That's all, folks — for now.
|The table, taken from the AARE paper.|
The above material is a lightly-edited and annotated version of a paper delivered to AARE in 1986 in Melbourne. Tables are taken from original material in my possession.
This is the second of a short series on fraud that I am posting to close out August. The first was on a hoax that I pulled — there is a family relationship between hoaxes and frauds, the difference being the intent of the perpetrator. The third is an account of a major fraud that I uncovered in 1981, which I am publishing under the 30-year rule, later this week. A fourth case study covers my use of hoaxing to counter a fraud in 1985, not long after this piece went to air. That one will not be released until next year, again under the 30-year rule. There was one other case. That one involved criminal actions and some violence (not to me). It will never appear in print, but I can occasionally be coaxed to expound on it over a beer, if only to explain why I went into a safer line of business.* * * * *
|Me with the savages. They specified the dark glasses:|
it helped to avoid eye contact, they said.