ScottLloyd wrote:It's not mere speculation. The authors have laid out their reasons for drawing this conclusion. Again, it requires more than vacuous derision to refute them.Brother of Mahonri wrote:The only reason (singular not reasonS like you claim)mentioned by the authors was that the lawyer was getting royalties from the book so he had a motive to lie to make the book more sensational and thus more marketable.
That's speculation that he lied and changed what Lee said. Not proof that made any changes. Turley ety al are speculating. They might be right, they might be wrong, but its still mere speculation that CAN be dismissed as such without any proof to support it.
Have you read the book? Have you examined the sources documented in the end note?
It is more than speculation; it is a conclusion drawn from evidence. You can ignore the evidence if you choose, but you cannot honestly act as though it doesn't exist. If you are going to make arguments, you are accountable for the evidence.
During his lifetime, Lee repeatedly denied Young's involvement (which denials are documented in the book), including in a statement made to a Salt Lake Tribune reporter just before his execution, a statement made after the purported statements in the published confession. Lee was minutes away from his death; he had no reason to continue to protect Young, if, as TAK speculated, that is indeed what he was doing.
If anything, Lee could be expected to have been bitter enough at that point, with nothing to lose, to have blamed the whole thing on Young; he did not do that.
Why do the published confessions contradict Lee's repeated statements in his lifetime? The only plausible reason that has been put forth is the not-insignificant motive on the part of the attorney to boost book sales, thus playing on the pervasive anti-Mormon sentiment desiring to pin responsibility on Brigham Young.
I read the page you said to read. If there is more than the single speculation that Lee's lawyer "almost certainly" lied because he would make more money by lying than by leaving Lees words alone other than what Turley et al said on page 71 . Please inform me.
I was responding to what YOU said were the "reasons [sic]" SO I read what Turley said on the topic. I was responding to what Turley actually speculated, not what you speculated he speculated. ;-)
If you are talking about the Salt Lake Tribune story and interview with Lee which took place over the two days preceeding the execution, yes I had read that before. And re-read it again just now just to make sure I was correct that you were (or Turley was) pulling things directly out of your ass. You might want to read it yourself. SInce it does not remotely say what you think it says. Lee did NOT protect Young. Lee stated that what he had to say was with his lawyer and would be published. He never denied that Young was involved. He said he "had no right" to say whether others acted under orders or not. Why did he say he had no right? Well probably because he and the other Mormon priesthood holders all swore blood oaths to protect each other and their leaders. If there were no orders, he would have there were no orders, and he most definitely chose NOT to say that. Lee then went on to call Young a reptile.
So let's sum up. Lee specifically refernced the fact that eh had given his memoirs to his attorney. Did NOT exculpate young, implied that there were orders, and called Young a reptile.
So yes, there was evidence in that interview, but its not pointing in the direction that you and the increasingly Nibleyesque sounding Turley would have people believe.