As noted in my last post, at that point I had contributed what I can in terms of the facts of the case. And as I check back in, what do I say but a lot of people who seem determined to ignore those. I didn't rely on the internet for a thing apart from three skypes calls and a couple of email exchanges with friends close enough to the situation to remove all doubt from my mind. And I started off not believing a word. So I took the trouble to share what I was able to, and the reasons I have, and the musical community close to Bob, has, for believing the allegations. Not one person saying that they don't believe them has actually given any information from a source anything like as close as those I have spoken to, except of course Rob Atkinson and Bob's ex-wife, who made the allegations in the first place. So, based on the fact that none of you can confirm anything, you act as if no one or earth might know more. The people in Santa Cruz who say they have spoken to people working in the courts, they are lying, I guess. No, they aren't on record, because many court cases are NOT public record until an indictment is handed down, which it won't be, now. Once again, I personally can verify that Mr. Atkinson is who is says he is and that he stands by his statement. And if people who live in the area, all of whom knew Bob very well over the years, have come to accept the allegations based on what they have learned in their community, it seems amazing to just ignore that. You think David Lindley decided that the stories are true because of something he saw online? Fine.

What I am saying, categorically, is that the people who are best informed and closest to the subject are convinced. Do you have to be? No, but acting as if everyone who believes the allegations is doing so based on nothing, that won't do.

I guess the people talking about magazines and TV stations investigating this haven't worked in those areas. But the way it works is that investigate allegations against political figures, major celebrities, and people like that, because they can sell copy or advertising time. But the idea that someone is going to dig around to get what they can on this and publish or air it - WHERE do you think you'll see such an article? Is 60 minutes really going to do a spot on Bob Brozman? The New York Times? Rolling Stone? "Waiting until things are proven" could, as I and others have pointed out, mean waiting forever.

I have shared the conclusion that has sadly been reached by the musical community closest to Bob Brosman. I have refrained from attacking his character, why should I do that? The Bob I knew was the same guy most of you knew. But child abuse is bound to arouse strong emotions, we would all be very weird if it didn't, right? Please don't imply that all of us who have come to these conclusions are witch-hunting, or don't know anything, or need to wait for the facts. The people I talked to have more facts than the people saying we shouldn't judge have or may ever have; No one WANTED to believe this stuff, the musician community least of all. And THAT is fact - that they didn't want to believe it and now they do.

One last time - we need to think about the victims. Nothing else matters.

Duck Baker