From: Nomi
Remote User:
Date: 14 Feb 2005
Time: 15:25:42 -0500
We're both of the same mind about what the quote I posted might mean. I also felt that Dunne was VERY careful to leave the tense of his sentences rather ambiguous, so he could NEVER be perjured if he was called on a stand about the time period Pellicano had actually worked for him and in what capacity. He might have also paid Pellicano for many of his "stories". He also ADMITS that he paid Pellicano to wiretap and as a bit of a stupid question, doesn't that make him a party in a criminal act?