On both interviews, Gerry was careful in what he discussed. There are ethical rules for lawyers on what they can disseminate to the media. For example, they can't discuss specific evidence, but they can respond to allegations publicly made by the other side. New York DA Robert Morganthau gave a press conference last week with details of the allegations, and as we all know, Letterman disclosed details of events on his show Thursday night. While on the one hand, it seems Shargel's media rounds are designed to deny those accounts and remind people to keep an open mind, it also sounds like he's laying the seeds for a defense.
What did Shargel say other than Halderman is a good guy, well respected, not stupid, has had financial difficulties for a long time and the charges and statements of the DA and Letterman are one-sided, not evidence and haven't been tested by cross-examination?
He said he's looking forward to cross-examining Letterman and that Letterman disclosed only what he wanted to disclose. He made a distinction between Letterman telling his side of the story and Letterman telling what he wanted to disclose. Here's Shargel responding to Ann Curry:
CURRY: But I'm giving you access to the media this morning, and you're not actually giving your client's side of the story.
Mr. SHARGEL: But you know what, David Letterman didn't give his side of the story. David Letterman gave what he wanted the public to know. He wanted to get out ahead of the story, and that's exactly what he did. He's a master at manipulating audiences. That's what he does for a living. So to think that David Letterman gave the entire story and there's nothing more to be said is simply wrong. But...
What is he implying with the distinction?
Then, there was this:
CURRY: ...the evidence is piling up against him. So why would he go to the length that he did in allegedly delivering a package to Letterman with photographs in this package and a letter threatening to expose his sexual relationships?
Mr. SHARGEL: Those points only take on significance by looking at the surrounding circumstances. And what this trial's going to be about, or all about--well, it'll all be about the surrounding circumstances. And that's what we intend to deal with.
CURRY: What do you mean by the surrounding circumstances?
Mr. SHARGEL: Well, what were the...
CURRY: Is it about his relationship with his...
Mr. SHARGEL: About motives--about motives and intent. And it's not only the motive, intent and conduct of Joe Halderman, it's the motive, intent and conduct of David Letterman as well. As I've said, I look forward to cross-examining David Letterman.
Considering Shargel said Letterman having sex with an intern is no big deal in this day and age, and "the surrounding circumstances, motives and intent" of both Letterman and his client regarding their interactions will be issues in the case, he's going somewhere, but where?
It seems Shargel is going to go after Letterman, not for having sex with an intern, but for how this whole thing came about. On Geraldo, Shargel agreed with Geraldo who asked why the first calls between Halderman and Letterman's lawyer weren't recorded. (Interesting that Geraldo knew they weren't.) It seems the genesis of their interactions will play a part.
Letterman and Stephanie Birkitt were close, he paid for her law school. But they broke up in 2003, before Letterman's son was born. She and Halderman only recently broke up. Did something happen between Halderman and Letterman in which Letterman made it clear he was unhappy with how Halderman treated Birkitt? Is this where the diaries come in, as a means of reminding Letterman his conduct towards Birkitt was less than stellar as well?
Shargel says Halderman didn't have the specific intent to extort, Halderman isn't stupid, and extortionists don't take checks. So why was his client accepting $2 million -- what was the payment for?
Most puzzling was Shargel's statements to Geraldo that there will be an issue as to who Letterman was having an affair with.
“It’s not only a question of having sexual affairs – that might be a big yawn, this is 21st century America,” said Shargel to Rivera. “But that’s not the issue; I think the larger issue at the trial, will be, who did he have the affair with?”
Maybe Shargel is not referring to the identity of the woman, but her status, as in, Letterman had sex with the woman Halderman was in love with and living with until last month. Is he hinting that Letterman approached Halderman first and inserted himself into their relationship or was somehow responsible for Halderman and Birkitt's break-up? And even if true, how would that negate an intent to extort?
If not, and Shargel was referring to the identity of the woman, is he saying it was Letterman's involvement with this other woman that was the subject of the interaction between Letterman and Halderman? Did Birkitt's diaries discuss that her and Letterman's breakup was due to Letterman becoming involved with someone else?
Usually I can read between the lines of what a lawyer says about a client's case on tv. This one has me stumped. Somehow, the bottom line will be that Halderman, in his mind, had a legitimate reason to accept a $2 million payment from Letterman. But we're no closer to knowing what that might be -- other than that there will be allegations it was discussed in the initial unrecorded conversations between Halderman and Letterman's lawyer, and that Letterman's conduct vis-a-vis Birkitt or another woman will play a role.
[Thread is closed]
