The Truth and Amnesty Commission for JFK -- A Cautionary Tale

[Charles Drago]

So the unnamed but household word researcher who hijacked the Amnesty Proposal is still running amok and you refuse to name him/her?

Why should the unnamed guilty come forward and confess when you won't even name the guilty among you?

BK

In my opening post on this thread I wrote:

"Please do not waste DPF bandwidth in efforts to convince me to name the name."

Thanks for honoring that, Bill.

For the record, the "running amok" characterization is entirely yours -- which is to say, not mine.

And to point out what should be an obvious distinction: The researcher's bad behavior and that of the killers of JFK are not exactly on a par.

So ... Nice "gotcha" turn of phrase, my friend. Brought a smile to my face.

But not a name to my lips.

Well, I'm sure whoever this person is has not stopped there, and did not only disrupt the Amnesty project you supported, but has done other mischief and will continue to do more.

You don't have to name the name, it should be a matter of public record, as the participants in the Lancer forum should be identified in their program and John Kelin has written about it, he should know who the guilty party is.

I really don't care as long as they don't interfere with my work.

BK

Two points of clarification and correction, Bill:

1. The point of the unnamed researcher -- to the best of my ability to know it -- was not to "disrupt the Amnesty project" in the sense that an agent provocateur would attempt to wreak havoc. Rather, I have reason to believe that his/her intent was to hijack the idea and take credit for all that might spring from it.

2. I have corresponded with John Kelin in order to secure his recollection of events. He was not privy to the machinations of the unnamed researcher (which took place out of public view and, for the most part, over the three-to-five month period immediately following the end of the conference).

I am not aware of any behavior by the unnamed researcher before or since his/her actions related to the Amnesty Initiative that would lead me to suspect that he/she is an agent provocateur. In my opinion, this person -- whose has made not insignificant contributions to our shared efforts -- was then, and is now, driven by ego and greed as much as by commitment to the cause.

Bottom line: When George Michael bowed out, the unnamed researcher could not pick up the ball. The Amnesty Initiative died.

And perhaps that is exactly why that person originally was importuned to act as he/she did.

One more point, offered in the spirit of full disclosure: Brother Kelin, when asked to share his recollections of the Amnesty Initiative "players" who came forward at the conference, did not include mention of the unnamed researcher. I remember that person being on the podium of the impromptu session, but I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility that I am mistaken in this regard.

I am confident, however, that my recollections otherwise are sound -- especially those relating to George Michael's actions.