Best Man
Table of Contents
BEST MAN 01 Johnlet
02 Letter to John
03 Secrets
04 Timothy
05 Mother
06 Uncle
07 Father Brennan
08 Angela
09 Father
10 Martha’s Vineyard
11 Prep School
12 Summer Vacations
13 Commencement
14 Transition
15 Dartmouth
16 Sophomore Year
17 Junior Year
18 Europe
19 Wedding
20 Senior Year
21 Cambridge
22 Berlin
23 Prague
24 Miss Huffington
25 Geneva
26 Moscow
27 Promotion
28 Germany
29 Vienna
30 Bern
31 Geneva
32 Bosnia
33 Washington
34 Amanda
35 Retirement
36 Retirement Celebration
References
About the Author
Forthcoming
BEST MAN
Doug Raber
GreenPoint Ventures
Washington, D.C.
This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, locations, and incidents are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead is entirely coincidental. The actions of the characters and the interactions among them, while fictitious, are derived from real events. As such, the book provides an historical narrative of the waning years of the Cold War and the new national and international challenges that followed in the early twenty-first century. These events are referenced with accurate and appropriate literature citations.
Edited by Linda Raber
GreenPoint Ventures
www.Raberbooks.com
Cover design: Melissa H. Miller
www.MelissaInspired.com
Marketing and publicity: Katherine Carr, Silver Marketing Inc.
www.silvermarketing.com
Copyright © 2021 by Doug and Linda Raber
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, copied, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission.
ISBN 978-1-7359731-1-1
Published February 2021
GreenPoint Ventures
Washington, D.C.
Also by Doug and Linda Raber
FACE OF THE EARTH
(2012)
THE SAPPHIRE LEGACY
(2014)
EASTERN COLONIES
(2015)
WARLORD
(2017)
I do solemnly swear I will never divulge, publish nor reveal either by word, conduct, or by any other means such classified information, intelligence or knowledge, except in the performance of my official duties and in accordance with the laws of the United States, of unless specifically authorized by the Director of Central Intelligence.
— Excerpt from CIA Secrecy Agreement*
01
Johnlet
TOP SECRET//JOHNLET//ORCON//NOFORN
MEMORANDUM
FOR: DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF TIMOTHY O’CONNOR MANUSCRIPT
REFERENCE: D/CIA APPOINTMENT OF WORKING GROUP ON ‘LETTER TO JOHN’
FROM: ASSOCIATE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
1. Task origin: In the above referenced memorandum, you tasked me to form a working group for the purpose of assessing the O’Connor Manuscript [codename: Johnlet] that was first reported by your chief of staff. In accord with our previous discussions, the working group was constructed by requesting the leadership of several directorates to detail one of their senior staff to my office for an unspecified time. No description of the assignment was given to the several directors, and I personally vetted their suggestions.
2. Working group: Accordingly, three individuals joined my team from the Directorates of Science & Technology, Intelligence & Analysis, and Operations. Their names are not listed here but can be found in a separate annex (name: Johnlet personnel) that resides in the safe in my office. A fourth member of the team was detailed (per our discussions) by the Office of the General Counsel.
3. Physical Evidence: The working group examined all the physical evidence associated with the manuscript, and we concluded unanimously and with high confidence that the physical evidence was neither probative nor exculpatory. We were assisted with this by several external consultants from leading universities and national laboratories who carried out analysis with the latest scientific equipment. Their names are listed in a separate annex (name: Johnlet consultants) that also resides in the safe in my office. These individuals were only provided with small pieces of the manuscript that were carefully excised without compromising the integrity of the document.
4. Physical specimens: The external scientific consultants were not informed of the significance of the manuscript. The materials they investigated included multiple samples that permitted them to determine the approximate date of manufacture for different paper samples and ink used to produce the manuscript. However, the samples provided to the external consultants did not include any text or other information that could accidentally reveal the specific nature of the materials they were studying.
5. Notebooks: The external consultants provided uniform and firm agreement that the leather-bound notebooks used by O’Connor to record his manuscript were age appropriate. The experts do not suggest that the entire ‘letter’ was a contemporary record of the events described. For example, all portions describing his childhood and early career were written in several notebooks manufactured in the 1970s, consistent with those entries being written as recollections during his adulthood. As the narrative progresses, the notebooks are of more recent manufacture, as would be expected for an authentic memoir or diary written over many years.
6. Caveat: Although the scientific evidence is consistent with a memoir written over the course of O’Connor’s adult life, the age of the notebooks themselves does not eliminate the possibility that they could have been vintage stock purchased at a later date (say, from a stationery store or online source), thereby allowing a false record that had been recorded at a much later time.
