Also I don’t think its fair to implicate others, he mentions Sandy and Bill and I have stated my case in the past concerning Sandy, she has never at any time done, said or written anything to give the impression that she is in anyway dishonest, we have all gotten to know her over the years and I personally find her down to earth, straight forward and genuine in her passion for the RLC mystery, she has probably studied this more than any of us on here and its not fair to implicate her simply for being his friend. I don’t think I am the only one that thinks that either.
No, you're not. I totally agree with you, and well done for writing that, because it needed to be said. I believe Sandy to be a person of the utmost integrity, whose contribution to this genre has been immense, as the journal she brought out last year very must attests and which, I would just add, is probably the least agenda-pushing, and most fair and open minded RLC publication I have ever read, with time given to all sides of various debates, and with not a hint of dissembling or pretence about knowing the answers.
As to the rest of it, my faith in the Hammott tomb find has long been eroded since the days when I defended it so vigourously, which I now have to live with, but I don't know anything about these other matters, and don't want to get into discussing them, because they're serious allegations with legal ramifications, and this is a forum, not a court room. One would take anything Andrew wrote with great seriousness and respect, and I'm sure the locked post that kicked this off was not written lightly, or without regard to the consequences, and I have no doubt at all with noble and decent intentions to get to the truth and retain some integrity within the genre, but we're not privy to a lot of this, and until the whole murky situation is a bit clearer I personally think it's best not to speculate openly about it.
But there should be no aspersions of guilt upon others, merely by association, that is quite wrong.