Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

I haven't seen the article but I have been following the case quite sometime
and still continue following her escapades.

Did you that in 1985 Dr. Foretich was cleared of all charges after submitting
to several lie detector tests and they proved he was telling the truth??

He had two trials (1985-86) in Virginia and he proved beyond any reasonable 
doubt that he had never molested Hilary.  It was also stated by several 
juror's that they felt Dr. Morgan was a paranoid liar who was psychologically 
and sexually abusing her own daughter.  Apparently Dr. Foretich had several 
witnesses who stated that Dr. Morgan always paraded around the house in the 
nude.

She even signed for a registered letter that was delivered to her house 
by a local postman in the nude.  He testified that she "in no way attempted
to cover her nude body."

I'm still amazed that they created the "Morgan Bill".  Opponents of the bill,
including the local ACLU were against it because they said that she still
had not yet exhausted all the appeals process.

Now, N.O.W., which showed it's awesome ability to intimidate Congress 
reportedly plans to promote it's belief that any mother, regardless of her
mental status, should be above the law if she alleges "sexual abuse".

If you look at her "husband", he's the same jerk who started talking to
his buddies and convincing them that they needed to create the law
as a "special favor to feminists".  I'll lay odds 10 to 1, a male will
not get to invoke the "Morgan Bill".

Kenn

    I certainly see your point, however, the article in People said
    that an expert "appointed by the court" (not either parent) will
    go along way in determining whether or not the allegations are valid.
    His other daughter, I believe 9 yrs old, by a previous marriage
    also claims he abused her.  
    
    I have seen both Dr's on TV and must say that Dr. Morgan seems much
    more in control and articulate about the situation.  I saw him on
    Donahue and he is very excitable.  
    
    If I even suspected my ex of physical or sexual abuse of my daughter
    I would do the same thing she did.  The long term effect of her
    absence in my life as her mother would be less than the effects
    of abuse - in my opinion.  Having been physically abused as a child
    in retrospect, I would have been mentally  healthier if I had been
    removed from the home.
    
    The biggest loser is Hilary - unfortunately.
    

   I know your last line hit it on the head!  The children in these situations
always lose.  Fortunately, Hilary is fine and well in New Zealand.

Sharon, Dr. Foretich's first wife did come forward after all of this started
and stated that Dr. Foretich did sexually molest Heather who is 9.  As several
court investigators found out, Sharon also belongs to the organization known
as the "children's underground network" that Dr. Morgan belongs to.

This underground network "supposedly" specializes in making false sexual
abuse charges when it appears that mothers will be forced by a court to 
allow a father to see his children, where as the mother wants to end the
relationship.

Quite frankly, I would be very leary of any "underground network" dealing with
children.  There was a great special on 20/20 about the underground several
weeks ago and they pretty much insinuated that they will do anything to stop
a father from seeing his children which leads me to wonder about what they
would stop short of!?

Sue,

  I went out and bought the magazine and I should say that it was a decent
article.  However, there is a point that should be noted that the article 
did not mention.

I realize that they can't publish everything because it would fill a huge
book but if you sit back and analyze the article, it was pretty biased.

The article states that her legal defense has cost approx. two million
dollars but it doesn't state that her legal costs have been paid IN FULL 
by Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot and N.O.W.   Dr. Foretich's expenses 
have not been taken care of.  He has received numerous donations from 
various father's organizations, but his legal burden is still in the
seven digit area.  (I don't have any recent figures unfortunately).

In the article it stated, that the grandparents were responsible for 
whisking away Hilary.  At one point, after being hounded by the press, 
the grandfather called Dr. Foretich a "psychopathic pedophile pervert".
An OUTSIDE attorney, appointed by a Washington court to represent the
CHILD characterized the elder Morgan as an "extemely unstable" man
whose presence could pose "a danger to Hilary's best interest".

The article also states that Dr. Morgan's brother maintains that on
his trip to Toronto he saw Hilary's emotional problems, stating that
she was "a hyperactive, crazed child".  The article then goes on and
says that apparently she made a "remarkable recovery" before they moved
again.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is, that if all of the accusations
are true then:


1)  Why didn't Dr. Morgan notify authorities during her marriage to
Dr. Foretich about the abuse and why did she hide Hilary?  Is she
hiding something about herself that could be incriminating?

2)  Why did everything surface AFTER their divorce?  Including the 
accusations by Heather's mother?  The article in People state that
Heather now states this, but if you go back to previous court documents
and media records, Sharon Sullivan made the initial accusation.

