Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Nov 29, 2013
He died more than 1 year ago, so why us the story running now?
>> "Evidence showed the family's three investment accounts plunged from nearly $400,000 in early 1998 to approximately $11,000 in May 2000."
This factoid slipped by me the first time around. Odd that my investments did exactly the opposite (well, almost). Those were silicon valley boom years -- wonder whether they had a financial adviser. Poor diversification.
>> "The Fitzhugh family did not return a request for comment for this story."
Musical - maybe the stock market crash in April of 2000 was partially responsible?
The weekly shut down another thread on the same story ( probably due to the postings criticizing the publication of this story-- the weekly staff does not handle criticism well)Why doesn't ms dreaman explain why this story was written more than a year after his death. Why bring it up now? Another example of the shoddy journalism that the weekly is famous for.
We published the story because we received a news tip about both the release and death of Mr. Fitzhugh, which had not previously been known or reported anywhere. We deemed it a matter of public interest and part of our responsibility in covering news of the community. You obviously disagree, which is of course your right.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Engagement Rings: Myths and Options
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 2,163 views
Opening alert: Go Fish Poke Bar in Redwood City
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 1,728 views
Talking about baby
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 936 views
Open Food Letter to Donald Trump
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 814 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Palo Alto
Send News Tips
Express / Weekend Express
Circulation & Delivery
Mountain View Voice
© 2017 Palo Alto Online
All rights reserved.