Friend-of-the-blog Dan Curry posted a rebuttal to the rebutall He's given me permission to post his response here.
I think it is good that both Paul Ciolino and David Protess are telling their stories in this case. I urge them both to petition the court in favor of the evidentiary hearing so we can all find out what happened without the bluster and bravado.
It's also amusing that perhaps the two biggest media hounds in Illinois history are complaining about the "public relations offensive" being mounted against them.
In his response on this website, Paul Ciolino acts as if he's never seen a dime for his participation in this case. Yet in one of the countless interviews posted on his company website, tooling around in one of his $100,000 cars, he explains his technique in interviewing
Alstory Simon:
"We just bull-rushed him, and mentally he couldn't recover," Ciolino says.
Oh, and he's one of the five best private eyes in America. Dan Rather says so on his website.
Here's are a few "Homicide 101" facts that the private eye doesn't mention in his response:
--Nobody places Alstory Simon in the park at the time of the shootings.
--No physical evidence exists against Alstory Simon.
--No unrecanted witnesses exist against Alstory Simon.
--Despite countless media reports to the contrary, several people placed Anthony Porter at the scene at the time of the shooting.
--Anthony Porter's criminal record was far worse than Alstory Simon's at the time of the murders.
--At the time of the murders, Porter was wanted for shooting a guy in the head in the vicinity a few days prior.
--Porter stuck up a guy in the park the night of the murders.
--After he was "bull-rushed" into confessing, Alstory Simon was given the "bull-rusher's" good friend as an attorney.
--The bull-rusher and the professor were given an award by the attorney for their efforts in exposing Alstory Simon while the attorney was representing Alstory Simon under a charge of murder.
I have no idea who committed the murders in question, but I'm dubious of the Simon confession. I believe it warrants a new hearing.
Professor Protess in his response expresses surprise at some of the brazen statements attributed to him in the Simon petition. While he certainly will get his chance to answers these questions more fully, I don't dismiss them at first blush.
Why? Because I've heard Protess make overstatements in the media many times over the years.
In a case I'm involved in, Protess just said indignantly on national television last month that a man who was convicted for a 1986 murder and later released from prison was nowhere near the murder scene at the approximate time of the murders.
The public record in that case clearly shows that the man admits he was driving near the scene at the approximate time on his way to mailing a letter in the early morning hours.
In that same case, Protess has suggested twice on national television that a man I represent should be a suspect without a shred of concrete evidence to back it up.
My client recently passed a polygraph.
So I don't always take the professor at face value.
Want proof of his penchant for exaggeration? How about his own words, in his response a few hours ago:
"In almost 20 years of reporting and writing about miscarriages of justice, Simon's case involves one of the most clear-cut cases of guilt that I have ever seen."
As for the other case Curry refers to there is more information about that in this December Marathon Pundit post here.
Technorati tags: David Protess Alstory Simon Anthony Porter Northwestern Crime Illinois Dan Rather
No comments:
Post a Comment