1
00:00:09,400 --> 00:00:11,240
Speaker 1: Hey, David, it's Lyra. Hey.

2
00:00:12,000 --> 00:00:14,400
Speaker 2: What's the first thing you think of? When I asked

3
00:00:14,440 --> 00:00:18,599
Speaker 2: about William Kennedy Smith in nineteen ninety one, the one.

4
00:00:18,480 --> 00:00:24,360
Speaker 3: Thing that stands out to me was William Kennedy Smith's smile.

5
00:00:24,600 --> 00:00:27,160
Speaker 3: He kind of had a wry smile and wink in

6
00:00:27,160 --> 00:00:30,319
Speaker 3: his eye. And I was hoping always that he was

7
00:00:30,480 --> 00:00:34,040
Speaker 3: not guilty, because after all the tragedy the family had

8
00:00:34,080 --> 00:00:36,839
Speaker 3: been through in our country watched and we were so

9
00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:40,480
Speaker 3: invested in the Kennedy clan. And I can't remember if

10
00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:43,960
Speaker 3: the alleged victim ever revealed herself or not. I don't

11
00:00:44,000 --> 00:00:47,880
Speaker 3: think she did, but I remember his uncle coming to testify.

12
00:00:48,200 --> 00:00:50,920
Speaker 3: The world was really small back then. I think I

13
00:00:50,960 --> 00:00:53,000
Speaker 3: only saw it on the news or listen to the

14
00:00:53,120 --> 00:00:56,480
Speaker 3: radio in the car. But when the verdict came through,

15
00:00:57,120 --> 00:01:10,080
Speaker 3: he was acquitted and the Kennedys could get back being Kennedy's.

16
00:01:10,520 --> 00:01:14,280
Speaker 1: I'm George Severes, I'm Lyverra Smith, and this is United

17
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:17,920
Speaker 1: States of Kennedy, a podcast about our cultural fascination with

18
00:01:17,959 --> 00:01:21,520
Speaker 1: the Kennedy dynasty. Every week we go into one aspect

19
00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:24,520
Speaker 1: of the Kennedy story, and today we are talking about

20
00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:26,679
Speaker 1: the William Kennedy Smith rape trial.

21
00:01:27,080 --> 00:01:31,319
Speaker 2: In nineteen ninety one, JFK's nephew, William Kennedy Smith, was

22
00:01:31,360 --> 00:01:35,080
Speaker 2: accused of raping Patricia Bowman at the Kennedy residence in

23
00:01:35,200 --> 00:01:38,280
Speaker 2: Palm Beach. The part of the story everyone agrees on

24
00:01:38,520 --> 00:01:40,000
Speaker 2: is that the two of them met at a bar

25
00:01:40,080 --> 00:01:42,640
Speaker 2: in the area while Kennedy Smith was having drinks with

26
00:01:42,680 --> 00:01:46,640
Speaker 2: his uncle Ted Kennedy and his cousin Patrick. They hit

27
00:01:46,720 --> 00:01:49,880
Speaker 2: it off, and Patricia Bowman offered Kennedy Smith a ride

28
00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:53,680
Speaker 2: home after Ted and Patrick had already left without him.

29
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:56,360
Speaker 1: So they go from the bar to the Kennedy residence,

30
00:01:56,480 --> 00:02:00,000
Speaker 1: and after they arrive, their stories diverge. According to Smith,

31
00:02:00,400 --> 00:02:04,920
Speaker 1: the two have two separate consensual sexual encounters, one on

32
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:06,960
Speaker 1: the beach and one on the grass closer to the

33
00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:11,320
Speaker 1: Kennedy residence. According to Patricia Bowman, Smith removes his clothes

34
00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:14,520
Speaker 1: to go swimming, She gets uncomfortable and decides she wants

35
00:02:14,560 --> 00:02:17,320
Speaker 1: to go home. She leaves, and then he chases after

36
00:02:17,360 --> 00:02:20,320
Speaker 1: her and attacks her, pinning her down and assaulting her.

37
00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:24,200
Speaker 2: This is all happening as sexual harassment is freshly in

38
00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:28,000
Speaker 2: the public's mind due to Anita Hill's testimony about Clarence Thomas,

39
00:02:28,520 --> 00:02:32,400
Speaker 2: and the concept of date rape was still relatively new.