3)  Why didn't Sharon Sullivan notify authorities also?

4)  Why has Dr. Morgan refused to take a lie detector test to this
date?  Even to prove herself innocent of any wrong doing?

5)  Why is it that several lower courts/jury trials have totally ruled 
out possible sexual abuse by Dr. Foretich?

6)  How come, if the charges are true, the grandparents didn't step in 
and notify authorities?  If you were one of the caring grandparents, 
wouldn't you want the guy put away?


Sorry about the question and answer session, but there are ALOT of 
unanswered questions.



Caio,

Kenn

    Wow, your certainly are much more familiar with the case than I
    am.  I am still sorting things out and trying to form an opinion
    but based on things I have read thus far, this may be impossible because
    S O M E O N E (Dr. Morgan, Dr. Foretich, Hilary) is lying and the
    truth may never be told. 
    
    You are certainly right about one thing.  Because these are prominent
    professional people they are getting all the notoriety and publicity
    they need to keep their "cause" before the courts and the public.
    Mr. or Mrs. Joe Average certainly don't have that clout.
    
    These things have a tendency to be tried in the press before the
    courts; ergo the People article.
    
    

	This is very true regarding someone lying.  I quite honestly 
	believe Hilary is being used as a scape goat between her mother
	and father.

	I don't feel that either of the children have fabricated the
	story.  I just feel that both sides are not being fully told.
	A *true* parent would pursue visitational rights with his/her
	children no matter the cost, whether it be materialistic or
	monetary value.

	I average about $1200-1300 per in attorney fees, travel, court
	fees, etc. every year.  Three years ago, my ex tried to hide
	my daughters on me because she knew we were having a family
	reunion here in Colorado.  It cost me $1900 in various fees and
	travel expenses to and from Colorado.  I tried to have my
	ex found in contempt of court because it stated that I could
	have the girls between certain dates and that is when we
	planned the re-union.  My father drove from Arkansas and my
	sister drove from Texas.

	Unfortunately, since I had to go back to court in Illinois 
	and the time dragged on, my father had to return to Arkansas to 
	tend to business.  Right after he left, my ex had to produce the 
	girls and I brought them out here.  Since my father had returned
	to Arkansas, he missed the re-union.  Unfortunately, my father
	passed away 5 months later.  He hadn't seen his granddaughters
	in three years and it hurt him to miss them at the re-union.
	Needless, to say, I will NEVER forgive my ex for pulling that
	stunt, the rest of my natural days.

	Dr. Foretich is doing the same thing that alot of fathers try
	to do, but it can be financially ruining.  It causes severe
	stress and no matter how much professional counseling that
	can be sought out, the child is the loser.  It all boils down
	to, He who has the most money and power, wins.  In this 
	case, it has been Dr. Morgan with all of the backing she has
	received.



	P.S.
	
	Somewhere I see a movie script being created regarding this
	case, and I know who is going to win, because she was the 
	victorious one!!

    Yup, a movie or "made for TV mini-series".  Glad I'm not a ugly
    as Dr. Morgan (did I say that)? so I have no chance of being cast
    as in the lead.  Let's guess the casting:
    
    	Dr. Morgan:  Cher
    	Dr. Foretich:  Vincent Price
    

	I was thinking more along the lines of Victoria Principal
	and Vincent Price...  or maybe Elizabeth Montgomery


	Have a wonderful day!!

  Eric Foretich and his parents traveled to New Zealand and waited almost
  3 weeks to visit less than 10 minutes with his 7-year-old daughter, Hilary,
  before returning to the U.S. this weekend, his mother said Sunday.

  The elder Foretiches who live in Glouchester, VA went to Christchurch,
  New Zealand to try and help their son, who has been involved in a 
  three year custody battle for Hilary.

  During that time, the child's mother, Elizabeth Morgan, spent more than
  two years in jail for refusing to bring Hilary to court or to disclose
  her whereabouts.

  Doris Foretich said that during the brief visits the child remained 
  seated on the lap of her maternal grandmother, Antonia Morgan, and that
  during the visit, Antonia repeated squeezed the child to "cue" her answers.

  Doris Foretich said neither she nor her husband or son were allowed to
  touch Hilary during the visit, which took place one at a time, for two 
  to three minutes each, in the office of a child psychiatrist appointed
  by the New Zealand Family Court.

  Hilary's mother accuses Eric Foretich of having sexually abused the
  child, a charge that has not been proven in court and that he vigoriously
  denies.

