Whatever you might believe, if this were any kind of formal hearing, the charges would be thrown out immediately. No first person account. Strictly hearsay. "Judy" never gave a first person account. Account was only through an interview with a third party. That person seemed to have an angle he was "working".
I would like to see some resolution on the matter since the charges have been leveled. Personally I always suspected that the "book" "Judy" was to write or release would never materialize. That said, I have no interest in "protecting" the legacy of M. Hardly. But it does matter to me to exercise fairness when you are accusing someone of sexual impropieties, or at least sexual hypocrosy. > > She changed her mind and recanted the whole story saying it was > just a > > > hoax propagated by unhappy people in the movement. > > > > > > Are you saying this with any evidence or authority "Joe", or is > this just > > > the way you wish it were? > > > > > My thoughts exactly. When did she recant her story? Please give > exact quotes and > > references. > > > oh i see, since there is nothing but hearsay regarding the > possibility of Maharishi's sexual escapades, you are more > comfortable believing the "he fucked around" rumors, instead of > believing the "he didn't fuck around" rumors? > > did i get that right? gotta wonder about the bias, don't you-- or > does that just not matter, trumped by character assassination? >