40
00:02:33,280 --> 00:02:36,440
Speaker 2: The fact that Patricia Bowman drove Smith back to the

41
00:02:36,520 --> 00:02:40,079
Speaker 2: Kennedy residence set doubt against her as a reliable witness,

42
00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:44,600
Speaker 2: which made jury selection really difficult. Not to mention that

43
00:02:44,680 --> 00:02:47,040
Speaker 2: it was a small county, so a lot of people

44
00:02:47,280 --> 00:02:49,640
Speaker 2: already had developed opinions about the case.

45
00:02:49,919 --> 00:02:53,040
Speaker 1: So she was a classic imperfect victim. And he was

46
00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:56,120
Speaker 1: a Kennedy. So more about William Kennedy Smith. He was

47
00:02:56,200 --> 00:02:58,200
Speaker 1: thirty years old at the time. He was a fourth

48
00:02:58,280 --> 00:03:01,400
Speaker 1: year med student at Georgetown, and that was all that

49
00:03:01,440 --> 00:03:04,560
Speaker 1: most Americans knew about him beyond him being a Kennedy.

50
00:03:04,880 --> 00:03:07,079
Speaker 1: He was handsome, he was educated, he came from a

51
00:03:07,120 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 1: famous family. Meanwhile, Patricia Bowman was an unmarried single mother

52
00:03:11,240 --> 00:03:14,160
Speaker 1: who was out drinking until three am. So it's not

53
00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:17,320
Speaker 1: hard to imagine people, especially at that time, considering her

54
00:03:17,320 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 1: willingness to drive him home as signing up to spend

55
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:22,079
Speaker 1: the night together.

56
00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:25,920
Speaker 2: Which hits at the core catch twenty two of victim

57
00:03:25,919 --> 00:03:29,840
Speaker 2: blaming in these cases. People say she should have expected

58
00:03:29,880 --> 00:03:32,560
Speaker 2: to get assaulted by allowing herself to be alone with

59
00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:35,920
Speaker 2: him at his house, while at the same time, saying, well,

60
00:03:36,000 --> 00:03:39,080
Speaker 2: of course we believe him over her because he's such

61
00:03:39,120 --> 00:03:43,640
Speaker 2: an upstanding and trustworthy man. She also thought, this is

62
00:03:43,640 --> 00:03:45,640
Speaker 2: not a man I should be afraid to be alone with,

63
00:03:46,240 --> 00:03:49,600
Speaker 2: so him assaulting her would be totally shocking and unpredictable.

64
00:03:49,920 --> 00:03:52,360
Speaker 1: The other irony, of course, is that Ted Kennedy is

65
00:03:52,480 --> 00:03:55,240
Speaker 1: essentially the star witness, so he was with them at

66
00:03:55,280 --> 00:03:58,720
Speaker 1: the bar and then later gives an emotional testimony to

67
00:03:58,760 --> 00:04:01,840
Speaker 1: remind the jury that William's father had recently died, and

68
00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:05,520
Speaker 1: yet another blow to the great American Kennedy family. Ted

69
00:04:05,600 --> 00:04:08,600
Speaker 1: Kennedy basically reframes a night of drinking as a night

70
00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:11,640
Speaker 1: of grieving with family, the same Ted Kennedy, who, as

71
00:04:11,640 --> 00:04:14,240
Speaker 1: we discussed again last week, left the scene of an

72
00:04:14,240 --> 00:04:16,360
Speaker 1: accident that resulted in a young woman's death.

73
00:04:16,760 --> 00:04:20,600
Speaker 2: So that's the disparity between the individuals and the public eye.

74
00:04:20,680 --> 00:04:24,720
Speaker 2: The lawyers were also in different leagues of access and privilege.

75
00:04:25,360 --> 00:04:28,560
Speaker 2: The Kennedys hired Roy Black, who at the time had

76
00:04:28,600 --> 00:04:33,200
Speaker 2: already represented controversial defendants, such as a mother whose toddler

77
00:04:33,320 --> 00:04:36,599
Speaker 2: drowned in the sink. The fact that her first child

78
00:04:36,640 --> 00:04:39,400
Speaker 2: died the same way was kept from the jury. She

79
00:04:39,520 --> 00:04:42,680
Speaker 2: was acquitted. He would go on to represent more cool

80
00:04:42,720 --> 00:04:44,280
Speaker 2: people like Jeffrey Epstein.

81
00:04:44,760 --> 00:04:48,479
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, Patricia Bowman's lawyer was Moira lash So. Lash was

82
00:04:48,480 --> 00:04:51,360
Speaker 1: the assistant State Attorney of Palm Beach County. She had

83
00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:54,320
Speaker 1: a stellar professional history with a nearly one hundred percent

84
00:04:54,360 --> 00:04:57,919
Speaker 1: conviction record, but she didn't play to the press and

85
00:04:58,080 --> 00:05:00,920
Speaker 1: even requested the judge be reassign as she believed she

86
00:05:00,960 --> 00:05:04,640
Speaker 1: would not be partial, which backfired as the request was denied.

