Awards and citations:

1997: Le Prix du Champagne Lanson Noble Cuvée Award for investigations into Champagne for the Millennium investment scams

2001: Le Prix Champagne Lanson Ivory Award for

2011: Vindic d'Or MMXI – 'Meilleur blog anti-1855'

2011: Robert M. Parker, Jnr: ‘This blogger...’:

2012: Born Digital Wine Awards: No Pay No Jay – best investigative wine story

2012: International Wine Challenge – Personality of the Year Award

Thursday, 12 April 2012

Robert Parker report – 'ultimately accepted' – interpreted

 Cozen O'Connor report header

'For example, Jim Budd and Associated Press reporter Harold Heckle ultimately accepted our invitation to cooperate with the investigation.' (Footnote page 2 of report)

As I have been asked by a number of people, including at least a couple of distinguished MWs, what the meaning of 'ultimately' is here in the report from Cozen O'Connor – a professional corporation, I will attempt a clarification.

Firstly 'ultimately' here does not mean that we were reluctant to cooperate with the investigation. The reverse is the case. Harold and I responded promptly to the requests for assitance. (See details below.)

Instead there are two interpretations:

'After the investigation had been established for some time we ultimately even got round to asking Jim Budd and Associated Press reporter Harold Heckle to cooperate with us. 

'The word 'ultimately' has been inserted here to spare the blushes of their client who asserted on his bulletin board (14.2.2012) in an apparently 'reckless and malicious disregard for the truth' that 'the blogger Budd, who has been reluctant to talk with us'.


Details of the two requests for assistance:

Stephen Miller of Cozen O'Connor
I was contacted by Stephen Miller of Cozen O'Connor on 19th January 2012 at 4.19pm by email. Having talked to Harold Heckle in Madrid, I replied the following day at 1.38 am that we would be willing to cooperate. Fuller details can be found here.  

Julian Grijns of Kroll Associates
(a managing director with Kroll's Business Intelligence and Investigations practice in New York)
I was contacted by Julian Grijns on 20th March 2012 at 15.25 (CET) and replied at 17.46 (CET). It was arranged that Grijns would call me at his convenience the following day, which he did at 14.36 (21.3.2012) and we spoke for some 15-20 minutes. He asked for the originals of the emails. I explained that some could not be sent as they would reveal our source. This was not pursued further.

I told Grijns that I was very unhappy with the comments that Parker had made on his bulletin board alleging that I had been reluctant to talk and that they had been trying to arrange a meeting with me. Grijns confirmed that when requested I had cooperated fully with their requests. He made no mention of wanting to arrange a meeting.         

Later that afternoon I confirmed our discussion in an email to Grijns: 
Many thanks for your call this afternoon and thank you also for your acknowledgment that I have cooperated fully with the requests for assistance made by yourself and by Stephen Miller of Cozen O’Connor in the course of this investigation. I am grateful that my cooperation with be noted in the report on the investigation when it is published.
He immediately acknowledged receipt and we have had no further correspondence. 


No comments: