[Taliesan]

I've found her case to be convincing.

I had a private correspondence with her some years ago in which I pointed out that Barfield has to be complicit, since he is (was) the executor...but she says so little about Barfield in the books.

She was noncommittal in response.

[aruanan]

Perhaps this is something that follows necessarily from the known facts but which cannot, like the rest, be so definitively documented. Could Barfield, by this time, just have been a dope?

On a somewhat related note, I just got a postcard advertising a talk here at the U of Chicago by James Watson (the guy who ripped off Rosalind Franklin) who is going to talk about his new book: Honest Jim. Ha ha ha. I laughed my butt off over that one. I'd really be interested to know what the relationship was between young Watson and old Maurice Wilkins, both of whom were apparently petrified by Rosalind. It was apparent that Wilkins, who was not Rosalind's boss, was feeding results from her work to Watson. As far as Watson's claim that his jaw dropped when he saw her X-ray diffraction of DNA and realized its significance, he didn't have any such reaction when he had attended one off her presentations many months earlier and she showed the same "photo" and discussed its significance in terms of a helical structure for DNA. She also scooped Watson and Crick on the idea that the backbone of the molecule was external, something that Watson had strongly protested. Honest Jim! What a joke.