87
00:05:05,040 --> 00:05:07,839
Speaker 2: She had a strong case going into the trial. Lash

88
00:05:07,880 --> 00:05:10,720
Speaker 2: had testimony of three other women who said Smith had

89
00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:13,920
Speaker 2: also assaulted them, but the judge didn't allow them to

90
00:05:13,960 --> 00:05:17,320
Speaker 2: be heard by the jury, claiming it didn't prove a pattern.

91
00:05:17,880 --> 00:05:21,000
Speaker 1: So she did have testimony of three other women and

92
00:05:21,120 --> 00:05:23,880
Speaker 1: that was not allowed to be even mentioned in court.

93
00:05:23,960 --> 00:05:27,240
Speaker 1: And that was honestly just one of many problems. As

94
00:05:27,240 --> 00:05:30,960
Speaker 1: we'll discuss later, there were a few elements of the

95
00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:35,919
Speaker 1: trial that were just completely detrimental to Lash's case. A

96
00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:38,240
Speaker 1: couple of things that come to mind are, first of all,

97
00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:42,919
Speaker 1: the testimony of Anne Mercer, who is Patricia Bowman's friend

98
00:05:42,920 --> 00:05:45,839
Speaker 1: who was called as a witness. It turned out her

99
00:05:45,920 --> 00:05:49,920
Speaker 1: boyfriend had stolen an earned from the Kennedy estate when

100
00:05:49,960 --> 00:05:54,080
Speaker 1: they went to pick up Patricia Bowman and the urn

101
00:05:54,640 --> 00:05:58,280
Speaker 1: was placed in front of her as she was answering

102
00:05:58,320 --> 00:06:02,280
Speaker 1: the questions as a witness, which just served to remind

103
00:06:02,360 --> 00:06:05,640
Speaker 1: everyone watching, both in the courtroom and at home, that

104
00:06:06,279 --> 00:06:10,200
Speaker 1: she was, at her core, an unethical person who is dishonest,

105
00:06:10,200 --> 00:06:12,760
Speaker 1: and who would do something like watch someone steal and

106
00:06:12,880 --> 00:06:13,960
Speaker 1: urn and not do anything.

107
00:06:14,440 --> 00:06:16,480
Speaker 2: The reason why he says he took it was to

108
00:06:16,520 --> 00:06:18,599
Speaker 2: prove that they were there right.

109
00:06:18,520 --> 00:06:22,320
Speaker 1: Exactly, so Ann Mercer's boyfriend stole the urn to prove

110
00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:25,640
Speaker 1: that he was there at the Kennedy estate. Ann Mercer

111
00:06:25,680 --> 00:06:28,359
Speaker 1: did not mention it when she was interrogated at another time,

112
00:06:28,720 --> 00:06:31,240
Speaker 1: and then she was caught in a lie by the

113
00:06:31,400 --> 00:06:33,920
Speaker 1: Kennedy team, which, of course, as we'll mention, later had

114
00:06:33,960 --> 00:06:37,200
Speaker 1: five private investigators at their disposal, whereas more Lash was

115
00:06:37,240 --> 00:06:40,839
Speaker 1: an assistant state attorney. Another element of the case which

116
00:06:40,920 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 1: really hurt the Patricia Bowman side was that she was

117
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:48,000
Speaker 1: written about in the press with a certain level of suspicion.

118
00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:50,080
Speaker 1: One of the things that happened is that The New

119
00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:53,480
Speaker 1: York Times published her name, which actually went against its

120
00:06:53,480 --> 00:06:56,680
Speaker 1: own guidelines of covering cases like this, and then that

121
00:06:56,760 --> 00:07:00,440
Speaker 1: led to larger fallout. It led to even worse tabloid coverage.

122
00:07:01,080 --> 00:07:03,159
Speaker 1: So all of this is to say one of the

123
00:07:03,200 --> 00:07:05,880
Speaker 1: reasons why this trial was so impactful was because of

124
00:07:05,920 --> 00:07:09,200
Speaker 1: its media coverage and specifically because it all happened on

125
00:07:09,320 --> 00:07:09,920
Speaker 1: live TV.

