"Thank you for providing the extra information related to MSG2. As I mentioned when we spoke the other day the feel of MSG3 was so strange, so un-puzzle-like, that I really had my doubts about whether the person behind the message (or messages, as it seems) had intended for there to be any meaning woven into it. Upon seeing the notes on MSG2, though, it seemed that all my previous research and speculation just fell into place.
Of course, there is no mechanical means by which we can test the solve to this puzzle, since it is not, in fact, a puzzle or a cypher. But I can tell you that I feel very confident that the person who constructed this oblique message (as I have come to think of it) intended for it to be interpreted in the following way. I wish I could tell you more about how and why I have arrived at this conclusion, but, as you know from a couple of our previous interactions, sometimes the solve just walks into the room unannounced and you 'know'.
I'm sure I did much of the same research that anyone else would have done in my initial attempts to solve it as a more standard puzzle. Anagrams, character subs, pattern repetition, even rather odd experiments in geometry (thought I really had something when I went down the path of the Simson line, especially with the connection to Wallace) and also geomancy (research only, you know I don't believe in any of 'that'); all to no avail, since it really isn't a 'puzzle'.
In the end it is just a simple connection. Perhaps a 'shared trait' would be a better way to put it, because I do not believe that the three figures named in the message are actually connected other than through this shared trait; the fact that each met a rather extreme or unusual fate.
Further, I believe that these particular figures were selected not only for the fates they suffered, but very specifically for the actions that caused them.
Taken with the solve of MSG2, I think MSG3 can be seen as an extension of a more complete message that the person who created these is trying to tell; i.e. (in paraphrase)
I believe the triangle serves only to show that the three individuals (the subjects of the message, not those listed in MSG3) are closely related in some way.
Would you like to hear my thoughts on how this fits with MSG1? I think the most important word in MSG2 is "only", and if it is, I think I have a good idea of what this is about."