Yes
@Warwick7 ….. and IMO I was confused by several of his statements on the record today, in court, on just who solicited the ‘supplemental’ report.
In early cross from Alessi IIRC I believe Burgess indicated that despite what the printed report introduction said…… it was basically himself, Burgess, that sought need to update or supplement the report. (The report introduction essentially said words to the effect, ‘per your request Mr. Brennan’…… And Burgess tried to state that it was simply a matter of something in a definitive report having been ‘copied over’ from a prior document. And perhaps not properly vetted or examined? SMH)
And then under further questioning during cross by Alessi I thought I understood Burgess to then claim that it was the CW or Brennan that had solicited re-review or a supplement to the earlier report?
IMO this needs to be further investigated. And perhaps by the court, judge, MA Office of Bar Counsel, and any relevant Office of Disciplinary Counsel. On the record and under oath.
It almost seems
there is now an unclear question on the record that needs to be addressed. And whether that might arise to further evidence of perjury or misrepresentations before the court is not yet clear. IANAL. MOO
www.newscentermaine.com