126
00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:13,280
Speaker 2: It set the stage for the OJ Trial to take

127
00:07:13,360 --> 00:07:16,800
Speaker 2: over the world's attention. Just a few years later. Court

128
00:07:16,840 --> 00:07:20,360
Speaker 2: TV launched one month before the William Kennedy Smith trial

129
00:07:20,880 --> 00:07:24,720
Speaker 2: and proved the network could be a runaway success. CNN

130
00:07:24,880 --> 00:07:28,120
Speaker 2: also aired Gavel to Gavel coverage for the first time,

131
00:07:28,240 --> 00:07:32,520
Speaker 2: and its ratings sword During the ten day trial, nineteen

132
00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:35,960
Speaker 2: different members of the Kennedy family were present to support

133
00:07:35,960 --> 00:07:39,240
Speaker 2: William Kennedy Smith. The public aid it up and didn't

134
00:07:39,320 --> 00:07:43,080
Speaker 2: learn until afterwards that Smith had been accused of sexually

135
00:07:43,120 --> 00:07:45,080
Speaker 2: assaulting other women before Bowman.

136
00:07:45,560 --> 00:07:49,040
Speaker 1: William Kennedy Smith was ultimately acquitted, but he would go

137
00:07:49,080 --> 00:07:51,640
Speaker 1: on to be accused of sexual assault and harassment by

138
00:07:51,680 --> 00:07:54,920
Speaker 1: three more women in Chicago. While running a nonprofit.

139
00:07:54,600 --> 00:07:58,240
Speaker 2: With US Today to discuss the way everything changed once

140
00:07:58,320 --> 00:08:00,800
Speaker 2: cameras were added to the courtroom is Paul Faylor.

141
00:08:01,360 --> 00:08:04,040
Speaker 1: Paul Faylor has written two books on the subject the

142
00:08:04,080 --> 00:08:07,400
Speaker 1: watchful eye, American justice in the age of the television trial,

143
00:08:07,880 --> 00:08:10,640
Speaker 1: and the spectacle media in the making of the oj

144
00:08:10,760 --> 00:08:14,600
Speaker 1: Simpsons story. Doctor Taylor, thanks for joining us. If you

145
00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:17,400
Speaker 1: can describe just what the trial was in the most

146
00:08:17,480 --> 00:08:20,480
Speaker 1: basic sense before we get into the media coverage of

147
00:08:20,520 --> 00:08:23,520
Speaker 1: it and court TV and all that. Who was the defendant,

148
00:08:23,560 --> 00:08:25,600
Speaker 1: who was the accused, and what happened?

149
00:08:25,880 --> 00:08:29,040
Speaker 4: Well, very simply, it was kind of an ordinary tale

150
00:08:29,200 --> 00:08:32,920
Speaker 4: where William Kennedy Smith meets this young thirty one year

151
00:08:32,920 --> 00:08:36,960
Speaker 4: old med student meets this thirty year old individual, and

152
00:08:37,000 --> 00:08:41,480
Speaker 4: they later go back to William Kennedy Smith's estate. He

153
00:08:41,640 --> 00:08:45,280
Speaker 4: asks her to go for a swim, she declines, he does,

154
00:08:45,679 --> 00:08:49,320
Speaker 4: goes for a swim, comes back. They engage in some

155
00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:53,040
Speaker 4: sexual encounter, and this is whether the great debate comes

156
00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:56,839
Speaker 4: in whether in fact it was consensual or not, and

157
00:08:57,200 --> 00:09:04,160
Speaker 4: subsequently this small, everyday kind of encounter becomes this national event.

158
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:07,199
Speaker 4: So that's really the background. There's not really a lot

159
00:09:07,240 --> 00:09:10,080
Speaker 4: of mystery to where both these folks were coming from.

160
00:09:10,640 --> 00:09:14,959
Speaker 4: Patricia Bowman certainly has a different type of growing up background,

161
00:09:15,080 --> 00:09:17,600
Speaker 4: having to do with kind of a disruptive family life

162
00:09:17,640 --> 00:09:21,240
Speaker 4: and the like. So they come from two different economic

163
00:09:21,400 --> 00:09:26,640
Speaker 4: and social settings coming to play on that estate there

164
00:09:26,679 --> 00:09:30,600
Speaker 4: in Palm Beach, leading to this sensational.

165
00:09:29,960 --> 00:09:32,559
Speaker 5: Trial that kind of broke out in nineteen ninety one.

166
00:09:32,840 --> 00:09:37,079
Speaker 2: And at that time, what was like the cultural understanding

167
00:09:37,120 --> 00:09:39,079
Speaker 2: of date rate as a concept.

