Monday, June 11, 2007

WHO ARE JOE CLARK AND MARIA CUVILLON? WHO ARE "DC MADAME" DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY'S ACCUSERS?


"It's my understanding that there really was no investigation."
--Deborah Jeane Palfrey to the author.

Washington D.C.--"Do you realize that the information contained in the search warrant was 3-to-3 1/2, to 5-years-old?" states an exasperated Jeane Palfrey. The first thing one notes in speaking with Palfrey is her directness and approachability.

She's a
very well-spoken woman who sees the implications of her case, and that they go well-beyond her own peculiar predicament.

I point-out that the AP used the same excuse in October of 2006 as ABC recently did for not naming names on their 20/20 segment--she calls ABC's decision "curious."

Palfrey's clients might have included wealthy doctors and lawyers in Washington and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs, but now well-known names have so far surfaced, said a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The escort service, Pamela Martin & Associates, advertised in newspapers, on Web sites and in the Yellow Pages. It operated since 1993 “as an out-call prostitution business” of college-educated women with other jobs, the affidavit says. (AP, 10.10.2006)
The piece is careful not to use the words "confidential informants," but that's exactly what they were and are. Palfrey adds, "They would have had no knowledge of who the clients were at that point [October 9th when the interview for the above quote took place]. These folks did not have a black book--there never was one. They passed-up 46 lbs. of phone records...they were already making statements about the doctors and lawyers on the 9th of October." Could this suggest they already had an prepared outline of what to charge Ms. Palfrey with?

It appears at this point that the prosecution has lost the script, with the defendant shut-out of court--an obvious abrogation of due process, a Kafka hell.

The good news is that the Supreme Court could be her venue-of-choice soon. Interestingly, the decision is being pushed by Justice Clarence Thomas. Also of-note: her "gentleman's agreement" not to divulge any information expired after the 20/20 broadcast (they wanted the other nine years of her phone records too), and the gag order barring her from releasing more phone records appears to be floundering with a lot of back-peddling by Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler.