Re: Medkeff Again

[caen!bsbbs!nrc@harvard.harvard.edu (N. Richard Caldwell)]

As I return to my console after a bit of a holiday break, I find
that the task currently pending is completing a two thirds
finished response to Vickie's latest musings on the AATHP, LL
saga.  As I read through the post so far, I find that I am often
repeating points I've made several times already.  Where does it
end?  

Are Chris or Vickie any more likely to see the inequity of their
original accusation on the tenth repetition of these points than
on the fifth?  I doubt it.  Are there any Love Hounds out there
still reading carefully, never knowing when their view on this
matter might be changed by a carefully turned phrase or well
crafted metaphor?  I don't think so. 

That being the case, I will content myself to make these points
once more before leaving these particular issues lie in 1991 where
they belong.  That is not to say that these issues may not be
touched upon relative to events in the future, but these points
will no longer be a primary question of debate as far as I am
concerned.  There are plenty of other things to talk about here.  

katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie) {Vickie} wrote:

> 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.

Your concept of proper phrasing does not constitute a reasonable
basis for accusing someone of fraud.  The phrase "recorded
properly" is not particularly unusual; not for most people and
certainly not for Kate.  A quick search of Kate quotes reveals
numerous instances where Kate has used the adverb "properly"
following the verb that it modifies in much the same manner.  In
fact, she does so nine times out of the twelve occurrences of the
adverb "properly" that were located.

This smacks of Chris's insistence that "gaffa" could not be
referring to gaffer's tape because he had never personally heard
it called that.  Your statements seem more based on your own ideas
and opinions than familiarity with how Kate Bush expresses
herself. 

It is, at least, refreshing that you admit that it was, and is, an
accusation, however tenuous its basis may have been at the time. 
Chris wasted a great deal of verbiage denying that.  It is also
nice to hear you acknowledge that Kate does often repeat herself. 
Of course, that makes the position that the con messages were too
similar seem rather inconsistent.

> 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. 

No, it wasn't uncanny, not even particulary unusual given the
small amount of subject matter that Kate talk about in a message
to a group of people she really doesn't know.  

The idea that she cannot talk about her work until it is finished
is quite common in the relatively few public comments that Kate
makes during work on a recording.  Hearing that there are two
words in common in the context of a frequently repeated idea is no
justification for an accusation that one is a fraud.
 
> We're not naturally suspicious people, but if we have suspicions
> about something, what's the big problem with voicing those suspicions?

It is possible to air suspicions without making them into
accusations.  Saying that you believe something _could_ be true is
quite different from saying that you believe that it _is_ true. 
Your scant justification may have merited the former but certainly
not the latter.

> 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, 

Don't look now but you just did.  Unfortunately, your actions bare
a much closer resemblance to an Inquisitor than to a policeman or
prosecutor.  A prosecutor must show reasonable justification for
his charges and accepts the burden of proof.  Your position from
the start has been that they were guilty unless they proved
themselves innocent.  

> 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. 

Perhaps such an act would not be illegal but it would certainly be
extremely dishonest, regardless of the motivation.  Since that
time Jeff Medkeff has certainly shown himself to be dishonest, so
that point is moot now anyway.
                                                                
>  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. 

My objection is, and always been, to your approach: making the
allegation immediately, with no proof and debatable reason for
suspicion and then demanding that the accused should prove their
innocence.  I never said that the subject could not be broached.  
I had already made inquiries about the text of the message prior
to your accusation, not because I found the message suspicious but
because I felt it would be of interest here.  All of this would
have come out and it could been brought out without turning Love-
Hounds into a whipping post from the very start.

> R>  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.

I used those words deliberately.  I acknowledged those
similarities in my very first message after having seen the full
text of both messages.  The differences in the degree of
similarity are no more unreasonable, given the different
circumstances, than the fact that the similarity exists in the
first place.   

The fact remains that you had no knowledge of the degree of
similarity when you made your accusation.  

> 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. 

The edited portion is small enough that Chris certainly could have
credited his readers with the intelligence and imagination to
envision it's removal themselves.  While allowing them such a
luxury now would certainly be a magnanimous gesture on your part,
by now opinions have already been formed on the matter.  At this
stage it is more pertinent as an illustration of how Chris's zeal
to crush these "piss ants" with little or no thought toward
fairness than it is a as a significant piece of "evidence".  

> 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.

I received the information in Little Light on 7/26, posted it 7/27
and Jorn responded to my post on 7/28, reporting that you had
"dropped the bomb" at the party.  But that was never the real
issue.  The point was that it appears that they did evidently have
some source for such information.  

> 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 yet for some reason Jorn considered your announcement to be
dropping a bomb.

> > ...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.

What a spectacularly convoluted piece of illogic.  You are once
again working on your own ideas and assumptions instead of the
facts.  No one reported any specifics on the origin or nature of
the predicted single.  No one specified that it would come from
the next album.  It was only reported that there would be one.  

There is a single.  For whatever reason, legitimate source or pure
luck, Medkeff was right and you were wrong.

> 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.

Unfortunately, while Bill Barwick agreed to check into these
questions, he has never responded.  When Bill first informed me of
Jeff Medkeff's ouster I strongly expressed the opinion that LL and
AATHP would have to act decisively to clear up all the questions
that had been risen around Jeff if they were going to salvage any
credibility in the Kate Bush fan community.  

It appears that the people of AATHP and LL are either unwilling or
unable to clear these questions up.  Whatever lies were told - and
it is still difficult to say just what was and was not true in
many cases - it is still impossible to say whether Barwick and
AATHP were unwitting victims of Medkeff, or Medkeff is simply
being used as a scapegoat. 

It seems likely, although by no means certain, that the message
that was read at the con was indeed a fake created by Jeff Medkeff,
possibly with the assistance or approval of Marilyn Gardner of
Sony.  We may never know for certain unless Marilyn Gardner or
someone within AATHP decides to tell the whole story.

"Don't drive too slowly."         Richard Caldwell
                                  The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)
                                  {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!nrc
                                  nrc@bsbbs.UUCP