168
00:09:39,360 --> 00:09:42,640
Speaker 4: Yeah, it was certainly very very viable, and that certainly

169
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:46,280
Speaker 4: comes into play in the trial itself, and it was

170
00:09:46,360 --> 00:09:49,440
Speaker 4: interesting in the wake of the verdict of that case,

171
00:09:50,040 --> 00:09:55,600
Speaker 4: which essentially is a not guilty verdict against William Kennedy Smith,

172
00:09:56,080 --> 00:09:59,920
Speaker 4: there was concern that a rate accusations would go down.

173
00:10:00,160 --> 00:10:04,160
Speaker 4: In fact, during that trial, date rape accusations of the

174
00:10:04,200 --> 00:10:08,960
Speaker 4: Palm Beach area did decline because victims of date rape

175
00:10:09,000 --> 00:10:11,320
Speaker 4: certainly didn't want to be exposed as part of such

176
00:10:11,320 --> 00:10:15,760
Speaker 4: a high profile trial where actually the victim, the alleged

177
00:10:15,840 --> 00:10:19,360
Speaker 4: victim in that case, is actually on camera, even though

178
00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:23,000
Speaker 4: she was blotted out by electronics. People got to know

179
00:10:23,080 --> 00:10:26,160
Speaker 4: Patricia Bowman pretty well, not only through the trial, but

180
00:10:26,240 --> 00:10:30,800
Speaker 4: also through other media coverage. The New York Times wrote

181
00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:34,319
Speaker 4: an expose about her life the background of her life,

182
00:10:34,480 --> 00:10:38,280
Speaker 4: So it certainly did have an impact on the social

183
00:10:38,800 --> 00:10:42,520
Speaker 4: political climate surrounding date rape during that particular time.

184
00:10:43,280 --> 00:10:45,360
Speaker 1: And as you said, her name was published in the

185
00:10:45,360 --> 00:10:47,959
Speaker 1: New York Times, which in fact went against their guidelines

186
00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:51,000
Speaker 1: and led to fall out both in the public and

187
00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:53,920
Speaker 1: also internally at the Times. There were a few journalists

188
00:10:53,960 --> 00:10:56,080
Speaker 1: there and New York Times employees that signed a letter

189
00:10:56,120 --> 00:10:59,520
Speaker 1: saying they disagreed with the coverage. But before we get

190
00:10:59,559 --> 00:11:01,760
Speaker 1: to the of the sort of media circus around it,

191
00:11:02,000 --> 00:11:04,360
Speaker 1: I want to get down like the main characters. So

192
00:11:04,440 --> 00:11:06,640
Speaker 1: we have the two people involved in the actual event,

193
00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:08,440
Speaker 1: and then can you tell us a little bit about

194
00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:09,560
Speaker 1: each of their lawyers?

195
00:11:09,880 --> 00:11:13,040
Speaker 4: Oh well, I know it's funny, haveter now revisit that

196
00:11:13,360 --> 00:11:16,120
Speaker 4: piece of this. I believe that William Kennedy Smith had

197
00:11:16,160 --> 00:11:18,960
Speaker 4: a very high profile lawyer by the name of Roy Black.

198
00:11:19,400 --> 00:11:22,160
Speaker 4: I actually got to know Roy through interviewing over the

199
00:11:22,240 --> 00:11:24,840
Speaker 4: years because he was involved in some other high profile

200
00:11:24,920 --> 00:11:29,280
Speaker 4: cases and his team essentially was kind of the dream

201
00:11:29,360 --> 00:11:33,080
Speaker 4: team of that particular time. I can't really speak to

202
00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:37,280
Speaker 4: Patricia Bowman's lawyers. I imagine they were state prosecutors and

203
00:11:37,440 --> 00:11:41,120
Speaker 4: they were involved in that case. But certainly William Kennedy

204
00:11:41,160 --> 00:11:46,240
Speaker 4: Smith had the name and the resources and his uncle

205
00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:50,840
Speaker 4: behind this case. In fact, Edward Kennedy testifies during that

206
00:11:50,920 --> 00:11:55,600
Speaker 4: particular trial. So in terms of the social political dynamics,

207
00:11:55,920 --> 00:11:59,120
Speaker 4: it certainly was waighing in favor of the defendant in

208
00:11:59,120 --> 00:11:59,959
Speaker 4: this particular case.

209
00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:02,479
Speaker 5: That's what I can say about that relationship.

