Queens Reconsidered...Reconsidered

Happy New Year, everyone!

I had every intention of laying out David's role in the reopening of the Queens investigation because there is quite a lot to discuss as David was very busy with his clue campaign. 

Yet while working on it I reached a point where I started to worry that I was basically explaining TUE to people who should have read it but refuse and to people who have read it but don't understand it - not to mention the rest of you good folks who don't need your hands held.  

Is it really my problem if you haven't read it? Nope.

What about people who have read it but can't comprehend what it says? Well, those people have proven to be absolutely hopeless so fuck 'em. 

However there are still a couple of things I'd like to point out.

I see no evidence that David and Maury ever paired-up and devised the cult theory together. David was sending out clues in late-1979 and Maury was not even on his mailing list until early 1980. If anyone has evidence, by all means, let's see it. We keep hearing that's what happened.

For example, note the date on his letter to Felix Gilroy:

 

(Btw, The original was discovered on the Internet Archive by our friend Parker and can be seen here.)

And now look at the date when Dave and Maury officially began their correspondence:

Once you really take a look at the timeline you'll see that Maury discovered the cult angle on his own and in a roundabout way Berkowitz confirmed it during the Gilroy deposition; as you read it, the deposition, you'll notice David's tales of diabolism became a little less fantastic and a little more specific. Not only that but information uncovered by Maury seemed to dovetail.

We've also been told that Maury and Berkowitz implicated members of the Carr family out of some desire for revenge. If that's true, why would they even bother coming up with the cult angle? Again, where are the receipts? "Trust me, bro," does not work with people you cannot trust. 

Back to the Gilroy letter, I found it interesting that Maury left something out when reporting it's contents:

Why would Maury keep that to himself?

Likely to vet information and/or informants. Maury mentioned this very tactic on page 386 (TUE, 2021 edition). 

Because I'm aware that not everyone who reads this blog or participates in the discussion does so with honorable intentions, we're back to explaining things to people. There's a reason Maury played some of his cards close to his chest, and when you consider all of the wolves in sheep's clothing we've seen over the past few years, who can blame him? 

Hard to understand? Not really.

Maury was conducting a real investigation. He would not have been satisfied by, say, simply letting one person clear ten suspects. He dug deep and yeah sometimes it got messy. 

And let's get serious about something: how many people are going to come forward and say to a newspaper reporter, "duh, yeah, my [uncle/brother/dad/cousin etc.] was a notorious child pimp,” or, "they were on the take and kept their mouth shut"?

Cries of "why didn't Maury publish [this-or-that]" seem to come from people the least qualified to evaluate his work. 

That's enough for now. I love this crowd!!