Daniel Caldwell's analysis of The Judge Case
Apr 11, 2006 06:58 PM
by Robert Bruce MacDonald
Katinka H. wrote in her book review of Pelletier's book THE JUDGE CASE:
So, after going on and on about Pelletier's "GUESS-WORK", what example does
he provide us with? To give some context to the readers of this forum, we
are here talking about what has come to be called "Exhibit A". It is a
letter written by W.Q. Judge to Judge Khandalavala for the purpose of
putting the Judge's mind to rest after the Coulomb incident. Pelletier goes
to great lengths to give background to this letter. All he is imaging is
the obvious, that a note affixed to the letter was put there by the
recipient of the letter, Khandalavala. We didn't see him to it, but who
else does Daniel want to blame for its presence? The letter was shown to an
Indian Theosophist by the name of Ezekial at Khandalavala's request. If
Daniel wants to bring in other players then who does he want to speculate
that these players might be? What nonsense. Pelletier's explanation is the
simplest one that fits with the facts. If Daniel wants to pull in other
players, then he is going to have to find proof in order to do so.
"The chapter 15 in which Pelletier tries to make it into something
important is merely a lot of >guess-work, in my opinion."
Unfortunately I find numerous examples of this kind of GUESS-WORK.
For instance, Pelletier writes:
"WE CAN ONLY IMAGINE, because there is no strong evidence to support our
claim, that the note >was....." Part I, p. 379 caps added
Unfortunately, there are many other examples in Pelletier's book where
Pelletier does NOT openly >confess that he is only "imagining" and does NOT
plainly admit that there is no strong evidence to
support this or that claim.
Daniel writes elsewhere:
Concerning the review of Pelletier's book by Brett Forray in THEOSOPHICAL
HISTORY, April, 2005, >pp. 14-23,Forray shows quite clearly that the book
is a very ONE-SIDED account of the Judge Case >in Judge's favor. See
Forray's numerous examples of this.
Although Pelletier's book is a treasure trove of historical documents, it
is unfortunate that Pelletier >left out so many other relevant documents.
Again see examples in Forray's review.
"ONE-SIDED" in what sense? Any rare or difficult to find documentation was
included in the book. This included Besant's entire "The Case Against W.Q.
Judge". For other material that is more readily available, what would be the
point? This is simply nonsense. Should we criticize him for not including
both Judge's and Besant's collected works for whatever insight they may give
us? The idea was not to put every document in the book, it was large enough
as it was, the idea was to make available those documents that are less
easily found. As for the rest, Pelletier deals with Forray's criticism in
Next Daniel points out:
The reprinting of this Garrett document would have been helpful to the
reader who might want to >carefully COMPARE the Garrett material with what
BOTH Annie Besant wrote in her THE CASE >AGAINST W.Q. JUDGE with Mr.
Judge's rebuttals of Mrs. Besant's charges. The Garrett book helps >in
The reprinting would be a waste, just pick up the book and do your own
comparison. You do not need Pelletier, or anyone else, to guide you through
it. TJC is not meant to be exhaustive. It was meant to spur on people to
do their own research.
I see that Pelletier has copied into his book from my website the series of
articles by H.N. Stokes >on the Judge-Tingley relationship but did NOT
include other extremely relevant documents on my >website, such as Judge's
diary of Oct-Dec. 1894. This diary throws a great deal of light on Judge's
>deposing of Mrs. Besant from co-head of the E.S.T.
See the diary at:
As I have read and carefully studied the narratives written by Pelletier in
this book I have come to >the conclusion that Pelletier employs (as much as
Paul Johnson ever did) speculative possibilities >with little or no
Daniel's opinion that the document that he calls a diary (speculative, no
basis in fact) throws light on Judge's deposing of Mrs. Besant is again
speculative. Argue the case Daniel. It has been speculated elsewhere that
these documents may be working journals where Judge tested psychics and
recorded his results. Perhaps he was testing his own intuitive abilities.
Perhaps we was communicating with the Masters. Perhaps he was doing all of
this. This is all speculation and he may not necessarily have believed the
content of his "diary". Regardless, until argument is made one way or
another, your statement is pure speculation and it must be questioned why
you think this will add anything to the Judge Case without the proper
analysis first being done. As I read your speculative opinions that you are
throwing around like they are fact, I can't help but feel that this is a
case of Daniel projecting is own inadequacies onto the work in question.
These "diaries" are bound to be controversial and are best treated on their
There are also a good number of misstatements of known facts in Pelletier's
If you read Pelletier's accurate statement he says "NONE of the reports
published at the time depict Judge's involvement at any functions". He did
not say there were no letters, newspaper articles, etc. In fact, he writes,
immediately following this about an article in the Madras Mail that
describes an address given by Judge to some Madras students presumably
within a few days of the date of the article, September 29th. Regardless,
nothing hinges on the date of the 21st so it is immaterial one way or
another. Pelletier's statement was accurate, Daniel's criticism is
For example in Chapter 17, Pelletier states:
"...NONE of the reports published at the time depict Judge's involvement at
any functions, >ceremonies, writing or signing any documents at
headquarters after Sept. 21st, 1884....To show >that Judge was NOT present
at Adyar headquarters after September 21st, 1884, it is important to
>note....." Part I, p. 385 caps added
Similar statements are repeated elsewhere but Pelletier apparently is NOT
aware of the following
statement by the Rev. George Patterson:
"This morning [Sept. 27th, 1884], by previous arrangement with Dr.
Hartmann, I went to the >Head quarters of the Theosophical Society, Adyar,
to examine the letters from Mme. Blavatsky to >General Morgan, which that
gentleman had, at my request, sent to Madras for my inspection. I was
>accompanied by Mr. J.D.B. Gribble (late M.C.S.) the Rev. J.E. Padfield
(C.M.S.), Masulipatam, and >the Rev. A. Alexander, of Madras. Dr. Hartmann,
Mr. W. Q. Judge, Barrister-at-Law, Mr. Subba Rao, >B.A., B.L., and others
This reprint of the Patterson letter has been on my website for the last 3
or 4 years.
Furthermore, from Pelletier's narrative it would appear (did I misread it?)
that two of his >handwriting experts" did NOT even get to view the
photographs of the 1884 Judge letter that he >asked their opinion on!!!!
For those of you who did not read Pelletier's article, just to let you know
that he is not hiding anything, the experts were not consulted for a
handwriting analysis. They were consulted to render a judgment on whether
ink could be dissolved from paper after the fact, especially the type of ink
used circa 1884. They did not need to see the copy in order to make this
judgment. It either could or could not be done. The only copy that is
worth analyzing to see whether this indeed had been done is the copy sitting
in the archives at Adyar. If Daniel wants to debate anyone about this
letter it should be his friends at Adyar.
But part of the material I sent to him and also posted on Theos-Talk months
ago included links to >such reproductions.
I like the way you think you know what I really think and believe!!
Well, after looking at the effort you put into accusing Pelletier of
speculation and inaccuracies on the strength of your own wild speculations
and inaccuracies, the conclusions just seemed to naturally follow. Your
effort seems to be that of an individual in a panic to put the lid on
something that is dangerous to his agenda. What other excuse is there for
this type of sloppy and irresponsible analysis?
How in heavens do you come to some of your conclusions???!!!
Where does one start to answer all of your suppositions -- one piled upon
I trust this explains my "suppositions -- one piled upon another". The next
step is to rescue "Exhibit A" from Adyar for independent analysis. Rather
than spending time criticizing a book that you have yet to assimilate,
perhaps you could focus your efforts on the Adyar archives.
Donít just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application