The Smoking Guns - Why No Dan Brown Affidavit? - Part 2

Whether Dan Brown, or someone else is responsible for the infringements is a curious issue which is unsettled, thanks to Random House's failure to file an affidavit. Perhaps is it part of a larger legal strategy.

The issue is vital because MOST of their April 22, 2005 filing, as well as their other legal briefs spend a vast number of words arguing that many of similarities they admit between the books are as the result of shared historical research.

But if they refuse to verify that such research was conducted by Brown, then their arguments are legally INadmissable, unverified and should be thrown out, dismissed by any discerning reader.

Their shared research argument makes for good public relations, but legally, they cannot properly rely upon that in a court of law. There are judicial standards of evidence to be met and they have failed on that score.

A court of law is a "prove it", not a "trust me" institution. Again, a no-brainer affidavit would have easily put this to rest.

In the next post, we'll see how this lack of an affidavit means that Random House has conceded by omission, my point about the shared mistake smoking gun.