[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: In Mr. Farrell's own words...
Darryl:
I'm more interested in the substantive elements mentioned late in the
New Haven Register article.
For example: Yale University offcials are quoted as having said Farrell
swindled meteorites out of Eqypt by misrerpresenting himself as a Yale
professor. It would be nice to talk to those folks. These are serious
allegations, fodder for a lawsuit by Farrell if untrue, possibly
criminal if true. Having been a journalist for 15 years, I assume this
reporter checked these allegations carefully, or his editor would not
have allowed them to go to print.
The article said that U.S. officials apparently ordered Farrell to
return the remaining metoerites to Egypt. Again, I assume this was
checked, or the Register would not have allowed it into print. In
addition, this raises another point. If U.S. officials -- and I assuume
these would have been consular or diplomatic officials from the
Department of State-- intervened to force Farrell to return unethically
garnered metoerites to Egypt, then someone in the U.S. State Dept. knows
he has a history of getting into trouble in illegal or quasi-legal
circumstances in foreign countries.
This might explain why U.S. senators and the U.S. embassy ignored his
pleas for help. They may have said--"Oh, it's this Farrell guy again,
running the same scam he did in Egypt. Only this time he got caught and
we don't have to pressure him to return the meteorites. Let him get out
of it himself."
I I were still in the news business, I'd be checking out those two
angles in great detail.
Speaking of news, doesn't this parallel a somewhat similar misadventure
in 1990 by Robert Haag in Argentina, over the Campo de Cielo meteorite?
Haag was arrested by local authorities--in what was a pretty obvious
set-up and shakedown-- while trying to remove the Campo metoerite after
he believed he had legally purchased it.
I wrote a story about the meteorite trade at that time for INSIGHT
magazine, using the Haag anecdote as a lead. I also interviewed Farrell
at that time, when he was just getting started. Even back then I recall
there were some negative allegations about his motives and methods, and
some suspicion about him among other dealers.
It's interesting how some things don't change.
Dan Kagan
Darryl Pitt wrote:
>
> Gene--
>
> As for your question, it was my belief that it would be more productive for
> subscribers (and others) to read the unsanitized version of the events
> right out of the horse's mouth, so to speak, than read write-ups
> contaminated by a reporter's agenda and/or failings.
>
> Warm regards
> Darryl
>
> >I'm sure many of us understood your original post and/or saw the press release
> >you attached. I am confused, however, about what you are trying to suggest.
> >Are you saying that the New Haven Register article is biased in presentation
> >or contains incorrect information? Might not Ron's press release also be
> >biased or one-sided?
> >
> >I have no problem with giving everyone a chance to present their own side of
> >the story, but I found the most telling aspect of Ron's version to be the
> >people and organizations that distanced themselves from the situation. It is
> >unlike Senators and the US State Department to walk away from falsely accused
> >US citizens in a foreign country.
> >
> >Gene
References: