Medkeff Again

[katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie)]

Vickie here. This is something I mailed over a week ago that never showed 
up. I wanted to re-post it to clear up a couple of things...

Jorn wrote:

J>> Based on a very vague report of the text of Kate's message, Chris and
J>> Vickie seemed to have gone way too far out on the limb by publicly
J>> expressing skepticism that the message was real, suggesting it may have
J>> been spliced together from the Canadian Con's similar tape.  Certain
J>> flaming Ohioans leapt to Jeff's defense, and shillelagh law was all the
J>> rage (as the song says).  

Richard Caldwell answered:

R> Golly, I wonder who Jorn could be talking about here?  Jorn, your 
R> facts are fairly accurate but your reporting owes more to the Enquirer
R> than it does to the Times.  Perhaps someday you'll understand the
R> difference between defending someone and defending someone's right
R> to be treated fairly.  If anyone was trying to apply "shillelagh
R> law" it was Chris and Vickie who had no reasonable basis for their
R> accusation at the time. 

It started out as an observation made in a phone call, when we were off
the net. It got posted and that's when all hell broke loose. We did and
do maintain that there was/is a "reasonable basis" for the accusation. 
You maintain that two words ("recorded properly") are hardly enough to
jump to conclusions with. Sure, Kate repeats herself a lot, but those
two words, so oddly phrased (why not "properly recorded" which is the
much more common usage) were red flags to us. Circumstantial evidence,
true, but we attended Bush-Con 84 (the whole thing was my idea in the 
first place) and we have Kate's message on tape. The coincidence of the
two phrases from a message from Kate during fan conventions was very
uncanny. We're not naturally suspicious people, but if we have suspicions
about something, what's the big problem with voicing those suspicions?


R> Finding evidence after you've already passed judgement isn't exactly
R> something of which to be proud. 

This is something I hesitate doing, but I can't help but point out that
police and prosecuters "pass judgement" in a way, by arresting/agreeing to
try a person for a crime. Finding evidence after the arrest and during trial
preparations is part of their job. I'm not comparing Chris and I to the
police or prosecuters, because we don't think, *if* Jeff Medkeff is guilty
of fabricating a message from Kate, that he committed a crime. If he did it,
it was certainly done with good intentions. We never accused him of being
evil, we just thought that it was a dishonest (and unnecessary) thing to
do. If it turns out that we were right, I personally will feel sorry for 
Jeff Medkeff. I'm sure he never meant any harm at all to anyone and only
wanted to give the Ohio convention a special added treat. An unnecessary
treat though, because from your reports it was a very nice convention anyway
and everyone had a great time. I do think it's a shame that this one item 
has tarnished the memory of the convention. Still, I see no problems with 
us airing our suspicions. Tell us your main reason why we should have kept 
quiet other than your belief that we didn't have enough "evidence" to 
suspect anything. All investigations have to start somewhere. 

Jorn>> Jeff produced a message that corresponded in almost every detail 
Jorn>> to the Canadian message.  

R> Not exactly true.  The message bears considerable resemblance to a
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^
R> version of the Canadian message that Chris edited.  That edited
R> version and the Cleveland message also bear some resemblance to
                                               ^^^^
R> the Japanese fan club message.  

There's a big difference between "considerable" and "some." Thanks.

btw, Chris only edited out those portions that specifically pertained
to the Canadian convention, to show how it's possible that Jeff Medkeff
could have done the same. If you wish, I could transcribe the Japanese 
message and post all three full-length transcribed messages together.
Then none would be "edited" and people could judge for themselves. 

R> Also, we know that at least one useful piece of information appears
                               ^^^ ^^^^^^
R> to have made it's way to us through this contact.  Little Light was the
R> first to report that the album would be delayed until next year... 

Useful? Which one? Jorn posted that I said the album would not be out 
until next year, a fact that I had obtained from Peter Morris-Fitzgerald.
I hadn't gotten around to posting it myself, but told everyone at
Katemas, after which Jorn posted it. This even appeared in the C-side
catalog. I know they posted something similar and I will admit that I don't
have the dates of the two posts available. Not that it matters who was
"first" with this "hot" bit of info, nobody really thought that the album
would be out by the end of the year anyway, at least, no one who knows
anything about Kate's work habits. :-)

> ...and that there would be a single by the end of this year. 

Again I ask, useful? They were wrong. I said that there would *not* be 
a single out by the end of the year, information also obtained from Peter.

Neither Jeff Medkeff or I were talking about "Rocket Man" so there's no
need for anybody to say "Well what about...?" Even "Candle in the Wind"
is not pertinent, because it's not from the _album_ which was the context.
I will certainly apoligize if it turns out (please God, no) that CitW ends
up on KBVII. Still, it's not what we were referring to.

R> I also requested that Bill ask Ms. Gardner if she would make a
R> statement as to the origin of the con message.  The details of
R> Marilyn Gardner's interaction with AATHP, Little Light, and Jeff
R> Medkeff would cast a great deal of light on the veracity of Jeff
R> Medkeff's claims and the con message in particular.  

Thank you for doing this. I'm curious.


Vickie (one of Vickie'n'Chris)
katefans@chinet.chi.il.us