[ Home | Contents | Search ]
From: dick wagner
Time: 12:44:06 AM
You say that one of the reasons that Jill was denounced by the DA's office was because she had been involved in prior lawsuits. When I first got interest in Jill, the first thing I did was to go down to the Los Angeles County courthouse and search the "index" for cases in which Jill had been involved. Before the Bundy murders there had been one case in 1989 in which she had been a plaintiff, and two cases in 1993 involving Brian Patrick Clarke; in the first Jill had been the defenant, in the other she had been plaintiff. (There is much to say about Brian Patrick Clarke and Jill, and so I consider that these two suits "don't count," and the actual prior legal activity that Jill had been involved in was a single suit in 1989.) This hardly justifies branding Jill as a "professional litigant," as some people have.
Unfortunately, two women surfaced in the Simpson trial at about the same time, Jill Shively and Mary Ann Gerches, and many people get their characteristics confused. (I did in the beginning, and had the same idea that Jill was a "professional litigant.") Gerches actually does seem to be an unsavory opportunist, and was convicted shortly after the Bundy murders of several counts of fraud. But, this is completely different than Shively, whom I have met and visited with many time, and consider to be my friend. I have introduced her to several other people who have a similar high opinion of her.
Jill is very devoted to her family, and has made life-choice sacrifices in the interest of her daughter that many other women would not make. I have met her mother, her brother, and her daughter, and I can tell you this is a first-rate, respectible family, and Jill is the driving force of it.
Now, Jill is fiercly defensive of her reputation, and that has been outrageously (and deliberately, I think, for Simpson's benefit) been ravaged. As a result of this, she has filed several suits against people she thinks are responsible, and one of them is still pending before the California Supreme Court. But, all of this occurred after 1995, and because she has been so victimized, I do not consider that has made her into a "professional litigant" either.
If you really want to know why Jill was denounced by Marcia Clark, please read the material at the bottom of our site concerning Jill. Her chief accuser was Brian Patrick Clarke, her adversary in the 1993 suits and a soap opera actor. If you are unfamiliar with who he is, you will find a picture of him on p. 168+6/7 of Simpson's book, "I Want to Tell You." (In this group shot of Simpson pals, Brian is the one on the left hand page, middle row, white and blue shirt, with a baseball glove under his right arm, beaming as a professional actor knows to do.) Now I ask you, Charlie, how impartial a source do you think this is of Jill's character when the issue is Simpson's legal defense? My own idea of how Shapiro orchastrated her denunciation is in the article on our site, "Conjecture."
I'm sorry that I will probably not be here to respond to your comments, Charlie. I'd like to, but this place always drives me to distraction (technically). I always feel that I don't know "how to do it," and whether my posts are showing up right, or at all. I know that the rest of you cruise through here without any problem, so it's just me. Sorry about that. But, when I heard that the old misunderstandings about Jill have surfaced again, I thought that I should drop by and try to say a few words.
Thanks for your attention.