbu to be a reliable witness, whereas Gerard de Sede, I would say, is a less than reliable witness, and so one treats what they say accordingly.