  Elizabeth Morgan was reunited with the girl over the weekend.

    Kenn, where were they reunited, in New Zealand?  I thought Eliz.
    Morgan did not have a passport?  Was this on the news?  
    
    

  I'm trying to find the details how she got her passport back.    Based
  on the story, they met in New Zealand.  Sorry but I didn't mention the
  source was the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph under the People 
  section.  I knew that Eric was over there but I don't know when Elizabeth
  arrived over there.

  I'll try and contact some sources and see what's going on.  

  Caio

    
    She was able to obtain her passport upon her release from prison.
    The show that was on a few weeks back explained it.
    
    One question...
    
    	Did anyone else out there notice the "slant" the show had?
    Of the hour long show, I would estimate 45 minutes were spent with
    Elizabeth.  The show seemed to really back up behind her stand, without
    coming right out and saying so.  Alot of the information revealed
    leaves me to believe that he may not be "clean".  However, I wonder if
    that was because of the way the program was presented?
    
    
    

    My gut tells me to believe the child.  Children that young do not
    lie.
    
    Here it comes, I can hear it now.....
    

    -1
    	"Children that young do not lie."
    
    I would tend to agree.  I wonder though if they can be "coached".
    In this particular instance, I would have to think not.  But then
    again, this view is based upon the way the show was presented.  Does
    anyone remember who produced this show?  Was it in any way supported
    financially by the many groups Elizabeth belongs to?
    
    .....  wondering
    

    RE: .13
    Are U for real?
    
    My son is jes but twee yeads owd and he will lie.
    
    I dont think he really understands that he is lieing but I do know that
    if he senses trouble, he will deny it (whatever it may be)
    EVEN IF I WATCHED HIM DO IT!
    
    As for coaching, yer damn straight!  You can coach a child to say just
    about anything.....

    -<if you knew it was coming, why did you bother>
    
    Because I don't stick my head in the sand and pretend everything
    is fine.
    
    In my opinion, there is a difference between denial and lieing.
    A child can deny something happened to avoid punishment but if
    a child of mine acted out a situation that I know she would have
    no possible way of knowing unless she saw it, I would not doubt
    her.  In other words, Hilary was (allegedly) acting out with dolls
    what her father had done to her.  The same goes for the McMartin
    children.  Children are told over and over to tell an adult when
    they experience inappropriate behavior.  What a slap in the face
    if we don't believe them - particularly very young children as Hilary
    was.
    
    

    Ahhh, now I see what you are talking about.  thanks for the clarity.
    
    I still remain in a difference of opinion, but I now understand what
    you mean.
    
    AL

    
    
     My own experiance with a young child is all I can offer, I am
    divorced but see my children biweekly. My son is twelve, my daughter
    five. We get along very well and there is a lot of love, so very few
    tensions exist interpersonally. Occasionally however I hear tidbits
    from my daughter about usually inoccuous events which my son tells
    me are fabrications or distortions from what he knows or experianced
    with her, these events are usually items which occur when they are not
    with me. It's not so much a lie as an embellishment or wishfull ima-
    gination. Also I might add these happens rarely but it convinces me
    that children until they mature ( come of age? ) are not reliable
    witnesses, and it's unfortunate because that is the obstruction to
    getting credible testimony. The 'games' with dolls and social workers,
    psychologists are so full of subjective attitudes, often self serving
    I might add that these cases are fraught with damnation of the innocent.
    The above is all IMHO...Julius
    
    

    re. -.18 (Varga)
    
    I'd be curious about the basis for your statement that the games with
    dolls are fraught with inaccuracies and misinterpretations.
    
    Re. the discussion at large, I'll be willing to grant that children lie, 
    even young children.  But there are lies, and there are lies.  There's 
    a vast difference between a young child saying, "My family has a green 
    dragon that lives with us, and he sleeps under the stairs in the cellar," 
    and the same child demonstrating through play with anatomically correct 
    dolls knowledge of human sexual techniques inappropriate to the age of 
    the child.
    
    I mean, can you remember _your_ reaction when you first learned how
    IT was done?  Violent disbelief is common, from my understanding!  Why,
    then, would a young child "make up" such an unlikely situation?
    
    The coaching aspect does trouble me, but from my first-hand experience
    trying to train two children in the social graces, coaching with young
    children bears iffy results at best.  Move the coach-ee out of the
    familiar family environment and into a stressful, confrontational,
    full-of-strangers court environment, and I'd think the results of 
    coaching would break down rapidly.
    
