Differing accounts of Jim Norman’s windfall
I am a long time subscriber to both the Tampa Bay Times and the Tampa Tribune; appreciating their sometimes differing editorial opinions.
However, when it comes to reporting facts, I expect both to be in total agreement.
Please, if in fact this was a loan, answer why this has not been repaid to the Hughes estate, widow and orphans?
Contrariwise, if this was a gift, have the Normans reported it as income to the IRS?
Why are both newspapers pussyfooting around as to how the Normans seemingly continue to profit from this dirty business?
<IMHO> Fred Jacobsen