Charles Keating

* Re “Judge Throws Out Keating Conviction in S&L; Fraud Case,” Dec. 3: The irony is that Charles Keating would have been fair game for his salespeople since they went after the weak, meek and the ignorant. He fits two of the categories (he’s not meek).

He influenced his son and employees; his lawyer influenced the judge; but in the scheme of things, Keating, and the likes of him, will have to influence a Higher Authority . . . someday.

LILLIAN H. LAWSON

Downey

* The current complexity of the Keating financial scandals is well explained by Robert A. Jones (Dec. 4), but what was the chain of events that dumped this dilemma in our lap? Jones properly cites Keating’s wild investments “in the deregulated clime of the ‘80s.” By that time, a well-heeled lobby had been working long and hard to ease restrictions on the S&L; industry. Keating took full advantage of this opportunity to explore the profitability of white-collar crime. Posing as a model of civic virtue for having served on President Richard Nixon’s commission on pornography apparently made it easier for him to pick our pockets.

The GAO recently estimated the total cost of the S&L; fiasco at roughly a half-trillion dollars, some deriving from a hasty salvage operation that has given rise to many abuses, often by the original looters. Will there ever be a serious official investigation of the whole mess? Fat chance!

JUDSON VOYLES

Long Beach

* Now that Keating might get a new trial, does that mean Geronimo Pratt has a chance too?

PAUL KRASSNER

Venice