Published here without edits or commentary…

Subject: Substantial factual errors regarding the “vivid story” and virtually every other major assertion made in Sunday’s piece on Don Siegelman, as well as questions regarding journalistic integrity and work ethic by 60 Minutes staff in the preparation and presentation of the piece.
 
From: Eddie Curran

Attn: Jeff Fager, Joel Bach, David Gelber, Scott Pelley, Rich Kaplan
Producers, host, management, of 60 Minutes
 
Dear Sirs,
         
I am, as at least David knows, a reporter with the Mobile Press Register. I did the stories that prompted an investigation of former Gov. Don Siegelman and his administration. I am on sabbatical from the paper, working on a book about the administration, the trial, and the aftermath, including the 60 Minutes show, and am no longer covering the matter for the paper.
          
I will be writing about the program, both in my book and, likely, in articles that I hope to publish prior to publication. I also intend to disseminate this letter because, frankly, I doubt it will ever reach you otherwise.  I would like here to ask some questions, and point out some errors. I will begin with statements by Doug Jones.
     
First of all, you introduced him as one of Siegelman’s lawyers. Are you aware that he did not represent Siegelman during the 2006 trial? I believe that if you were to ask viewers, they would have assumed as much. I trust you knew this; and for whatever reason, you did not mention it. Possibly if Jones had been at trial, he wouldn’t have told you, and a national audience, the following, as pulled from the transcript (all of the following in italics is as it was pulled from your web-site):
 
“Mr. Bailey had indicated that there had been a meeting with Governor Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy, a private meeting in the Governor’s office, just the two of them,” says Doug Jones, who was one of Siegelman’s lawyers.

“And then, as soon as Mr. Scrushy left, the governor walked out with a $250,000 check that he said Scrushy have given him for the lottery foundation.”

“Had the check in his hand right then and there?” Pelley asks.

“Had the check in his hand right then,” Jones says.

“That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey’s testimony?” Pelley asks.

“That’s right, showed it to Mr. Bailey. And Nick asked him, ‘Well, what does he want for it?’ And Governor Siegelman allegedly said, ‘A seat on the CON Board.’ Nick asked him, ‘Can we do that?’ And he said, ‘I think so,’” Jones says.
 
And later in the segment:
 
In this new investigation, prosecutors zeroed in on that vivid story told by Siegelman’s aide, Nick Bailey, who said he saw the governor with a check in his hand after meeting Richard Scrushy. Trouble was, Bailey was wrong about the check, and Siegelman’s lawyer says prosecutors knew it.

“They got a copy of the check. And the check was cut days after that meeting. There was no way possible for Siegelman to have walked out of that meeting with a check in his hand,” Jones explains.

“That would seem like a problem with the prosecution’s case,” Pelley remarks.

“It was a huge problem especially when you’ve got a guy who’s credibility was going to be the lynch pin of that case. It was a huge problem,” Jones says.

First: Bailey was not the only one who “indicated” there was a meeting. Witnesses who testified included HealthSouth lawyer Lorree Skelton and company public relations officer (and also State Senator) Jabbo Waggoner. Both said (and I believe this was confirmed with company flight records) that they flew on the company helicopter with Scrushy, went to the capitol.

There, they met Siegelman and his aide Nick Bailey, and Siegelman asked that he and Scrushy be excused. The meeting, according to testimony, lasted about 30 minutes. Substantial testimony was given as to why this meeting occurred, and was considered necessary from HealthSouth/Scrushy’s point of view. I assume, given your months of work on this story, that you are familiar with this.

Second: Jones paraphrasing of Bailey’s testimony about his discussion with Siegelman following the meeting is not exact, not as strong as the actual testimony, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that there was no testimony that the first $250,000 check was given to Siegelman at this meeting (actually, as I assume you know, the check came from Maryland-based Integrated Health Services.) In fact, there was substantial testimony from a host of witnesses including former executives with Integrated Health, HealthSouth, and the New York-based investment banking firm that served HealthSouth and had a most interesting role in the $250,000 donation.

Jones was actually correct when telling your wide-eyed host Pelley that the check was dated after the meeting. However, it was given to Siegelman at a later meeting. Neither prosecutors nor witnesses at trial, Bailey included, said the check was given by Scrushy to Siegelman at the first meeting.

Doug Jones was flat wrong on this point which 60 Minutes thought so powerful that, out of what surely was a much longer interview, it used in the segment.

Had the check in his hand right then,” Jones says.

“That Scrushy had just handed to him, according to Bailey’s testimony?” Pelley asks.

Bam! Killer proof that that the prosecution put on bogus evidence.

Only Jones was wrong, and it was 60 Minutes that put on the bogus evidence.

It is my understanding that 60 Minutes spent months on this story. That you did so and got so wrong this crucial element of the evidence presented to the jury is stunning.

I am sure that your sources on the defense teams have the transcript and if you asked, would provide it to you. If not, I will be glad to search my records for appeals briefs or could send you stories by me and other reporters from the trial.

