Yesterday, the post was about the truth. In the time I’ve worked on the Stacey Burns book, I have interviewed or spoken with many, many people. Their stories conflicted with each other on numerous occasions and those conflicts are mentioned in the narrative. How could they not be? If the story is to told fairly and without bias, all sides need to be heard. If Ed Burns and his lawyer make the decision not to have his side included, that is not the author’s problem. However, that decision does not preclude drawing conclusions from the statements of others about Mr. Burns’ behavior.

It was not the intent of the post about the hard facts and the truth to indicate whose truth was being accepted and whose was being rejected. In fact, the post did not mention any specific incidents or events. It was a general examination of the elusive nature of the truth and the difficulty of sorting it out. There was no implication that any  particular person was not telling the truth. If anyone made that inference, I apologize.

There is an analogy, and I believe it is an accurate one, between my “book” and the police investigation. My project is a work in progress, and will continue to be until I can write the last three chapters: arrest/trial/conviction. The investigation must also be a work in progress since there has been no arrest, no trial and no conviction. One can only hope that the investigation is as much a work in progress and my book project is.

There are times, and this is one, when I wonder if the truth, the real truth of this sad episode, has been discovered, yet for some reason is being withheld.