    Troubled - for abused children of all ages.
    Karen
             

    
    I am somewhat torn in both directions over this one.  It could be
    that *both* parents really do believe that they are right.  This
    is such a hideous accusation to make and such a hideous accusation
    to try and defend against.  The public, social services, and courts, 
    tend to take a *what if* approach and will try to *make sure* the 
    child is protected.  Make no mistake, my openion is that *anyone* who
    would do something like this to a child should have some very 
    dasterdly things done to his/her sexual organs, but all too often
    these days, this accusation has become the *trump card* in child
    custody and visitation cases with the attitude of the court that
    the womand and child need to be protected *at all costs*.
    
    On the one hand, I have a now ex sister-in-law that was sexually
    abused by her uncle *and* anut when whe was younger.  The uncle 
    was a decon in his church.  When she tried to get help, no one
    believed her.  Now post distress syndrome has set in and she is
    taking it all out on my brother and her children.
    
    On the ohter hand, I have known people who deal with children and
    with *abuse* cases.  I will not go into details here, only to
    say that my dealings with these people had nothing to do with me
    personally.  These "councelors" deal with children.  Much too often,
    they see cases that they KNOW somethin is going on but can do nothing
    about it.  So there tends to be a very strong desire, whether admitted
    or not, to really want to *get somebody* if they can make it stick.  
    So you get things like:
    Interviewer:  "little girl, has your Daddy ever taken your cloths off"
    little girl:  "W e l l??!, yes".
    Interviewer:  "Oh my God!! you've been sexually mollested".
    The truth of the story being that Daddy has at times been in charge
    of bath time for the toddler.
    
    We had a case here in Colorado last year in which a day care worker 
    was accused of mollesting children.  He was finally convicted of
    some of the charges, but the jury acquitted him of most of the 
    charges after one child admitted that he had lied because "it seemed
    like that was what everyone wanted me to do".  Also because the
    jury said that in the video taped testimony of many of the "interviews"
    they could not tell whether the interviewers were leading the children
    on or not, and they could not tell where many of the children's 
    fanticy left off and fact began.
    
    Also these "counselors" all to often take the *child's* story at face
    value without checking it out.  Some people I know had their
    tean-aged son drag them through absolute hell last year because of 
    this.  The parents had the courage to stand up and fight rather than
    cave in to Social Services threats and demands.  When the case whent
    to trial, Social Services caught hell from the judge because they
    had absolutely *nothing* but the kid's story.  The parent's evidence,
    including the boy's doctor, totally upheld the parents.
    
    The sad part about the whole thing is that in the long run, the 
    misuse of this kind of behavior hurts those that really need the
    protection the most.
    
    fred();

   Well, it's finally here.  "Hilary in Hiding" will be aired on April 6th,
   on one of the networks so keep an eye out for it.

    And I can bet (as I am sure that you can also) what "side" it will be
    protrayed from.
    
    If this isnt exploitation, I dont know what is.....

    
    
    .21  Kenn
    
    	If you get a chance to catch this show, could you please try to
    find out who produced it?  
    
    	It would also be interesting to find out if any "special interest"
    groups help to support it.
    
    	When I saw the show, as I have pointed out previously, it seemed
    a little, hmmm, how should I say, "tilted"???
    
    Please let us know....
    
    

  I'll tape the show and keep it around fo awhile.  I want to find out
the same thing!  

Kenn

(See ya later!)

    
    
    From today's Boston Herald;
    
    Elizabeth Morgan has decided to reside permanently in New Zealand
    and open a practice.
    
    One wonders where she got the money from......
    And also, if the New Zealand court decides not to return Hilary to 
    the US, her father will now have a hell of a trip to pick her up
    for the weekend, eh?
    

    Vanity Fair has an article this month entitled
    
    	"The Tormenting of Hilary"
    
    Excellent article. Recommended reading if you are interested in
    this case.  
    
    Susan
    

  Below you will find an article that I have posted for discussion regarding 
  the Foretich vs. Foretich/Morgan case.  I wish to have it acknowledged 
  that my participation in the discussion is as such, a participant, and not as
  moderator of the NCP conference.

  As moderator of the conference, I would like to point out that this is 
  only an article from a national father's organization and it is not the
  intention for this conference to defame in any way, other political 
  organizations or news media by posting such article.

  The subject of the discussion should revolve around the case itself,
  and the media coverage it received.

