The Smoking Guns - Why No Dan Brown Affidavit?

Beginning on Page 3 of my Rule 56 Counterstatement, we make it clear that, in the absence of an affidavit from Dan Brown, there is absolutely no LEGAL basis for believing ANY of the Random House statements dealing with the well-publicized but uncorroborated "extensive research," or even Brown's representations that he actually wrote The Da Vinci Code.

Random House has argued, in footnote 7, page 12 of their April 22, 2005 filing, that "While Brown's affidavit has not been submitted because it is not necessary for the purposed of the substantial similarity determination raised by this motion, the Court should not be mislead by Perdue's innuendoes: in the event this case progresses past this motion, Brown will unequivocally deny that he ever read -- or copied -- Perdue's books."

Okay, now read this carefully for what it does NOT SAY:

It does not say that Dan Brown will, under oath, testify that he wrote Da Vinci Code or did any research at all.

This is despite the fact that we specifically raised the issue in my Rule 56 Counterstatement. See numbered points 2, 3 as examples. They could have put the issue to rest with a no-brainer affidavit from Brown. But they did not. Why?

Now, just for the sake of argument (since Random House has offered no proof pro or con), if we assume that someone else wrote the Da Vinci Code , then Dan Brown may genuinely have not heard of me or my books. But the evidence we have presented makes it clear that SOMEONE associated with the book DID.

Finally, having a footnote in a legal filing that says that Brown will do something in the future is one of those, "wink, wink, nod, nod" "Trust me this will happen" things which is all that less credible given the verified distortions and falsehoods that have been documented here so far.