down with memory lane!
By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 22, 2003
A puzzling sentence from an earlier story in the Boston Herald:
Bernard Cardinal Law's attorney moved yesterday to put off Law's testimony in a civil case until after the cardinal goes before a criminal grand jury next month, explaining after that he fears Law might "inadvertently contradict" himself and open himself to a perjury charge.
Please, teacher, could you please explain why, if the Cardinal's anticipated contradictions would be inadvertent, what purpose is served by delaying his testimony before the grand jury?
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!