UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 6

Re: Witness Anonymity

From: XianneKei@aol.com
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 03:42:29 -0400 (EDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 10:07:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Witness Anonymity

>Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 22:24:04 +0100
>From: Don Ledger <dledger@istar.ca>
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Witness Anonymity

>Everything snipped ........

>Stanton Friedman once said, "What's in it for the witnesses?" What

Depends on what the witness might want out of it.

>From what I can gather, Linda Cortile has suffered the loss of her
>privacy and now it seems her son's privacy as well. She has probably
>suffered ridicule in her community from those who know who she is and so
>perhaps has her son. She won't have taken abuse from all that know of
>her ordeal because there are those out there that know first hand of
>what she has gone through and still others who will understand
>irregardless. And what of her husband and the rest of her family? What
>will he husband have gone through at his workplace...one can only

Yes, we can imagine. We could also imagine that nothing much
untoward has happened. Was Linda -- or any witness, for that
matter, made aware of the possible consequences of "going
public?" One must wonder about that.

I had the opportunity to meet Linda, first in Austin at MUFON's
annual conference, a couple of years ago, and again last year in
North Carolina, at another MUFON Conference.  She wasn't hiding
behind sunglasses or anything and seemed perfectly willing to
speak to people who came up to her with questions. One has to
wonder why she would subject herself to all of this if she truly
wanted her privacy. No, she didn't introduce herself as anything
other than Linda Cortile.

I think it's great if witnesses want to "go public" with their
stories. It probably helps the witness and the audience enjoys it
too. But when they serve themselves up, they shouldn't complain
about the attention. I don't remember the exact quote but I
remember Linda saying in North Carolina something like: "I'm
ready for the skeptics." It sounded like a challenge to me. Well,
here we are.


>So going into any new investigation, I offer those witnesses that I
>interview anonymity right up front..whether they ask for it or not. If
>they don't want it fine, if they do I respect that and work within those

And rightfully so. But how do you advise them about talking with
the media?

>I find it very objectionable that someone entrusted with a video tape
>allowed in confidence would turn around and sell it for what small value
>it might have. Linda should out the S.O.B. I know, I know.. it's a tough

Don, how do you know that the videotape was entrusted to someone?
How do you know that the person who had a copy of the videotape
didn't have permission to use it? How do you know that it was

No one, to my knowledge has mentioned any names (other than
Hopkins') and I'm not going to invoke the person's name who had a
copy of the tape either. I first heard this story last week when
a fellow researcher (internet impaired) called me with the story
-- complete with names. I was aghast -- I didn't believe it. But
rather than let this fester, I called some of the folks involved
for direct information. Although, I haven't checked with
everyone, it is my opinion that the videotape was not sold to

If we have someone on the list who is fluent in Spanish and would
like to finish interviewing someone with me, maybe we can get to
the bottom of this. Email me, if you are fluent in Spanish and
are located in the United States and we'll do a conference call
with the people involved in this story.

While I still don't have ALL the facts, I would say, that it
probably wasn't prudent for this videotape to be shown anywhere,
but I don't know for sure what qualifications were given when the
videotape was handed over from Budd Hopkins.

>world out there, dog eat dog, everybody's trying to make a living...but
>at some one else's emotional expense? That's tabloid style folks, pure
>and simple. If it doesn't bother you then wait until it happens to you
>or worse yet, to your kid. I defy anyone then to sit on their high horse
>and say well, I had it coming because I dared to come forward and ask
>for help. Jesus people, witnesses are our stock and trade. Without them
>we can't investigate. If everyone clammed up where would we be, there
>would be no phenomenon to study.

Witnesses are very important Don. I agree. But we can't stand
behind promises once testimony is out of the bag. If the tapes
weren't to be seen or heard by anyone else, why make them in the
first place? Think about that. All throughout "Witnessed," if you
have read it, Hopkins is making videotapes and claiming it is his
proof to use against the skeptics. He certainly intended on
showing them sometime, don'cha think?  Did he NOT tell the people
he was taping what he was going to be doing with this stuff? The
tape of Little Johnny picking "the third man" out of a photo
line-up would be pretty useless if you couldn't see Little
Johnny's face as he was looking at the photos.

I'm sorry that the tape ended up on a TV program -- it really
doesn't seem right, but someone surely must have dislcosed to
Linda, her husband Steve and Little Johnny that this COULD


Search for other documents from or mentioning: xiannekei | dledger

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com