On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Daniel J. Matyola <danmaty...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree. I don't understand why the newspaper insisted on > investigating and reporting on this either. He was a good > photographer, and took some great images of the civil rights movement. > I am confident nothing he told the FBI harmed Martin Luther King or > the movement. Why drag it up now?
As his daughter pointed out, the man's not here to defend himself. If this is true, we have no idea why he might have passed on this information. He might have been paid, yes, but he might have also done it under duress. He and/or his family might have been threatened. They might have had some information on him and threatened to use it to ruin his career. He might have been threatened with a lengthy jail sentence. And as Peter said, he may have needed the money. I guess some reporter got his/her story. But with all the main actors now passed on I don't think it had to be told just now. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
