[ Home | Contents | Search ]
Time: 11:45:34 PM
Remote Name: 188.8.131.52
I see your point. The field of candidates does appear to be extremely limited.
Goldberg could have been talking about the author she represented in the ’80s when she was reported to have tried to sell a Foster book to Alfred Regnery’s father Henry. She could have been trying to hide the fact that she knew Tripp at least as far back as ’93. As a slight modification to what I suggested earlier, she could have said ’94 when she meant to say ’84. Maybe she started talking to him again in ’94.
On the other hand….
Why didn’t she give the author’s name in a February 1998 Time Magazine interview? The confusion in the dates, all by itself, gives me pause. Our search for clarity on these simple points should not have led us into so much fog.
By 1997 everyone who was interested in Goldberg, Regnery, Tripp or Fuhrman knew that Fuhrman wanted to write a book about Foster. By February 1998 everyone who was interested in any of them knew that Tripp did, too, and that Goldberg was the common denominator. Goldberg herself could have been the author she was talking about, under a pseudonym, of course. But if that were the case Linda Tripp would have been perfect cover.
Rose, I’ve gone over all the reasons I can think of for why you might be wrong and I can’t get any of them to stand up. Goldberg had to have meant ’94 even though she might not have meant to say it. The only person she could have been talking about is Mark Fuhrman.
The question now is, when in ’94? Was it before or after June 12? –Jasper