210
00:12:03,240 --> 00:12:06,520
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean this is after words. But Roy Black

211
00:12:06,920 --> 00:12:11,760
Speaker 2: represented Kelsey Grammer, he represented Joe Francis from Girls Gone Wild,

212
00:12:12,040 --> 00:12:15,719
Speaker 2: he represented Jeffrey Epstein, and then way more recently than

213
00:12:15,720 --> 00:12:18,760
Speaker 2: the others, he represented Justin Bieber. He's like a name,

214
00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:19,320
Speaker 2: you know.

215
00:12:19,640 --> 00:12:22,200
Speaker 1: He was also called the He had earned the nickname

216
00:12:22,280 --> 00:12:26,120
Speaker 1: the Professor for his sort of, you know, methodical approach

217
00:12:26,360 --> 00:12:29,000
Speaker 1: to building a case and to questioning people. I do

218
00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:31,640
Speaker 1: want to say before this trial, one of the things

219
00:12:31,640 --> 00:12:34,240
Speaker 1: he was known for in Florida was winning this nineteen

220
00:12:34,320 --> 00:12:37,240
Speaker 1: eighty nine acquittal of a police officer who shot and

221
00:12:37,320 --> 00:12:41,120
Speaker 1: killed the black motorcyclist. He was known as taking on

222
00:12:41,240 --> 00:12:45,000
Speaker 1: these kind of controversial cases, and for this trial, one

223
00:12:45,040 --> 00:12:48,360
Speaker 1: of the ways that he really just crushed the other

224
00:12:48,440 --> 00:12:51,760
Speaker 1: side is that he hired five private investigators to dig

225
00:12:51,840 --> 00:12:54,960
Speaker 1: up information about Bowman. She had a child out of wedlock,

226
00:12:55,040 --> 00:12:58,040
Speaker 1: she had gotten abortions, that all these things that just

227
00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:01,200
Speaker 1: if you are primed to not leave her really did

228
00:13:01,240 --> 00:13:03,480
Speaker 1: not help in the culture that was already going in

229
00:13:03,679 --> 00:13:05,640
Speaker 1: sort of suspicious of a story like this.

230
00:13:05,960 --> 00:13:08,360
Speaker 5: Yeah, they certainly publicized those facts.

231
00:13:08,440 --> 00:13:12,320
Speaker 4: I think she had like fourteen traffic violations and they

232
00:13:12,360 --> 00:13:16,200
Speaker 4: spoke about her driving record, And you're absolutely right, she

233
00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:19,880
Speaker 4: was kind of painted as that woman that you know,

234
00:13:19,960 --> 00:13:23,240
Speaker 4: out to get Kennedy. She was certainly the accuser, but

235
00:13:23,360 --> 00:13:27,200
Speaker 4: also in certain ways defending herself during this particular trial.

236
00:13:27,640 --> 00:13:31,360
Speaker 4: So yeah, the scales of justice wasn't necessarily balanced in

237
00:13:31,440 --> 00:13:32,440
Speaker 4: this particular case.

238
00:13:32,640 --> 00:13:35,400
Speaker 2: Will be back with more United States at Kennedy after this.

239
00:13:35,440 --> 00:13:50,319
Speaker 1: Break, and we're back with the United States of Kennedy.

240
00:13:50,679 --> 00:13:53,880
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's kind of wild looking at it today, it

241
00:13:53,960 --> 00:13:58,080
Speaker 2: almost seems fictional, Like it almost seems written her position

242
00:13:58,240 --> 00:13:59,920
Speaker 2: and his position, and then you know.

243
00:14:00,240 --> 00:14:03,560
Speaker 1: It really is these sort of archetypes of the powerful

244
00:14:03,640 --> 00:14:06,520
Speaker 1: man that has all the resources on his side, the

245
00:14:06,720 --> 00:14:10,199
Speaker 1: imperfect victim that people are primed not to believe because

246
00:14:10,240 --> 00:14:13,000
Speaker 1: she's perfect in every way and she has God forbid

247
00:14:13,040 --> 00:14:15,520
Speaker 1: made mistakes in the past. I mean it is almost

248
00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:17,200
Speaker 1: like a morality tale or something.

