The REAL Story in Court Friday - Part 1
Judge Daniels, understandably, questioned my attorney Donald David about the significance. The key issue as explained in court worked this way:
Random House's filings have tried to explain away most (perhaps 75%) of the similarities by saying that they were due to shared historical research.
However, despite the no-brainer nature of an affidavit, Dan Brown refuses to file a legally accepted, under-oath document that verifies he conducted the research.
So, despite the continuing assertions by Random House lawyers that the differences are here, they have folded their hand on this issue for lack of legally accepted, under-oath verification from Dan Brown.