By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

The difference between Wilkerson and Turner

No-longer-cooperating witness Ron Wilburn tells the Boston Globe’s Adrian Walker: “Dianne is a thief. Chuck isn’t. Dianne knew better. Chuck is a victim of circumstance.” Which is kind of the way this has looked from the beginning.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.


A great line


The Times’ unromantic “Note to Readers”


  1. mike_b1

    Some of the comments to the Globe piece ring true. But we’re not alone. Compare the coverage here in Boston to a similar situation in Chicago (as loudmouth Rokyo-wannabe John Kass does today:,0,7144779.column).

  2. Dot Lane

    As was pointed out to me by a friend who has worked as a developer in Boston for forty years, “Everyone knows you don’t go to Chuck to get something like that done because he doesn’t have the power to do it. What’s the point of bribing him? It would be a waste of money.”

  3. Neil

    To at least some members of a certain generation, Wilburn’s characterization of Turner instantly brings to mind the original victim of soicumstance. Maybe not Wilburn’s intent. Chuck’s a fool, not a thief! Some defense.

  4. lkcape

    The real point, I think, is whether or not Mr. Turner violated the law, not whether or not he was capable of achieving anything.He is entitled to the presumption of innocence.But let’s not see the real issue clouded by another agenda.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén