I think we at RI might be in a minefield around this - and we need to think carefully about what we want to see happen.
I agree that looking carefully at John decamp is required - I was certainly surprised at his donations to Larouche. However when people start indicating he might be a pedophile, that is very different. Strongly suggest that someone with legal experience in both US and/or UK defamation law (maybe c2w?) look through this thread - and anything potentially defamatory which could threaten Jeff or RI or the posters be removed.
I have only spent a limited time looking into Franklin and have quickly come to the conclusions.
1 This is a huge can of worms in a molecular acid soup - and there will be a big systemic 'kick-back' to opening it
Nick Bryant said he was just being a 'tourist' in Omaha when he was given death threats. Going down the Franklin road unprepared would be like going to the Sibel Edmonds or Indira Singh nexus unprepared. There will also be probable overlap with both those networks.
Every person who comes offering help should be scrutinised as carefully as deCamp. Why? Because the best way to contain grassroots activism around this would be to co-opt it. A kind of Franklin CoIntelPro
What would the smart response from the networks behind child abuse be to a crusade? Perhaps get 'James Bevel' types (see below) involved and then shift the focus. Or perhaps a Larouchian model smear or "RI supports us" campaign?
2 Opening it requires addressing lots of unexpected issues, potentially from unexpected constituencies
Example: (from Wiki on James Bevel)
For his work in the 1960s he has been referred to as the "Father of Voting Rights", the "Strategist and Architect of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement", and as half of the Bevel/King team that formulated and communicated the actions, issues, and dialogues which created the historical changes of the era.
so former heroes start having feet of clay...
People can get very upset when their heroes are attacked / mythology threatened. Like the drug lords in The Wire, many of the people in these networks will have a front of immaculate family, charity, art etc Losing heroes can also be very disempowering.
Bryant points indirect fingers to who is still involved in this. What if there are some key Administration people involved? He mentions about the lack of credibility of Franklin witnesses, many who have gone from being abused kids to petty criminals, drug addicts and abusers themselves. The media devours people with big allegations from this 'non-credible' background - see what happened to Larry Sinclair as an interesting comparison.
The key importance of Franklin IMHO is not the child abuse aspect, as awful as that is, but the cover-up. The organisational and institutional aspects Why? Because unless these are addressed, the song remains the same. Franklin 2.0 According to Bryant, there are multiple networks, not one. Focusing only on one network could have the effect of enabling the bigger network of networks to be kept safe.
The ability of the MSM to avoid asking questions which have difficult to swallow answers is enormous. The governments ability to rationalize using the fig-leaf of "there will always be one or two rotten apples" or apply the "wild-eyed conspiracy theory" knows no bounds.
3 The case of the already corrupted system...
Enquiries get set up, task forces introduced, reports issued, new laws enacted - all this new behaviour will be from within an already compromised system. Just as with the 9/11 'Commission'.
Our efforts are focused on the children. The MSM pick up the story and frame it as
"The Catholic Church - at last coming clean from child abuse"
framing it as organisational recovery (and placing the story in the past)
"Looking after the wounded in the war on child abuse during the recession"
framing it in the "Poor Vets" category (creating a focus on charity and compassion and distracting attention)
or "BoysTown's 21Century Renaissance"
(creating a focus on 'past difficulties overcome' - result/ a perception of 'everything is handled')