  Thanks,

  Kenn

===============================================================================
  The following article is re-printed without permission from the American
  Fatherhood, the official newsletter of F.A.I.R, The National Father's 
  Organization.  Summer 1990


			MORGAN FRAUD DISCOVERED


 (National media reports that they were duped by Morgan as evidence reported
  by F.A.I.R. shows Morgan to a pathologically fraudulent manipulator.)


			Morgan Manipulates media
				by Seven A. Emerson


  In the past year, there have been surprise endings to two national stories.
In California a jury returned a verdict of not guilty in the McMartin child-
abuse trial, despite years of media reports that the defendants were 
unequivocally guilty of child molestation.  In Boston, the media effectively
abetted the creation of a vigilante-mob atmosphere against a black man accused
of the brutal slayings of a white woman, until it turned out that the woman's
white husband had killed her.

  It could be argued that the media's mistakes were somewhat understandable
in light of the fact that it took its cue from the police and law-enforcement
authorities, who were spreading the accusations.  But what if the media had 
propagated the allegations without having been prompted by a credible source,
as in the aforementioned two cases, the L.A. district attorney and the Boston
police department?

  Such a scenario has been unfolded before our eyes for the past two years
in the fierce custody battle between Dr. Elizabeth Morgan and Dr. Eric
Foretich over their seven-year-old daughter Hilary.

  In August 1987, after claiming that her ex-husband, Dr. Foretich, had 
sexually molested their daughter, Hilary's mother, Dr. Morgan was jailed for
spiriting her daughter away to circumvent his court-mandated visitation
rights.  She was released after two years in prison, in September 1989 after
an unprecedented coalition of conservatives and liberals passed a law,
specifically tailored for her, that limited civil contempt-of-court sentences
in Washington, D.C., to one year.  Morgan has been feted by such diverse 
politicos, as Molly Yard, head of the National Organizatin of Women, and
former Marine lietenant colonel Oliver North.

  On February 23, 1990, Hilary surfaced in New Zealand with her maternal
grandparents.  It was the first time in two years that Dr. Foretich had
received evidence that his daughter was alive.  In the meantime, his life has 
been virtually destroyed.  Foretich has spent millions of dollars trying to
track down Hilary.  He has endured thousands of newspaper stories that 
uncritically repeated his ex-wife's charges, and numerous death threats
have been made against him.  At the same time, Morgan has become a national
media hero, her charges blindly parroted on television and in print.

  Yet, the available evidence strongly suggests, in fact, that as Foretich has
charged, Morgan is a deranged woman who fabricated  the allegations against
him.  The courts have consistently ruled that Morgan failed to substantiate
that her husband in any way sexually abused Hilary.

  THE WASHINGTON TIMES has been the sole institutional exception to the
pack of journalism that has blindly championed Morgan's cause.  Citing 
extensive interviews and law enforcement officials, as well as court records
and transcipts, THE WASHINGTON TIMES has reported charges that at least
two "experts" on whom Morgan has relied to buttress her claims have dubious
or fraudulent credentials.

  The paper also interviewed Hilary's nurse, who said that the girl confided
in her that she had been abused -- not by her father, but by "someone else".
In addition, Morgan's father, according to court testimony, had a long history
of family violence against both his wife and Dr. Morgan.  However, no charges
have ever been brought against him.  Hilary had been left in the unsupervised
care of Morgan's parents for more than two years.  Finally, the D.C. Metro-
politan Police had actually prepared a warrant for the arrest of Morgan 
herself on child pornography charges for taking nude pictures of Hilary, but 
the warrant was supressed.

  Some of the information has been readily available for several years.  All
one has to do is read the public records on the case.  Those records contain
evidence that contradicts Morgan, including the testimony of Dr. Elissa P.
Benedick, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association, who 
testified that Morgan suffered from a "mixed personality disorder."  She
also testified that Morgan accused her of sexually molesting Hilary.

  Yet this information has been deliberately ignored.  PEOPLE magazine, 
in a lachrymose cover story entitled "Elizabeth Morgan's Ordeal: What She
Did for Love," described Morgan's "plight" with disgraceful disingenuousness.
On "Saturday Night with Connie Chung," a home videotape of Hilary was 
selectively edited to portray Foretich as a monster.  By viewing the
unedited version, a person could arrive at a totally different conclusion.

  The truth of the matter is that Morgan and her new husband, Federal Judge
Paul Michel, have been able to manipulate the media because of their longtime
connections and friendships with reporters and producers, because of the
craven attitude adopted by officials of NOW, and because of the conservative
movement's embrace of Morgan's reported invocation of her right to flout
the law because she is a "Christian".  

