Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Credibility Out The Window
The following may come as a shock to some but it's no surprise to me. Since this news has required some reorganization here, I will first offer some background.

On a Molland-endorsed website, a person named Cheryl criticized the Badfinger book at length. Although Cheryl claims to have been quite social with Badfinger in the early 1970s, her criticisms were mostly little more than supporting the Mollands' claims that are already in the book. And most of these claims are regarding events where Cheryl obviously wasn't even present. In fact, of her 77 "corrections" of the book, only one appeared to have any possible firsthand validity. The remainder were either repeated hearsay or speculation. I addressed her entire critique here in a five-part article which I now believe was a waste of time, not to mention a waste of space (they have now been deleted).

Cheryl's credibility went out the window with me when she later claimed to have had an intimate and revealing phone conversation with Pete Ham. This call allegedly occurred on 23 April 1975, the final night of his life, at Tom Evans' home. First of all, the circumstances just didn't add up. Secondly, it just seemed too out-of-character for Pete to reveal such alleged thoughts, considering he was notoriously guarded about his feelings. Lastly, what Pete purportedly said to her was in direct contradiction to what his family and friends have declared. Cheryl claims Pete told her he didn't want to start a family, which is absurd since he was attempting to marry Anne who had a young son, and that he wasn't happy with Anne either. Cheryl seems to be completely unaware of what Pete wrote in his suicide note.

Tom Evans' widow, Marianne, has now publically and emphatically stated that this phone call never happened. She said she remembers everything about that night. Pete never spoke to anyone on the phone that Marianne did not know about. And if this isn't enough, Marianne also says she doesn't even remember Cheryl. Marianne states that if she or Tom had any significant relationship with this woman that she would remember her. Marianne does not. And although Marianne's statements are enough for me, Bob Jackson has also stepped forward and refutes Cheryl's claims about Pete's domestic situation. (Go to Tom Brennan's main page, top article, for a link to comments from Bob and Marianne

So to make a long story short, Cheryl's alleged phone call is a lie. So why is she claiming it? Well, I was a bit stymied initially. Someone asked me what her motivation might be and I could only speculate she was seeking attention. Now, however, I think it runs a bit deeper than that. There is strong evidence that Kathie Molland is at least partially involved. She and Cheryl have been advertising that they are blog buddies and that they are working on projects together. Recently from Cheryl's blog: "Cheryl and Kathie hard at work..........we have a lot to do." From Kathie's blog on June 7: "Cheryl and I have some news, but it's not time to talk about it yet..." One might even speculate that Joey Molland is becoming agitated with the collusion. From Kathie's blog on May 13: "... my husband is being an absolute prick lately, I care about my friends and I don't want to lose them. They mean too much to me. Right now I wish my husband was away on tour..."

But why would they suddenly want to attack Pete's memory and his family? Well, two reasons come to mind. One is that author Dan Matovina represents the Ham Estate, and the Mollands' feelings about him are no secret. Another reason is that Anne Herriott (the mother of Pete's daughter) made a statement on the official Pete Ham website last year where she displayed her agitation with the Mollands. This spurred Kathie Molland into hostile public responses shortly afterward.

At any rate, I have always been of the opinion that the Mollands are not forthright about Badfinger's history. Their version of events never add up, are in contradiction of established facts, and they always manage to fashion themselves as heroes of the Badfinger story.

So the question arises again: Can the Mollands accurately tell the Badfinger story? Or better yet, would they intentionally alter the story to suit their purposes? In light of their endorsement of Cheryl, I think the answers are apparent.