249
00:14:17,720 --> 00:14:21,320
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's interesting because emblazoned in our mind is this

250
00:14:21,400 --> 00:14:24,720
Speaker 4: kind of story, narrative and One of the reasons it

251
00:14:24,840 --> 00:14:27,200
Speaker 4: is so prominent and that we are speaking about it

252
00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:31,320
Speaker 4: today is really because it was televised, and even though

253
00:14:31,320 --> 00:14:34,200
Speaker 4: it was a high profile case for the most part,

254
00:14:34,600 --> 00:14:38,840
Speaker 4: it would have been certainly less prominent in our historic

255
00:14:38,960 --> 00:14:42,520
Speaker 4: mind collective if, in fact, we hadn't seen that ten

256
00:14:42,600 --> 00:14:46,720
Speaker 4: day trial, hour upon hour on television. And it was

257
00:14:46,760 --> 00:14:49,200
Speaker 4: also kind of and perhaps we'll talk about as a

258
00:14:49,320 --> 00:14:53,120
Speaker 4: historic time for television because C and N is just

259
00:14:53,240 --> 00:14:56,360
Speaker 4: pretty much born in nineteen ninety one. It's just very

260
00:14:56,480 --> 00:14:59,680
Speaker 4: very new, and there's a new network that I'm sure

261
00:14:59,680 --> 00:15:02,280
Speaker 4: we'll talk talk about as well, called court TV. That

262
00:15:02,360 --> 00:15:06,560
Speaker 4: narrative is very very prominent in our minds because those

263
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:09,360
Speaker 4: images are in our mind. I think it visualized that

264
00:15:09,440 --> 00:15:11,160
Speaker 4: courtroom as it played out.

265
00:15:11,880 --> 00:15:15,440
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting because actually one of my first memories

266
00:15:15,480 --> 00:15:20,480
Speaker 2: of television is the Bronco Chase from OJ and in

267
00:15:20,520 --> 00:15:25,480
Speaker 2: my head, that's the most famous televised court case. That's

268
00:15:25,520 --> 00:15:29,400
Speaker 2: what created this industry. But that's not really the truth.

269
00:15:29,520 --> 00:15:33,400
Speaker 2: This predated that, and this had a wide audience. Can

270
00:15:33,440 --> 00:15:36,840
Speaker 2: you explain a bit about putting cameras in the courtroom.

271
00:15:36,440 --> 00:15:40,239
Speaker 4: And back in the day, this was a high profile

272
00:15:40,520 --> 00:15:45,120
Speaker 4: controversy whether or not to allow the courtroom, which was

273
00:15:45,160 --> 00:15:47,960
Speaker 4: once kind of a sanctuary in terms of justice. The

274
00:15:48,040 --> 00:15:51,760
Speaker 4: last thing judges wanted is to have the avalanche of

275
00:15:51,840 --> 00:15:55,520
Speaker 4: public opinion flow into a high profile case, or any

276
00:15:55,520 --> 00:15:58,880
Speaker 4: case for that matter. And once cameras came in, those

277
00:15:58,920 --> 00:16:02,760
Speaker 4: floodgates opened and we had all this publicity leading to

278
00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:05,880
Speaker 4: a new genre which I kind of named the television trial,

279
00:16:06,600 --> 00:16:09,560
Speaker 4: and it became its own thing, its own genre, with

280
00:16:09,600 --> 00:16:14,160
Speaker 4: its own network and it's own cast of characters and

281
00:16:14,520 --> 00:16:18,360
Speaker 4: the idea that you remember the Broncochase. Well, that led

282
00:16:18,400 --> 00:16:23,160
Speaker 4: to an eleven month trial that certainly captivated maybe the world,

283
00:16:23,320 --> 00:16:29,800
Speaker 4: but certainly in America, captivated all networks, all eyes, all discussion.

284
00:16:30,440 --> 00:16:33,920
Speaker 4: You could not escape the year of Simpson. So no

285
00:16:34,040 --> 00:16:35,920
Speaker 4: wonder it plays in your mind though.

286
00:16:35,960 --> 00:16:39,280
Speaker 1: So especially cored TV. This trial really coincided with the

287
00:16:39,280 --> 00:16:42,000
Speaker 1: birth of Court TV. And it's funny because you hear

288
00:16:42,080 --> 00:16:45,360
Speaker 1: court TV and you imagine the sort of craven, trashy

289
00:16:46,040 --> 00:16:50,120
Speaker 1: organization that is trying to quote unquote exploit people at

290
00:16:50,160 --> 00:16:53,760
Speaker 1: their most vulnerable or people at these very significant moments,

291
00:16:53,800 --> 00:16:56,240
Speaker 1: and trying to make entertainment out of something that should

292
00:16:56,240 --> 00:17:01,040
Speaker 1: be a very serious legal event. You know, we watched

293
00:17:01,080 --> 00:17:06,040
Speaker 1: the Court TV special that summarized this case, and something

