The ends always justify the means, right?
CNN essentially stole someone’s personal property which, at that point, belonged to the person’s heirs. They used that property, without permission, to further their business operation, and once it’s usefulness was played out, they gave it back to the family.
In their estimation, that clears up the criminal aspect of what they did.
And don’t tell me that CNN is suddenly interested in truth and journalistic integrity. They smelled a scoop, and they went for it.
I’m sure Julian Assange would approve.
Sorry but you assume facts not in evidence.
My wife was in a car wreck recently flipped her SUV and it threw stuff all over the road.
Two months later a highway worker found a bag with an address and name on it and returned it to us. Did he steal it? He found it and took it home and then finally returned it to us after he found a way to contact us.
You have no clue as to the sequence of events. You have no clue if their was even identification on the book. I know for a fact their was no immediate family in the area where they found the book (if it is fact they found it in the rubble) so they had to physically get the book back to the USA.
So you are claiming they stole it yet they returned the item to that family. You have no evidence at all.