Rachel Landers: Difference between revisions

In 2013, Rachel Landers was awarded a number of monetary and career inducements by the [[:wikipedia:Government of New South Wales|Government of New South Wales]]<ref>[https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/who-bombed-the-hilton/ ''Who Bombed the Hilton?''], Acknowledgments, Rachel Landers, NewSouth Books, April 2016</ref> for the ostensible purpose of producing a pseudo-historical exoneration of various police forces that botched up the investigation of the [[:wikipedia:Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing|Hilton bombing]]. Repeatedly, they arrested and prosecuted innocent persons within [[Ananda Marga]]. In all of those cases, the accused were ultimately acquitted. In most of the cases, the acquittal came after a miscarriage of justice in which the accused were wrongly convicted and sent to prison.<ref name="Hansard91">

{{Quote box|width=400px|bgcolor=#c6dbf7|align=left|quote=At the very end of Rachel's book, just before her smarmy epilogue, Rachel tries to buttress her ridiculously weak (in truth, non-existent) case by misrepresenting the content of a 2003 newspaper article in [[:wikipedia:The Australian|The Weekend Australian]] of February 8-9. Of course, a newspaper article is hardly evidence; and a misrepresented newspaper article is just a lie.<br />But this final and false assertion made by Rachel epitomizes her book: shallow and biased research distorted by perverted imagination.<br />''Who Bombed the Hilton?'' is '''a deceitful hate crime'''.<ref>[http://newhumanistsociety.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-rachel-landers-hilton-bomber.html Is Rachel Landers the Hilton bomber?, Abhidevananda, 2016 May 11]</ref><br /><div style="text-align: right;">Abhidevananda on ''[http://newhumanistsociety.blogspot.com New Humanist Society]''</div>}}

Leaving aside the aforementioned, self-serving award, reviews of the Landers book have been scanty and largely negative. The only [http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B01D0YGJD4?tag=professionalde03&linkCo reviews] of the book on [[:wikipedia:Amazon.com|Amazon.com]] dismiss the book as "highly speculative", "very poor history", and "trash journalism". The first review also cautions that the book is marketed with "false advertising". In addition, [[Abhidevananda]], one of the people libeled by Landers in her book, panned the book and its author in an [http://newhumanistsociety.blogspot.co.il/2016/05/is-rachel-landers-hilton-bomber.html article] on one of his [[New Humanist Society|blogs]].

Though it seems unlikely that the book would be produced as anything other than a fictional work (in poor taste), Rachel has been trying to hawk her book as a potential film.<ref>[https://filmink.com.au/2016/they-should-make-a-movie-of-that-who-bombed-the-hilton/ They Should Make A Movie Of That: ''Who Bombed The Hilton?'', Rachel Landers, 2016 May 2]</ref> This is in contrast to the latest claim that the book actually emerged from a failed documentary film project. According to [http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/rachel-landers-who-bombed-the-hilton-wins-literary-prize-20161121-gsuco0.html The Sydney Morning Herald], Rachel may be now claiming that her documentary film has not materialized, because she "couldn't persuade enough surviving main players to talk on camera". However, in the epilogue to her book, Rachel makes it abundantly clear that she made little or no effort to speak with any of the "surviving main players".<ref>[https://www.newsouthbooks.com.au/books/who-bombed-the-hilton/ ''Who Bombed the Hilton?''], Epilogue, Rachel Landers, NewSouth Books, April 2016</ref>