This blog post,
"Dan Brown's statement to the court tells us how little he knows," by Sandra Miesel (co-author with Carl Olson of, "The Da Vinci Hoax"), offers a concise summary.
There are more details, of course and I'd urge everyone to read
Dan's witness statement to discover things for themselves.
I don't think calling him a dim bulb or the dumbest member of his family is very helpful.
ReplyDeleteMiss Snark the agent had a post about the case and almost all the posters supported Brown. That seems to be the consensus out there justified or not.
ReplyDeleteSame deal on CNN with two talking head lawyers. Ideas won't cut it. This looks like it will be dismissed.
ReplyDeleteI'd agree ... Not necessarily because there is NOT a case, but because they have fumbled it...and Baigent was an awful, awful witness ...
ReplyDeleteBrown was well-coached and as well prepared as he could be given the fact that Blythe is the Lady McBeth here ...
Baigent was disorganized, often incoherent, testified badly and contradicted himself more than RH.
It was a missed opportunity for sure. Well hopefully you'll get him on the pilfering of original fake history. Plagiarists are falling left and right in journalism. The Redstate blogger is the latest.
ReplyDeleteBoy the blitz of paperback DVC is staggering. A myriad of sizes and shapes. I've never seen anything like it.
ReplyDelete