The issue is simply not in dispute.

Your big witness – Doug Jones – was not at trial and he was totally wrong. I suggest you call him and ask him to provide the documentation to support what he told you with such an impressive degree of authority. Don’t rely on his memory – ask him to provide you with the documentation. This is what real reporters do and what an audience expects of 60 Minutes.
      
Dana Jill Simpson: I assume you are aware of her constantly expanding and evolving stories. That you even put her on television after reviewing these ever-evolving tales is incredible. Furthermore, you absolutely had to know of her association with the Siegelman and Scrushy legal teams that began, at the latest, in February of last year. Among other things, she has testified to doing what would appear to be an illegal credit check report on the judge who presided over the case.

We reporters in Alabama, no doubt because we’re dumb rednecks or being paid off by Republicans, have from the beginning seen Simpson for what she is: a very lonely person with a very – and this is your word – vivid imagination.

It would appear – or at least, CBS made it appear – that this particular Rove claim (there have already been several by her relating to her allegations that Rove was involved in the Siegelman administration)”) was new. This was suggested by Scott Pelley’s surprise, which I trust was not feigned.

As anyone who has ever worked in a newsroom knows, it is almost a daily occurrence for someone to come by or call and spin the most amazing stories. A few, a very few, are true. A decent reporter can usually tell the difference in about a minute.

The crazy ones are treated politely and ushered out the door as soon as possible. Considering her past stories — none corroborated by a single human being — 60 Minutes should never have interviewed her in the first place. However, after that mistake, once she started on the Rove tale, Pelley, the producers, the janitor, someone, should have pulled the switch.

This leads me to ask the following questions of the journalists at CBS:
 
After Simpson delivered these explosive and entirely uncorroborated accusations (again, all of her stories are uncorroborated)  did 60 Minutes ask Simpson where she followed Siegelman, as in what cities and on what dates?
 
Having done so, did 60 Minutes conduct a simple Nexis search of stories during that period? After all, Siegelman’s trips and actions were covered almost daily by the press, especially the AP.

And also asked her:

Who funded this top-secret mission? She does not live anywhere near Montgomery and one assumes that while carrying out this top-secret assignment she incurred hotel, travel, and meal bills. Did you ask her if she had any records of these bills? Is there anyone alive who can corroborate this?
  
Did you ask her: How was a big redhead like you able to follow Alabama’s governor for months without being seen by the governor or his security?

Did you follow him by car? Hide in the bushes? Hover above in a helicopter?  You claim that this was not the first “intelligence” assignment given you by Rove. What were the others?

You said you met him working on past campaigns. Which campaigns and can you provide us with a single person who also worked on these campaigns who can confirm that you worked on them and that, furthermore, you met Rove while doing so? 
  
Pelley, with a wink and a nod, noted that Rove worked in some Alabama campaigns. This is widely known. They were judicial races in the mid-1990s. I was in Alabama at the same time and, remarkably, never ran into Rove. I doubt Simpson did either though. However, if we are to trust your broadcast, you made no effort to check this out. You simply tossed it out that Rove had been in Alabama, as if our state is the size of Mayberry.

I’m not sure what would be worse, for CBS not to have asked such questions or to have asked them but not shown or reported that it did so to the audience, and given her responses and the results of your verification.

Instead of actually doing some legwork to support such a serious to say nothing of unlikely claim on national TV, the network simply covered its ass with the old, obviously expected denial from Rove.

Is that characterization of your journalism correct or incorrect?

There is no question, such as with the Swift Boat campaign against Kerry, that Rove has done some exceedingly distasteful things. However – if I may opine – that would not be sufficient reason for 60 Minutes to put on Dana Jill Simpson stories without subjecting them through a level of verification that any decent reporter could do in an afternoon.
 
Grant Woods: Ten years ago, on a non-investigative story about the tobacco wars, I quoted Grant Woods saying he’d spent much time working with Siegelman. Woods, like Siegelman, supported those lawsuits. At least three times as governor, Siegelman used state funds to pay for him and his wife to fly and stay at resorts for the annual conferences of the Western Attorney General Association.

Did you ask Woods if he and Siegelman are old friends? Did you at all wonder why a former Arizona attorney general had taken such an interest in this case? Do you suppose Siegelman might have asked him to help, such as by putting together that petition signed by 52 former attorney generals? And would you suppose they are more familiar with Don Siegelman as a friend, or the facts and testimony put on at trial?

If you knew they were old friends and didn’t disclose this to viewers, why not? Were you afraid it might dilute the power of what he was saying?
 
Did you ask Woods specific questions about the evidence at the trial that he did not, to my knowledge, attend for one day? It is my guess that he couldn’t answer basic questions about the evidence. What you have is an old pal of the governor’s speaking in bold generalities about a case I doubt he knows much about.
         
Also, Woods asserts the following: “I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of.”

A reasonable follow-up question by Pelley might have been: But hadn’t he been defeated, “fair and square,” in the 2002 election?