7. Inks:* The experts carefully analyzed the ink used throughout the manuscript. Even the most rudimentary scan of the document made it clear that it had been drafted using a fountain pen (or, more precisely, multiple pens). The occasional smudge is familiar to anyone who learned to write with that kind of pen and ink, and it is equally apparent that pens with different nibs were used at various times. Differences in the ink were sometimes obvious to the naked eye, as in a change from blue to black. In other locations, passages written in ink that seemed identical were found by the experts to have different sources and dates of manufacture. And passages using identical ink sometimes had a slightly different appearance, indicating exposure to air or sunlight. There was, however, no instance of a manufacturing date inconsistent with the ostensible date of the diary entry.
8. Caveat: Although several fountain pens and bottles of ink were found in O’Connor’s residence (in a discreet search authorized by the General Counsel), they did not match the ‘early’ entries in the manuscript. We considered the possibility that the author purchased a variety of vintage inks to make it appear the manuscript was written over a period of many years. We found no physical evidence to support that scenario, but the author might well have disposed of the older bottles before his residence was searched.
9. Voice: The working group debated extensively the voice used in Johnlet. For obvious reasons, we did not share the f
ull manuscript with anyone outside our team, and external consultants were not permitted to see more than short passages that were selected for their lack of potentially sensitive information. We conclude that the voice is consistent throughout the manuscript. Moreover, the florid prose appears to be reflective of documented written materials and memories of conversations with O’Connor over many years. Whether it is his natural voice or an affectation, we agree unanimously that the manuscript was written entirely by O’Connor.
10. Graphology:* Perhaps the most striking aspect of the manuscript is that it is entirely handwritten. We considered that this might have been an intentional effort to deceive, since writing and editing text has become nearly universally a computer-oriented exercise. The extensive handwriting sample consequently provided an important forensic opportunity, and we were able to utilize expertise in the Directorate of Science & Technology (although security again mandated that we provide only brief passages that could not expose the nature of the manuscript). Each of the experts agreed that the entire manuscript was handwritten by a single individual.
11. Caveat: Conclusions were less firm regarding the timeframe of when the manuscript was penned. It is well established that an individual’s handwriting evolves over time, and changes observed in Johnlet are consistent with the evolution of the author’s handwriting over a substantial number of years. Because such time-dependency is well known, we cannot rule out the possibility that the author of the manuscript intentionally developed a false evolution of his handwriting to disguise a timeframe that is actually much shorter and entirely contemporary.
12. Chronology: In several places, statements appear to be in the wrong time frame. For example, when O’Connor writes that “this was in a time before we had caller ID.” Clearly that sentence was written outside the time frame of the narrative, and our analysis shows that it was indeed penned at a later time. Hence, there was no effort to deceive, in that case or in other similar instances.
13. Salutation:* The preamble to the manuscript, beginning with “Dearest John,” was immediately flagged by the working group as a recent addition. The handwriting analysis supports this conclusion, and it was confirmed by forensic ink dating using spectrophotometry, chromatography and mass spectrometry. The ink used for this passage is of modern manufacture, and the analysis confirmed that it was added to the manuscript within the last year or so.
14. John: One of the most confounding aspects of the manuscript is the question, ‘Who is John?’ There is no name except John, and there is no address in the preamble, which is written with considerable intimacy. Yet, we were unable to identify any person by that name who was close to O’Connor or was even part of his broader social circle. We note, however, that it is a name with considerable religious significance, especially when one considers the references to ‘father’ and ‘son.’
15. Conclusions:
a. The manuscript is consistent with its claim to be an honest historical record, written over the course of O’Connor’s career. We cannot, however, rule out the possibility that the entire document is no more than carefully crafted disinformation.
b. O’Connor consistently emphasizes the centrality of secrets in his life and work. We believe that this manuscript is in full accord with that ethos, and we conclude that he never intended the document to be read by anyone other than himself.
c. Our working group was unable to reach a conclusion on the significance of the letter, although we agree completely that it is more accurately described as a journal (as it is described in places by the author himself). It will fall to future readers to answer this question definitively. Those readers will have to render a decision on whether the journal is an accurate historical record or nothing more than a deception. Their analysis will resolve the question of whether the author of the journal was a hero or a traitor. At the present time we lack the information needed for such a determination.
* * *
02
Letter to John
Dearest John:
I am writing this letter to you as the son I never had. I hope you will think of it as from the father that neither of us had.
Fondly,
Timothy
* * *
03
Secrets
My childhood was a secret.
