From what I understand, on the river, Bartholomew bet $50k, Friedman raised to $100,000 and Bartholomew moved all in. If Bartholomew DIDN'T have the nut flush when Friedman raised, he would have to suspect Friedman had it.
Also, why would Friedman make the minimum raise instead of go all in? Oen reason to make the minimum raise is so that if someone moves all in, you can lay the hand down confident you are beat.
I don't agree with those posters in this thread who claim it was an obvious call of the all-in with the second nuts. Like Phil Ivey says in his commercial, sometimes you just know you're beat and have to lay it down. This was one of those times, albeit a tough laydown given what is riding on the outcome.
What if Friedman did have the best hand with his king high flush and had folded to the all-in? To cite Phil Hellmuth's book Play Poker Like the Pros (which everyone on this website likes to trash): if you can't allow yourself to fold the best hand, then you can't win.