Where There’s Smoke There’s Wild Speculation

Now that the story of Misha Defonseca/Monique DeWael has made waves throughout the publishing world and it has been well established that the woman is a liar and probably more things that we have yet to learn about I am sort of stunned by the reactions of people to the story. Of course there has been no shortage of press about it both here and in Europe. The most interesting article to me was the one on Slate.com, Crying Wolf: Why did it take so long for a far-fetched Holocaust memoir to be debunked? by Blake Eskin. We’ll overlook the fact that Mr. Eskin is in serious danger of dislocating his arm patting himself on the back for questioning the authenticity of the book when it first came out. Of course there are a few things Eskin fails to mention such as the fact that, while he is excoriating Jane Daniel for not uncovering the hoax earlier, he himself (an alleged investigative journalist) not only did not uncover a single thing on his own but had to be spoon-fed the story he just published by Ms. Daniel. Contrast his mistakes (like the history of Defonseca/DeWael’s parents) with the journalistic integrity of French journalist Marc Metdepenningen who uncovered the truth about Robert DeWael and who has been barraged with hate mail because of it. I heard a radio interview recently with Eskin in which he loudly proclaimed that Daniel was at fault because TWO (count ‘em two) Holocaust authorities questioned the veracity of the story early on. What he conveniently manages to brush over is that there were quite a few experts --- from wolf experts to Holocaust authorities --- who loved and supported the story, including Noble Laureate Elie Wiesel. Why did it take so long? Well, why indeed, Mr. Eskin? When Le Soir and M. Metdepennigan received the information posted on this blog (see the highlighted documents posted on February 19th) they took that information and ran with it. Eight days later the hoax was exposed when Defonseca confessed. Eskin had that information and more directly from Jane Daniel but.... well, I won't belabor the point.

But, all that being said, I am fascinated by the number of people willing to concede that Daniel was duped and yet still want to hold her responsible. Well, why did she lose the court case if she is innocent? they ask. Where there is smoke there must surely be fire. They somehow manage to grasp that while Defonseca/DeWael lied her face off from the minute she met Daniel (actually long before) and kept the lies going until Belgian newspaper Le Soir^th exposed her lies on February 27, but still believe she told the truth when she said Daniel withheld royalties and hid money in offshore accounts. In other words, she lied big time and perpetrated a fraud on the entire world but told the truth about not getting enough money. I’ve long believed that people have a great deal of difficulty in believing in injustice. Injustice happens all the time but a lot of people can’t accept that --- they want to find a way to blame the victims and thus preserve their delusion that the legal system is always fair and just.

The other issue that keeps coming up over and over is why didn’t Jane Daniel do some fact checking? Where was her due diligence? This question has been answered over and over and over but people don’t seem to want to accept the answer --- the very same lies and deceptions that kept the truth hidden for close to twenty years were well in place when Daniel met Defonseca. Which brings us to a new issue: Should publishers refuse to publish anything they cannot document to be true? The answer to that is of concern to all publishers now. I’ve already given my opinion on what a publisher’s responsibilities are. But I shudder to think what would happen if the publishing world became so fraught with dilemmas about vetting and due diligence that they became afraid to publish books that need to be published.

Throughout publishing history publishers have relied on the contracts they signed with their authors to protect them from litigation. Despite the hoaxes that happened, there have been an awful lot of books that, while difficult to believe, present fascinating possibilities --- books about everything from government cover-ups to paranormal experiences. Last year I read, with utter fascination, Malachi Martin’s Hostage to the Devil. It was one of the most compelling books I’ve ever read. Was it all true? Who can say, but should books like that go unpublished from now on?

So while Blake Eskin continues to crow over his foresight, serious journalists like Marc Metdepenningen will do real research and uncover real stories and clever ladies with computers and endless curiosity like Sharon Sergeant (the genealogist who discovered Defonseca/DeWael’s Baptismal certificate and school records) will do the real work of finding the truth. And let’s hope that publishers will always have the courage to take a chance on something that seems unbelievable.

Thanks for reading.