Posted 06 February 2003 - 10:07 AM
I thought that what had been my objective on this Forum last Sunday had been accomplished (i.e. informing the readers of this Forum about what was the background of the John Condon publication on Mr Morcombe's and Mr. York's website).
So I had intended this morning to conclude this thread with a final message from my part. However, I feel compelled to give a reply to Mr Morcombe's preceding posting. I regret that I have to do this, but I will try to keep it brief and not go into details.
1. It is true that Mr Morcombe and Mr York did not take "all" my research. Only 99 percent, both in qualitative and quantitative terms.
2. It is true that they carried out research on my behalf. Everybody is entitled to carry out research.
3. It is true that I missed some sheets of the John Condon file, but not essential ones. The ones that I did not have then - but which I have now, and not from Mr Morecombe and Mr York - did not contain vital information.
4. It is also true that Mr Morecombe and Mr York sped up their own research after they learned, a month or so ago, that other parties (unknown to me)appeared to be interested in the John Condon affair, inquiring about his birth certificate at Waterford ; and learning this, must have feared that somehow their opportunity to have a brilliant scoop on their own website might be lost.
5. It is true that I have declined an offer to contribute to their article. I have already explained why.
6. It is true that at that time it was never said by Mr Morcombe and Mr York that it was their intention to make the research public behind my back, nor was a date set.
7. It is true that I gave essential information to Mr Morcombe and Mr York, trusting that they would not misuse it in any way. Having asked them to keep this confidential, there was not reason for me not to trust them. (Which obviously has been a very wrong conclusion.)
8. It is true that they too gave me information. This information was not essential and did not change anything about my conclusions, which I had already reached in September 2002. All that the documents they informed me about did, was : confirming my conclusions.
As their seem to be so many things that are "true" I think I can say there is a positive side in this discussion. I would like to end with a final question to Mr Morcombe and Mr York about the essence of the matter.
Is it true that, though indeed you have done 'further research', the key elements, i.e. the discovery of the mistakes about John Condon's burial place at Poelcapelle and his age, together with so many things related to this, was made by me, and given to you, and that with you making it public, my work has been plagiarised. And also : is it true that certainly for the past month it has been your secret plan to come out with the research, contrary to our non-written agreement, and without informing me (as Mr York has already admitted in an email to me, quoted in a preceding posting).
I could ask more of these 'Is it true' questions, e.g. related to the duty to inform the Condon family and the family of the other fallen soldier, but I will confine myself to this double fundamental question.
I do not see how Mr Morcombe and Mr York could possibly give a negative answer. If they do, then we have a totally different concept of what "truth" stands for. Which would imply that no further discussion is possible.