“How can that be?” you may ask. It would be an entirely reasonable question. Does it mean I spent my earliest years locked in a basement? Or hidden in a cave or in the woods? That none of my neighbors knew of my existence? No, it was none of those things.
The explanation is much simpler yet more esoteric than I can convey in a single word. Or in a single paragraph. Or even in this entire journal.
Nevertheless, I shall try.
The truth is, my childhood consisted of an intricate web of secrets. It was a labyrinth of secrecy from which I cannot be certain I ever emerged. I think I did escape, but prudence requires that I not make a definitive claim to that effect. The final judgment will lie in your hands, and you will be unable to make your determination until you have finished reading this journal.
• • • • •
My secrets began to accrue when I was quite young, and I will say more about that later. I first remember thinking about the word when I was in elementary school. I was probably in the first grade, and I can recall the specific incident with great clarity.
It started with something a girl in my class said to one of her friends during recess. I was nearby on the playground, and I overheard.
“I know a secret. I’ll share it, but you have to promise not to tell anyone. Cross your heart and hope to die.” The rest was whispers, so I never knew the nature of that secret.
Even at that tender age, I recognized that much was contained in the girl’s offer, and I found it confusing. If it were truly a secret, why did she want to tell the other girl? I was fairly certain that “cross your heart” was like making the sign of the cross, a promise to God. That made sense, particularly at a parochial school. But what about the other part? Why would she want her friend to die?
I remember going home and asking my mother about it. She confirmed the part about crossing yourself, and she explained that the expression indicated such a serious promise that you were asking God to strike you dead if you broke the pledge. This sounded cruel to me, even in the context of the Catholic Church where we went to Mass regularly and where I attended Sunday school.
It was a topic of considerable thought for me, and it was probably the first rigorous intellectual exercise I ever undertook. If something were a secret, why would you tell anyone? On the other hand, if you were the only one to know about whatever it was, why would you even need a word for it? You just wouldn’t tell anybody, and that would be it.
It became clear to me that there was something more to the concept of secrecy. The word itself held some covert meaning. And I would spend countless hours of my early life trying to figure out what it was.
Eventually, I formulated my own set of definitions. It was a complete, if not entirely coherent, taxonomy and it was accompanied by definitions and rules. Others would not have understood, nor, I suspect, will you. Not even after I explain it.
I sometimes thought the entire concept of secrecy was as difficult to understand as the mystery of the holy trinity. It seems now that if it could have been explained to me, my entire life might have been different.
I will share with you some of the definitions I used. First, consider ‘true secrets.’ Notwithstanding the other renderings one finds in a dictionary, I considered true secrets to be any of those things known only to me. If I shared a secret with someone else, it ceased to be a true secret, becoming instead what I have always called a ‘shared secret.’
Nuance is important here, as someone else could know a secret, even if I did not share it with them. Perhaps they discovered it in the same way I had. If it was something that nearly everyone knew about, I preferred to call it an ‘open secret.’ It wasn’t really a secret, but they t
hought it was.
When I was in possession of a secret that existed only in my head, it was merely a ‘secret.’ But sometimes I had proof — documentary evidence — of whatever the relevant facts were. These I placed in the category of ‘secret truths.’ If the documents were adequately clandestine, I called them ‘hidden secrets,’ even if the possibility existed that others might know the same facts. However, if those facts were ever exposed by another person, these secret truths became ‘revealed secrets.’
As you, the reader of this missive, are certainly aware, secrets are frequently accompanied by lies. A ‘lie’ is easily defined, for it is something knowingly stated despite awareness of its untruth. Invariably, it is used with the intent to deceive, often to protect a secret. During the time of my childhood when I was developing my system of classification, I came to find the technique of deception an invaluable part of my life.
As my naive philosophical analysis of secrets and lies developed, I recall stumbling on a conundrum. It was the term ‘true lies.’ After all, if something is a lie, it cannot be true. On the other hand, if something is true, it is still possible to lie about it. In my taxonomy, I chose to use the term ‘true lies’ in a way that seemed partway between those extremes, employing it to describe the act of disguising truth in a way that it became untrue while retaining at least some portion of the original. It is not unlike what politicians and spies describe as ‘disinformation.’
Finally, I offer you another seeming contradiction to complete my definitions. It is the category of ‘secret lies.’ You might ask why one would bother to create a lie if the sole intent is to keep it secret. And of course, that very question provides the answer. You must focus on the intent. Yet, at the same time, one can never be sure that the secrecy will be maintained. In the case of a secret lie, disclosure produces not a ‘revealed secret ‘but a true lie.’ This consequence offers the originator protection from disclosure, and those who discover it have no reason to search for truth rather than believe the lie.