  The media can never undo damage to an innocent man.  But it is high time
for it to acknowledge it's errors.

  The following is another article posted without permission from the 
  American Fatherhood newsletter which is written by Chuck Stone who has 
  followed the Foretich/Morgan case for years.

  Please feel free to voice your comments to the article.

  Kenn
_______________________________________________________________________________


			Hilary case nags conscience
					by Chuck Stone



  For the last few days, my conscience has nagged me about the possibilities
 of a wrongful crusade on my part -- my strenuous support of Dr. Elizabeth
 Morgan, to prevent her divorced husband, Dr. Eric A. Foretich, from seeing
 their daughter, Hilary, because of alledged sexual abuse.

  With Hilary turning up in New Zealand and with her maternal grandparents,
 new evidence has raised disturbing questions about the merits of Morgan's
 accusations.  I couldn't help but think of one Paul's most compassionate
 epistles, which is also his shortest.

  In a letter to Philemon, Paul write about an escaped slave, Onesimus, 
 who stole money from Philemon, escaped, met Paul in Rome, converted to 
 Christanity and agreed to return with Paul's letter.  "If he hath wronged
 thee, or oweth thee aught," Paul wrote, "put that on my account."

  If Foretich has been wronged by spurious charges of sexual abuse, on whose
 account do we put what is owed?

  So many of us shared Elizabeth Morgan's outrage.  We admired her maternal
 fortitude in serving 25 months in jail rather than complying with a court
 order.  And we applauded Congress for passing a law limiting the length
 of time one can serve for contempt of court in Washington, D.C.

  Further clouding the issues was the primordial stubbornness of the judge
 in the case, Herbert B. Dixon.  Every time Dixon opened his surly mouth,
 vengeful venality rather than judicial evenhandedness seemed to lace his
 remarks.  Elizabeth Morgan was our Joan or Arc.  Dixon was the Grand
 Inquisitor.

  A year ago, I wrote a strong defense of Elizabeth Morgan, "a loving mother,
 rational, educated, and intelligent" who refused to comply with what she felt
 was an unjust court order.  I compared her courage to that of Susan B. 
 Anthony, Mohanda K. Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

  Now, evidence has surfaced that could absolve Foretich.

  [1]  The then 10-month old Hilary's reddended thighs may have resulted
       from a diaper rash caused by riding a car on a hot day, as an 
       examininig physician concluded at the time, not sexual abuse.

  [2]  According to a 1987 civil court proceeding, Elizabeth Morgan's
       mother told a psychiatrist that Elizabeth's father, William, had
       a "violent temper" and had abused her and her children throughout
       their marriage.

  [3]  Elizabeth recounted in her 1985 book, "Custody", that she had 
       forbidden her father to take Hilary out alone after he returned
       several hours late from an outing.  That should have sounded a
       public warning bell.  But nobody bothered then to investigate
       further.

  [4]  William Morgan revealed a disturbing instability in his scathing
       denunciation of the judge, the court and the "lazy and incompetent"
       judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals, who he said are "protecting
       this judge" because of his race.

  [5]  The attorney appointed by the court to protect Hilary's interests
       called the elder Morgan "extremely unstable" and said he could be
       "a danger to Hilary's best interests."

    In this escalation barrage of charges and counter-charges, it's far
  too early to make a judgement.  Entrenched bitterness may bar resolution.
  But I feel dirtied by this tangled web of deception, some of it intentional,
  some of it innocent, but all of it incendiary.

    None of us are icons of perfection.  Frailities facilitate gullibility.
  Look how easily Tawana Brawley conned a nation.  I'm just relieved that I
  was one of the first journalists to call her allegation a hoax.

    But right now, I'm feeling like the pollsters who predicted a landslide
  for Ortega in Nicaragua.  The only consolation may lay in Alexander Pope's
  admonishment, "A man should never be ashamed to own he has been in the 
  wrong, which is but saying, in other words, that he is wiser today than
  he was yesterday."

    My how the Hilary case has deepened my wisdom.

    Oh, dear, and I imagined that this case had acheived the oblivion
    it so richly deserves.  The fact that some writers are still trying to
    make a buck out of it doesn't mean we need to read them.
    
    		- Bruce

  re: -1, 

  This is very true...  However, the publication is free by a non-profit
  organization (of course there is the tax deductible contribution if you
  wish)

  And a journalist admitting to being "possibly duped"...  First one I've
  heard in a lonnnnnnng time