[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Pat Valentino
Date: 9/4/00
Time: 3:27:58 AM
Remote Name: 209.254.244.87
Hi Jasper,
In our discussion today, I forgot to answer your questions about Jim Willwerth.
First of all, he is a long time friend of Joe's (Bosco) and it was Willwerth that was instrumental in trying to push the Time article about Wasz. Joe thinks he is a decent guy.
Your points about Willwerth's work on the Schiller book "An American Tragedy" are quite correct. The book was actually a pleasent surprise given the fact that the pre-publication publicity was so anti Simpson--the book was going to blow him out of the water and all that, but rather the book really was a fairly objective look at the inner workings of the defence. After all, the subtitle is "The Uncensored Story of the Simpson Defence".
For example:
Scheck and Neufeld were under constant attack by the closet fascist Charles Grodin for being liars as well as misrepresenting the DNA evidence. He also said that "HE" would never give any money to the Innocence Project. At the same time, Grodin would constantly praise Schiller's book as "The Bible" on the case. Schiller himself was a frequent guest. I always wanted to appear on that program to ask Grodin if he would read aloud from "The Bible" from the paperback edition page 238, last paragraph which states:
"SCHECK AND NEUFELD WERE RIGOROUSLY ETHICAL. NO ONE WOULD TRY TO BAMBOOZLE THE JURY WITH BOGUS SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS. THERE WOULD BE NO OVERLOAD OF IRRELEVANT THEORY. THE DEFENCE WOULD ATTACK AND NEUTRALIZE THE BLOOD EVIDENCE SOME OTHER WAY. SCHECK AND NEUFELD'S WORKING ASSUMPTION WOULD BE SIMPSON'S INNOCENCE."
As Barry Scheck himself would say: "There! How about that Mr. Grodin?!"
But then, when the paperback gets in to the Civil trial, the book becomes the "inside story of the Plantiffs" (or prosecution if you will). But it must be remembered that Willwerth wrote the entire book, not just the Civil trial part! So what happened? Probably word from "upstairs" about what direction the new section was going to take. This section also seems sort of thrown together and not of the same quality of writing as the Criminal Trial part.
Your comments on the Heidstra and Lee footprint issues are right on the money.
As for your comment about Joe believing that Simpson is guilty, I asked him about that a couple of years ago. He doesn't say Simpson is definitely guilty, just that he doesn't believe Simpson is doing anything about finding the killers. Of course, Simpson has no real power to do anything--no power to compel people to talk--is not an officer of the court, has no police power. Actually, Pat McKenna continues to help run down leads as does Bailey. Both believe strongly that Simpson is innocent. Joe does say that he (Joe) can't prove that Simpson wasn't involved in a conspiratorial way. I asked him if he had any evidence that Simpson WAS involved. He said that he didn't.
I am very pleased to be communicating with you and the other participants. After speaking with you today, I believe that we are fortunate to have such a great gentleman chairing this panel.
As Don always signs: Yours for the "right to know",
Pat Valentino