Murray Chass slams Peter Nash

[MattyC]

There have been many cases throughout history in which a former criminal eventually became a valuable resource for exposing or helping authorities catch his own kind. Frank Abagnale comes to mind, who was the subject of Spielberg's film CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.

Chass' utter dismissal of his quoted "Reader #2" makes him look quite lazy, or at least not at all interested in delving deeper and perhaps finding things that might sully a late friend's reputation. All Reader #2 did was point out that Nash's issues are one thing, and other fakes are another thing.

[TexasLeaguer]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There have been many cases throughout history in which a former criminal eventually became a valuable resource for exposing or helping authorities catch his own kind. Frank Abagnale comes to mind, who was the subject of Spielberg's film CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.

The difference is that Abagnale and Canseco came clean first, and then started ratting out everyone else. Nash maintains his innocence, so it's harder to take him seriously.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There have been many cases throughout history in which a former criminal eventually became a valuable resource for exposing or helping authorities catch his own kind. Frank Abagnale comes to mind, who was the subject of Spielberg's film CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.

Chass' utter dismissal of his quoted "Reader #2" makes him look quite lazy, or at least not at all interested in delving deeper and perhaps finding things that might sully a late friend's reputation. All Reader #2 did was point out that Nash's issues are one thing, and other fakes are another thing.

Frank Abagnale spent 5 years in prison.

[Eric72]

I am a bit late to this discussion. Additionally, I do not know much regarding the principal players in this drama. Having said this, I am wondering something.

Since it seems, to me, that items of questionable authenticity have come into focus, what is the harm in verifying (or repudiating) their legitimacy?

Regardless of who puts a particular item in the spotlight, a genuine article will stand on its own merit and a fake should not withstand strict scrutiny, right?

Just curious here...not trying to stir the pot.

Best Regards,

Eric

[HRBAKER]

I think the point most are making is that until he comes clean or at least addresses his own transgressions (in the same area I might add), it's a little tough to embrace his crusade. It doesn't make anything he says necessarily false, it's just a little hard to take on some level.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

I think the point most are making is that until he comes clean or at least addresses his own transgressions (in the same area I might add), it's a little tough to embrace his crusade. It doesn't make anything he says necessarily false, it's just a little hard to take on some level.

Jeff,

I understand where you're coming from. By all accounts, it seems as though there is a pot calling a kettle black.

Putting aside the crusade for a moment, I believe the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum were mentioned earlier in this thread. Were they recipients of items that may be suspect?

If that's true, I think they have an obligation to get to bottom of this. If not, then I apologize for going on a tangent.

Best,

Eric