You certainly do propose some compelling evidence to refute Nathan's points! Maybe we should all read Nathan's book and consider the evidence that she presents before we dismiss it entirely simply due to an anecdotal statement made by someone who says they are a friend of Shirley Mason.

I haven't read the book yet, but I will say these two things in favor of Nathan:

1) I have read much of her past work, and she is a highly credible and courageous author who is known for extensive, well cited research and the refutation of lies, not the propagation of them, and though I am sure she has the same imperfections that all humans have, she has more courage than almost any other journalist you can think of in the modern era. She most certainly would not deliberately try to "prove" a set of lies.

2) I read the book Sybil last year, and the words in the text continuously set off my personal "bullshit" alarm, and this was before I even knew about the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the story.