On the 18th February 2004 I received a letter from Mr Wayne Munkel. I was to be told not to rely on a misleading citation of his name (two actually) that had been instrumental in my research in leading me to the American Army Security Agency of which he is a veteran. I was respectfully requested to publish the following letter as his response. Mr Munkel had not visited Nottingham, (and had not been to New Orleans), as might be inferred in my article. I had repeated this untruth from my research.

His letter was as follows:

Dear Mr Baber:
I have been made aware of your article Alice in Wonderland. In response I would like to set the record straight. Several years ago I received a call from England on RSA [ritual sexual abuse]. I responded by sending articles I had collected at the time. About two years ago I found a reference about myself related to the Broxtowe case. I knew there was an error but could not determine at the time what it was. Thanks to your reference to the JET report [Joint Enquiry Team] I now know what it is. It is in the Bibliography cited at the end of the report.
In the simplest terms, I did not speak, listen to, or write the Indications of Ritualized Exploitation of Cult Behaviour. I received it from a friend and sent it by mail to England. I have been in a number of American cities but I have never been to New Orleans. The JET report is in error in attributing it to me other than sending it. This original error has been compounded over time and is still repeated in your article.
In your article Alice in Wonderland you reported that I took part in the investigation. Not True!
You also stated that I wrote a report about the investigation. Not True!
As past President of the Southeast Asia Army Security Veterans, I want to thank you for visiting our web site. My military history you used from the web site was written for publication for a book honouring veterans from my hometown. I assume you obtained my resume from the hospital where I am employed. I would have preferred that you contacted me directly. It is clear that you do not understand what the Army Security Agency was or what the agency did. The ASA ceased to exist in 1976 when the unit was disbanded. It is not now part of the NSA [National Security Agency].
I had difficulty understanding your point of view. I do feel that you have maligned and insulted Mr Rupp, Mr Klawitter and myself as well as the organisation of veterans we belong to, the Army Security Agency, my hospital and many other Americans by your innuendo and suggested inferences of wrong doing and out right errors. There is no conspiracy as you suggest. Since you have seen fit to publish your article, I respectfully request that you publish this letter as my response.
Sincerely yours
Wayne I Munkel.

Clearly an investigation and a correction, retraction or apology was needed. My reply follows, agreeing to his request but seeking some clarification:

Dear Mr Munkel,
Thank you for your letter via Mr Rupp.
My first instincts are to accede to your 'polite imperative' request. I would suggest the agreed wording should appear in one of this year's papers, published in June. They each have sales on the beach of about 1,000 copies each summer issue. Furthermore I am happy to at the earliest opportunity to do the same on www.msbnews.co.uk under the 'latest news' which is permanent with a permanent link to the article in the index. I am also happy to send on your agreed wording or perhaps our correspondence to www.heart7.net and www.hourofthetime.com for their consideration.
As to the agreed wording, did you mean "Nottingham" in paragraph 2 where you wrote you "have never been to New Orleans" My recollection is that I never mentioned New Orleans in the article. So a correction there seems misleading. Your declared role in the Nottingham enquiry was based almost verbatim on others work. This was not contradicted in one or other of my two approaches to Cardinal Glennon, if my memory serves and my records can confirm. I did also seek comments after some research from the Broxtowe Files reporter/s but to no avail.
Also the claimed morphing of the ASA into the NSA by me was perhaps more an unfortunate economy of words and minor sin rather than a major error of fact - if I recollect properly.
I seem to remember reading that the ASA with two other organisations were the basis for the NSA, but my files are in a remote hut. (I am in a web cafe on my way home after a Council meeting following a day's work). It would be a surprise to many if I did fully understand what the agency did, given the secrecy involved and the alternative mentions available to me which I did not elaborate on. I did try, at least, to give an 'official' view. I imagine that on a 'need to know' basis few people actually do fully understand the role of your agency or others in their many possible roles and incarnations.
This is basically why I offered anyone on your behalf access to my files to understand that no malice was intended. (I have print-outs of all sources consulted, a log of web-sites visited and copies of e-mails sent and received). I had hoped this would deal with any difficulty.
I am, of course, prepared to print your letter as you suggest, but wonder if you would like to revise these points, if you consider that necessary or desirable.
I have no wish to malign anyone and apologise for your inconvenience. Perhaps the publication of your reply will help set the record, such as it is, straight.
Sincerely Yours,
Tim Baber, 18/02/2004.

Mr Munkel was kind enough to clarify the facts in this reply :

Mr Baber,
...It is true that I have never been to Nottingham. It is also true that I have never been to New Orleans. I was trying to clarify that I didn't give the talks or have anything to do with the conference in New Orleans. If you will look at the bibliography at the end of the JET report, you will see the reference as coming from a conference there and, in error, that I presented it. I see that I did not make it clear in my letter. I do understand that you were quoting the work of others based on the original error in the report. It is the original error that has been repeated. The original error is what I am addressing.
My point with the ASA is that it no longer exists as an entity. You can't know what [the] ASA did entirely because much remains classified.
Thanks for writing directly to me. I appreciate that.
Sincerely yours
Wayne I Munkel.

In accordance with Mr Munkel's wishes I apologise for compounding the error by re-publishing it and relying on it in my article. The error occurs on a web site at http://users.cybercity.dk/~ccc44406/smwane/JET14.htm where a forty-odd item bibliography incorrectly includes...
"Indications of Ritualized Exploitation of Cult Behaviour (A summary of three talks given May 1986 in New Orleans, LA by Wayne I Munkel, MSW, Medical Social Consultant, Cardinal Glennon Childrens' Hospital. I repeat this is an error.

The original article, Alice in Wonderland, followed an impulse to see what, if anything, I could write about the local Alice in Wonderland theme park that was not, already known locally. The theme park is a few miles from Mudeford Sandbank. It is owned by a beach-hut owning former local councillor, called Russell Lucas-Rowe, (it is an anagram, apparently if you know his full name).

My wish to write something unusual was granted by simply following my nose on the internet with the initial search terms "Alice in Wonderland theme park". It eventually led to Mr Wayne Munkel and the former Army Security Agency through his stated involvement with the Joint Enquiry Team in the Broxtowe affair. The misleading citations are still in the public record giving the impression he was closely involved.

I hope Mr Wayne Munkel and his colleagues in the former Army Security Agency will accept this apology, and that there was no malice intended.

I have offered sight of all the print outs of the original research from public sources to any suitably interested party to confirm a complete absence of malicious intent . This offer is at present subject to the sudden and unexplained loss yesterday of the electronic copies of my e mails sent and received. Happily the print-outs of the relevant e mails are still available in hopefully a more secure location.
Clearly it is wrong for the reader to assume any wrong doing when such outright errors have been repeated from the public record. Thanks are due to Mr Munkel and friends for agreeing to set the record straight in this way.