Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.40.128.32 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of carolyn.meinel@[redacted])
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20070207082329.0349ea80@techbroker.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:19:42 -0700
To: "Valerie Henson" <val.henson@[redacted]>
From: Carolyn Meinel <carolyn.meinel@[redacted]>
Subject: I did NOT make those comments, not ever!
In-Reply-To: <70b6f0bf0702070152l4e6d19a7u391ce14ebfeceabb@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <70b6f0bf0702070152l4e6d19a7u391ce14ebfeceabb@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I did not find that story at that link and I did not EVER laugh off
the incest story. I can only control what I do say, not what
anonymous people say I said. If you can find the correct link, I will
quietly contact the moderator (if one exists) in private to deny the
story and to say that I support my daughters. This is how I got that
Wikipedia story removed. I also called a TV reporter on the story
(Brandon Kline, KPNX Channel 12, (602) 694-1045) and told him that I
support my daughters and don't support Keith's side of the story.

Are you angry over my pointing out that David Scheer's allegation in
court that Keith molested all four of his kids was hearsay? I did
that to protect you and Virginia because the Scientologists were
exploiting Scheer's allegation and I didn't thinlk you wanted that
false story about you going around. Please remember there is a stigma
against rape survivors and that was my concern for you. At the time
of his testimony, Scheer was battling to keep Keith from taking over
Analog Precision and in his anger he went from fact to guesses. There
was no evidence that Keith sexually abused either of you. I never
allowed him access to you after April of 1981, immediately upon Gale
telling me what had been going on. You were both babies. Everyone who
has accused Keith of sexual abuse was at least eight years old when
he did it, so I doubt that he ever sexually abused babies, and the
sexual abuse counselors with whom I worked did not see any possibility.

Because I respect Gale's and [redacted]'s wishes, when I was contacted by
the prosecutor in Keith's trial in Riverside, CA, I refused to agree
to testify about Keith being dangerous. Once I was on the witness
stand, the Scientologist's lawyers could have grilled me about the
incest and Keith's threats. Gale and [redacted] did not wish to be the
target of the resulting media circus -- totally understandable.

If you should decide to encourage Gale or [redacted] to finally take
action to put Keith in prison for what he did to them, I can help by
hunting up contact information of the two counselors who heard
Keith's confession -- Dr. Don Eckerstorm and Cindy Noshay. Presumably
some public records also remain. I can even testify to Keith's
confession to me. I wrote down summaries of what he told me at the
time and kept them.

The problem with putting Keith behind bars, back in 1981, was that
Eckerstrom, Noshay and I alone were not enough to bring a prosecution
against him. Gale would have been forced to testify. Keith's lawyer
promised to put Gale through a hideous ordeal at the trial. She was
just twelve! I suspect that Keith also may have gotten through to her
with his suicide threats. Consider how effective he's been at
recruiting hordes of supporters -- he's a genius at playing the
victim and telling convincing lies and has no compassion for his
victims. The prosecutor and the counselors told me they had little
hope of convicting Keith, and forcing Gale to testify would be too
traumatic for her. At the time [redacted] had not yet come forward with
her story, and she was only eleven.

Please understand that Gale and [redacted]'s fears are normal and
justified, especially given who they are up against. Keith has
bragged in front of many people about his willingness to commit
murder and all the thought he's given to how to get away with it. His
enthusiasm for exotic weapons and bomb-making skills add to the
intimidation factor. Keith says he thinks he'll get murdered if he
goes to prison -- what are Gale and [redacted] going to think about their
safety if they testify against him? Think about how easily he just
got out on bail, despite being a fugitive from the law, and thus a
high flight risk. It's almost certain that he would be free and
roaming Tucson within hours if he gets arrested for incest.

Next problem: if Gale and [redacted] should ever choose to tell the
prosecutors about what Keith did to them, the Scientologists will
turn the resulting trial into a world-wide media circus. Keith and
the media will bring forward people to whom he persuaded Gale to say
that I made up the incest allegations. My crazy sister Elaine Meinel
Supkis might bring out Gale's testimony under oath in a New Jersey
court, which Gale made as an adult. The Scientologists will drag out
-- again -- Scheer's court testimony that Keith also molested you and Virginia.

Please understand that I'm not happy about the media pillaring me as
a vindictive, lying ex-wife, but I've decided it is better than
putting you and your sisters, against your will, into a Scientology
vs. Keith media circus  These forces have no sense of remorse over
what they might do to you. Keith and his supporters will make us out
to be evil allies of the Scientologists, and these conspiracy stories
never die. I hate to even imagine how the Scientologists will play
their side of the story about you.

But again, if for any reason either Gale or [redacted] ever decide to tell
the authorities about what Keith did to them or in any other way go
public, I will support them in any way possible.

At 02:52 AM 2/7/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Carolyn,
>
>Your comments defending Keith are again being used to call Gale and
>[redacted] liars.  From the comments on the Slashdot story:
>
>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/05/1334203
>
>"One ironic note about that Wikipedia article is that it was created
>by a Scientology sock puppet, especially to tarnish Henson's
>reputation with their ongoing smear campaign to make it seem as though
>he is a dangerous bomb-making terrorist (and a "child molester" --
>they even dug up one little snippet from his divorce papers of 25+
>years ago to blow it up and try to label him as that, too. His ex-wife
>laughed that one off and has denied the accusation as fervently as he
>has.)"
>
>I'm very angry about this.  I think you owe your daughters a very
>strong retraction of your approval of Keith at a bare minimum.
>
>-VAL