LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 211
0 members and 211 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 06-01-2005, 12:30 PM   #4825
ltl/fb
Registered User
 
ltl/fb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Flyover land
Posts: 19,042
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think the ethics he's referring to is the general obligation of investigators not to disclose information about an ongoing investigation. It's a fair point, but might be better made by someone other than a person ultimately convicted by that information, say, for example, a person improperly implicated early in an investigation that is later cleared (like the first olympic park bomber).

I have to say, that I find Felt's admission at this point most curious. Why make it now? I suspect his family had some ulterior motive that he was not fully capable, in his post-stroke condition, of resisting. The motive may simply have been "make grampa happy for his last couple of years", but still.
Some article I read said that the Felt family had been having "polite" discussions with Bernstein about money from books, movies etc.

ETA from NY Times article:

"The Vanity Fair article, written by a Felt family friend and lawyer, John D. O'Connor, portrays a polite but persistent dialogue between the Felt family and Mr. Woodward in recent years over who should control the rights (and benefits) to such a sensational story. "
__________________
I'm using lipstick again.

Last edited by ltl/fb; 06-01-2005 at 12:34 PM..
ltl/fb is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 PM.