Going Clear, Part 21

Posted on June 19, 2017 by Mark C. Rathbun | 9 Comments

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged FBI, Going Clear, Lawrence Wright, scientology. Bookmark the permalink.

9 responses to “Going Clear, Part 21”

mcclaughry | June 19, 2017 at 8:41 pm |

It was John Brousseau that tanked the FBI investigation? Interesting.

Virginia
mcclaughry | June 19, 2017 at 8:46 pm |

Meaning – it was his testimony that resulted in their not being able to pursue the violence etc. issues raised.
mcclaughry | June 20, 2017 at 6:54 am |

Mark quoting Brousseau – CAPS mine – regarding any evidence of the hole etc.

“…for the several years that I’ve been there SINCE THESE PEOPLE LEFT.”

—

I’m guessing that if Brousseau actually said that to the FBI, that would have done it. The end. Kaput.
morelivesthanacat | June 20, 2017 at 7:27 am |

I, like Dan, was surprised to see comments opened up. I, for one, almost never read any but instead scrolled down to see what ones you might respond to. Or I’d read ones from people I knew (which were generally sensible) The rest, as far as I was concerned, were all a contest of who could be the most clever or humorous or whatever and never really added anything relevant to the point. And then there were the ones that posted dozens of long drivelling responses on the same post. Geez. The social media ‘look-at-me’ mindset. Anyway, I kind of doubt we’ll see your responses here as it is evident that this series is meant to answer, clarify, correct or put into a frame of reference all the things spit out in the various feeding frenzies across the various forums.
This one gave me pause however. I can only assume that the point of JB’s testimony leading to the closure of the FBI investigation (given the dates you’re referencing) was because Dave ceased those activities (violence/imprisonment) not long after the revelations. And I assume there was no merit or point to investigate accusations of past mis-behavoir if such had long since ceased and especially in the context of what happens within a religious sect.
The only thing I ever hoped for was that one day Dave would be exposed for what he was and what he was doing in a way that would be unavoidable for the current members not to know or notice. I learned the hard way that you can’t get a friend or family member stuck in the treadmill to look without starting up the whole disconnection machine and all the travail that goes along with that. They have to do it on their own accord, and for many, that day may never come.
Then there’s the LRH side of things which is a tough one. As you point out, most of the lectures are rock-solid and detailed accounts of the development of processes to help people, colorful and invented anecdotes aside. And we all know he dedicated his life to it. That he amassed a fortune, was afraid of pain (I have a personal anecdote to back that one up, regardless of what others have said) and died a degraded being is all rather difficult to reconcile.
Still, I haven’t thrown the baby out with the bathwater, no matter how it all came about because whether borrowed, stolen, alchemized or whatever, a lot of it is very useful and practical.
It will probably be 50 years or more before anyone can dispassionately unravel the whole story as it was, not as they think it should have been.
Chris Mann | June 20, 2017 at 10:56 am |

Respectfully Marty, I don’t know a whole lot about John, but probably the main story I remember is his describing putting the bars on the trailers. Was it that the hole didn’t qualify as human trafficking? It existed but wasn’t as described?
marildi | June 20, 2017 at 1:29 pm |

According to Marty, what John Brousseau specifically said was that he had
(quoting Marty from the video) “seen no evidence of anything resembling this thing they called the Hole, for several, for the several years that I’d [meaning Brousseau] been there since most of these people left.”

Tony Ortega actually quoted the above on his blog – and still claimed that Marty said Brousseau denied there was EVER a Hole. No, he said “for the several years that I’d been there since most of these people left.”
Chris Mann | June 20, 2017 at 4:53 pm |

I’m taking that to mean there was a description of “The Hole” that they (I’m assuming the Headleys, or whoever else was involved in promoting the legal action) were giving to the FBI that was inaccurate? They were telling the FBI that people were imprisoned in The Hole and that it qualified as human trafficking? The way it was stated it’s easy to assume it means John said The Hole did not exist at that time, which doesn’t match historical statements by John and others. And Mark Headley in My Scientology Movie said if FBI or Police were to go in and ask people if they wanted out they would all say no.
marildi | June 20, 2017 at 5:53 pm |

Chris: “I’m taking that to mean there was a description of ‘The Hole’ that they (I’m assuming the Headleys, or whoever else was involved in promoting the legal action) were giving to the FBI that was inaccurate?”

No, it wasn’t that it was inaccurate, just that the most recent defector who had been high up in Scientology, John Brousseau, said he had seen “no evidence” of it “FOR THE SEVERAL YEARS THAT I’D BEEN THERE SINCE MOST OF THESE PEOPLE LEFT.”

In other words, the hole was something that had gone on in past years but was no longer the case – which, per Marty, was why the FBI dropped their investigation. It wasn’t for the reason that “the Constitution saved them,” as is claimed by anti-Scn’ists.
marildi | June 20, 2017 at 6:23 pm |

I should say “…APPARENTLY was no longer the case”