lybrary wrote: My bar is beyond a reasonable doubt as is necessary in criminal cases.
What have criminal cases got to do with this? If you are going to draw from the law, why not "preponderance of the evidence"? Why not "clear and convincing evidence"?
And there are many doubts associated with Gallaway, and some of them are far beyond "reasonable". I have significant and major doubts that anyone ever referred to him as "Erdnase" -- there is absolutely no evidence to support that, only your conjecture. I have significant and major doubts that he had any of the skills described in Expert
. There is no evidence at all that he did.
If we were trying a criminal case in which the perpetrator had to have some unique skill -- say, at forging documents -- the prosecutor would have to show the defendant actually could forge a document. You would prosecute the case by saying the defendant owned a book that mentioned a forged document. And the jury would return a verdict of "Not Guilty".
He also had several gambling books, which proves my point.
If the books in question were any of these, it wouldn't prove your point:Esther Waters
by George Moore (1894) -- a novel about horse racing and bettingJack Pots
by Eugene Edwards (1900) -- gambling anecdotes cribbed from the newspapersMonte Carlo Anecdotes and Systems of Play
by Victor Bethell (1901) -- Casino anecdotesThe Theory of Chances or The Modern Development of The Rules Of Probability
by James McGowan (1903) -- mathematical theory
I could list many more, but the point is that the majority, probably the vast majority, of gambling books don't have anything to do with cheating at cards. We don't know the books that Gallaway had, and the hearsay comment from Jay Marshall isn't solid enough to suggest anything conclusive about Gallaway's habits or interests (and as hearsay, this wouldn't be admissible in your "criminal case"). Further, you continually describe Gallaway has having had "magic and gambling books" -- with the exception of Expert
, we don't know that he had any
magic books. But you put magic into a plural phrase, which is intellectually dishonest. Any books he owned other than Expert
do not advance his case.