Dontomasso wrote:
It odd too that Tom thought he could tell her that Michael was "all right," but nothing more. If Kay had been subpoenaed and was forced to testify she would have had to tell the court that Tom Hagen admitted he knew that Michael was "all right."
Such an admission against interest would be circumstantial evidence to show Tom did know where Michael was, or at least knew hw to contact someone who did.
that would never fly in a court of law....
saying that someone is alright. and saying you know where someone is, are two differen't things.
example:
say your dog is missing. I am not going to tell you "oh your dog is probable lying in the road dead! or has been kidnapped!" I would tell you "don't worry your dog is alright".
human nature.
Hagen handeled it perfectly.
You should be more prudent. There can be quite a difference between the effect of acts or words in a legal hearing and those same acts or words when pedestrian.
As an attorney, Tom knew that such an admission about Michael could make him quite legally vulnerable. Thus the statement would be considered to be true and probative. He should have known better. DT's right.