In 2005, when he was indicted, Democrat Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley was all but the anointed party choice for the 2006 nomination, but you present Siegelman as if he was some vital force who Riley and the Republicans feared, and I dare you to locate a single political science professor in the state who would say as much. It’s not true, but for you, it was necessary. Without it, there would be no “motive basis” for the claim you assert with your opening sentence, which is more statement that question:  “Is Don Siegelman in prison because he’s a criminal or because he belonged to the wrong political party in Alabama?”

I assert that you made up your mind as to the answer to this question even before your reporters/producers began their investigation into the Siegelman prosecution. However, I welcome your comments to the contrary.
 
The leaks: Viewers were told the following:

Details of some of those investigations leaked to the press. And Siegelman lost his 2002 re-election campaign narrowly to Republican Bob Riley.

Then viewers were at that point shown an article written by myself and a fellow reporter, Jeff Amy, apparently this serving as evidence of “the leaks.” First off, a careful read of the piece would show that our story cited the Birmingham News, which initially reported the grand jury meeting in its paper the day before.
 
No proof whatsoever is offered to support what is stated as fact that the News or myself or anyone else received leaks from prosecutors. None. Because you have none. Prove me wrong.
 
Also, and I could be wrong here as well, but I don’t recall many grand jury type stories in 2002. There were dozens of stories on other matters, such as Siegelman’s use of a straw man to sell his house for twice its value to Alabama trial lawyer Lanny Vines; the revelation of a $500,000 payment by Waste Management to his pal Lanny Young after Young secured a secret deal from Siegelman controlled revenue department slashing taxes at the company’s massive west Alabama landfill; the many stories required to unearth the undisclosed “campaign donations” presented as routine by you; and many more instead.

And that’s just a partial list.

Instead, contrary to any evidence or proof, you connected Siegelman’s loss in the 2002 election to prosecutorial leaks for which you have no proof even occurred.

I am aware that Siegelman and his lawyer routinely blamed Republican prosecutors for stories in the Birmingham News reporting that Siegelman’s financial records had been subpoenaed, including holding a press conference, but they, like you, offered no proof. For my book, I recently called the News’ reporter, Brett Blackledge, who wrote that story Without identifying specifically who told him about the subpoenas, I will just say that Brett assured me it was not prosecutors.

No proof. None. Nor did you have the decency to call and ask the reporters.
 
Bill Canary: The following is a direct quote from the program: “The prosecution was handled by the office of U.S. Attorney Leura Canary, whose husband Bill Canary had run the campaign of Siegelman’s opponent, Gov. Riley.”

Bill Canary did not run Riley’s campaign. According to everything I’ve read, he was one of many unpaid advisors. What documentation do you have supporting that Canary ran Bob Riley’s campaign?

If you don’t have any such evidence, why not?  As you know, you use this fact as a lead in to Grant Woods’ assertions that Leura Canary should therefore not only have recused herself, but brought in prosecutors from another district.

As with virtually your entire piece, you present false evidence to support assertions with no basis in fact.
      
Nick Bailey: You state, “And there was another problem with the prosecutor’s star witness: Nick Bailey was a crook. Unknown to Siegelman, Bailey had been extorting money from Alabama businessmen.”

Assuming that Bailey didn’t tell anything to Siegelman – and the evidence is that he told the governor about at least some of the money he was receiving — why did you neglect to inform viewers that Siegelman was also convicted of covering up a $9,200 payment from Lanny Young, the Waste Management lobbyist and G.H. Construction figure? As surely you must know, prosecutors presented substantial evidence, including bank records, showing that Siegelman and Bailey covered up the payment from Young to Siegelman by concocting a bogus “loan repayment” for an equally bogus motorcycle sale.
This was not even referred to. Nor were viewers told, even in a single summary sentence, that the Siegelman administration was beset by numerous serious scandals and that it was those, not leaks, that led to his electoral downfall. Did you ever think to consider, for example, calling any one of the half-dozen or so university professors who follow state politics and are quite familiar with such matters?

The Don Siegelman you presented was a squeaky clean victim of Republicans.
      
Should you wish to comment, I can be reached by the above phone numbers and e-mail address [withheld by me].
 
Sincerely,
Eddie Curran
 
P.S.: I had, for your information, read something in a publication called the Montgomery Independent indicating that the 60 Minutes program would broach allegations against jurors in the trial. I have records which I believe would prove the anonymously sent e-mails were frauds, and for pure humanitarian purposes wanted to call 60 Minutes to offer that evidence in the hope that, whatever was coming, that the jurors be spared.

I didn’t know any of your names, and, as I told David when he asked how I got his number, I got it from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as I assumed, correctly, that they had been contacted by you. I was treated with what I thought was astonishing rudeness by David for merely calling him. This suggested that I am or had presented as being “among the enemy” by your team’s sources. I can tell you that I have never treated a fellow journalist in that manner for the sin of merely calling me.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Thursday, February 28th, 2008 at 10:14 pm and is filed under Alabama, Legal, Media, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.