My comments about another's research drew an email response. In fairness to the author, I reproduce it here:
Your recent attack on my research is not to your credit. I have researched this subject since the 1970´s and I don´t bring any preconcieved ideas into my writing. I started trying to figure out what happened and why and I now know the answers. One has to stick to a high level of ethics, that´s for sure. That Is why I will not claim that Rutherford had extra-marital affairs as so many others have done.
In the nature of things the brief response to Chryssides new book that I made public couldn´t give justice to my thorough research. I stated that Macmillan was not reliable and said his old age was the reason. Since he made so many astonishing mistakes in his presentation my verdict was a charitable one. The alternative is that he lied knowingly. I can demonstrate over and over and over again how unreliable his testomony was. His testimony is condtradicted by all the contemporary sources, even Rutherford´s writings, and that is the real reason why I don´t accept much of what he stated. However, I accept one interesting piece of information that he brought forward, and that in spite of the fact that there is no corroboration from the contemporary material. But generally his long life in an ever changing organization has affected his memory.
I believe you were wrong when you stated that the corporate law under which the Society was incorporated was formulated in 1876. It was formulated in 1874. [He's right.] Also, the legal arguments used by Rutherford did not date only from 1906, as you seem to suggest. They were part of the Pennsylvania Corporate law much earlier as an earlier Pennsylvania law book that I have shows. But that does not mean that the issues of of 1916-1918 are given a new color. It is still true, moreover, that Rutherford NEVER tried to explain how the charter could contain illegal clauses. It would be most useful for him to do so. If new laws had the effect that the charter was superseded , why not say so? Why not give the dates and details of such new laws? Even the Philadelphia lawyer he mustered did not say a word about this and so the ousted board members remained convinced that they were the legal directors of the Society.
It is clear that you don´t have any real knowledge about this, and if the thoughts you presented came from your father, he is ignorant, too. That you stated that you are Schultz´s daughter was good. It explains a lot. [I'm not Bruce Schulz' daughter. He misread what I wrote.]