Temple reaction to Lindsay article

THIS WILL BE REPEAT, BUT THEY ARE POINTS I WANT TO BE SURE ARE UNDERSTOOD. THEY ARE MARK’S COMMENTS ABOUT THE DOCUMENT:

1. It is explosive. The article and the means of getting it. It was 7 ½ rather than 10, but the guy who gave it to Mark [Lane] made him swear it would never leave his hands. Mark has a copy and will keep it, though told to destroy it. When the guy went back to call his job the morning Mark met him, he said they were very edgy with him and asked him if he had let anything out. Mark said no way can anyone know this is been done, because people could lose jobs and land in jail. He said it is tighter than the Pentagon papers, and the guy fears reprisals. Whatever response to the article Mark prepares, it will in no way indicate that he is writing in response to the document. It must not show any correspondence at all.

2. People must all make denials of the Mann thing [likely a reference to affair between Guyanese ambassador Laurence Mann and Temple leader Paula Adams]. These quotes must be made available to him, and they must not be in affidavit form. Just over the radio is sufficient. He will weave that into his response to N.E. [National Enquirer] based on what George Hunter told him about Paula and Mann. But he cannot mentioned that he knows it landed in Reid’s lap [most likely reference to Guyana Deputy Prime Minister Ptolemy Reid] – he has no other source for that information in the article.

3. He wants a copy of [Joe] Mazor’s affidavit and thinks it would be good to use in talking to Ryan. We have to possibly leave this up to Charles [Garry], but I’m sending Mark a copy.

4. The names which were indicated on the article copy which can never be used are Frank Anderson, Carol Zell, and Roy Singh. If there were to be in the indication we knew these names, there would be a direct link to the person who gave Mark the article as the Enquirer was sworn to secrecy re. these people. It is clearly indicated on the copy.

5. Mark may be willing to take some chances; I think we should consult with him first, though. He knows the circumstances and just how far out various necks are stuck.

5. [6.] The problems in particular are, in Mark’s opinion, the Mann thing, and the fact that Charles said what he did to [Gordon] Lindsay. He feels that the Enquirer had perfect license to go ahead and print every word without fear of malice suit because they have laid out all the charges at Garry’s feet and he said he could make no comment regarding their truth or untruth. And the fact that he said he is the only spokesman for the Temple leaves us wide open. Therefore he wanted permission to say he is also a spokesman for PT [Peoples Temple], as are any number of members as indicated to the press.

6. [7.] If we have time, your analysis (over the phone) of points to refute would help. I don’t know how much time we have. Mark asked for and got materials that are public information which he can base his response on.

Originally posted on May 26th, 2013.

Skip to main content