294
00:17:06,080 --> 00:17:08,120
Speaker 1: that really struck me was that compared to how things

295
00:17:08,119 --> 00:17:11,840
Speaker 1: are now, it actually seems very respectable. Compared to what

296
00:17:11,880 --> 00:17:14,560
Speaker 1: I now think of as the trashy parts of the

297
00:17:14,680 --> 00:17:18,400
Speaker 1: entertainment industry, it seems like pretty buttoned up. So I'm

298
00:17:18,400 --> 00:17:20,120
Speaker 1: wondering if you can tell us a little bit about

299
00:17:20,160 --> 00:17:24,640
Speaker 1: just where Court TV came from, who was behind it,

300
00:17:25,080 --> 00:17:26,879
Speaker 1: and how it captured the moment.

301
00:17:27,560 --> 00:17:29,760
Speaker 4: Well, I can't speak very directly to it because I

302
00:17:29,760 --> 00:17:33,639
Speaker 4: would get into memorable debates with Steve Brill, who was

303
00:17:33,680 --> 00:17:35,679
Speaker 4: the founder of Court TV. So I got to know

304
00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:38,920
Speaker 4: Steve quite well. We were pretty much on opposite sides

305
00:17:39,080 --> 00:17:42,680
Speaker 4: of the camera debate. So there's a lawyer. In fact,

306
00:17:42,760 --> 00:17:46,479
Speaker 4: he was also the editor of a publication called American Lawyer,

307
00:17:47,000 --> 00:17:49,359
Speaker 4: so he was in the media print.

308
00:17:49,160 --> 00:17:52,080
Speaker 5: Business, and he has this idea.

309
00:17:52,280 --> 00:17:54,399
Speaker 4: In fact, he tells the story that he's in the

310
00:17:54,480 --> 00:17:57,960
Speaker 4: car and he comes up with this idea that maybe

311
00:17:57,960 --> 00:18:02,440
Speaker 4: we should televise trials, and that leads to this kind

312
00:18:02,480 --> 00:18:08,600
Speaker 4: of new network on cable Core TV, and they were

313
00:18:08,640 --> 00:18:10,640
Speaker 4: kind of scrambling, you know, me trying to figure out

314
00:18:10,640 --> 00:18:12,919
Speaker 4: what are we going to do with court television because

315
00:18:12,960 --> 00:18:16,720
Speaker 4: for the most part, trials are boring. You know, trials

316
00:18:16,760 --> 00:18:19,680
Speaker 4: aren't entertaining. If you've ever sat through a trial, you

317
00:18:19,800 --> 00:18:23,600
Speaker 4: realize how ted is it could become. So you know,

318
00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:26,000
Speaker 4: I would go down to court TV here in New York.

319
00:18:26,119 --> 00:18:29,320
Speaker 4: I know he sold that business. Subsequently, it's no longer

320
00:18:29,359 --> 00:18:32,240
Speaker 4: in his hands. But in the beginning it was really

321
00:18:32,280 --> 00:18:36,960
Speaker 4: this newborn television child and the William Kennedy Smith trial.

322
00:18:37,160 --> 00:18:39,800
Speaker 5: Court TV was the pool camera.

323
00:18:40,119 --> 00:18:43,639
Speaker 4: For all the networks in that particular trial, and actually

324
00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:46,960
Speaker 4: Steve was a very high profile character. He actually wanted

325
00:18:47,000 --> 00:18:52,919
Speaker 4: to charge CNN and other outlets to take his pool

326
00:18:53,000 --> 00:18:55,920
Speaker 4: footage from that case. They kind of reached an agreement

327
00:18:55,960 --> 00:18:59,959
Speaker 4: that he was only there representing the press at large.

328
00:19:00,040 --> 00:19:02,760
Speaker 5: But that's kind of a side note to core.

329
00:19:02,720 --> 00:19:03,919
Speaker 1: TV and what does that mean?

330
00:19:04,040 --> 00:19:07,080
Speaker 2: Does that mean they had the singular the camera.

331
00:19:07,520 --> 00:19:08,280
Speaker 5: Yeah, it was.

332
00:19:08,240 --> 00:19:12,520
Speaker 4: Their camera, the core TV camera in but the agreement

333
00:19:12,720 --> 00:19:15,360
Speaker 4: is is that other networks would be allowed.

334
00:19:15,040 --> 00:19:16,840
Speaker 5: To use that pool footage.

335
00:19:17,359 --> 00:19:19,840
Speaker 4: We couldn't have every camera in that courtroom, so we

336
00:19:19,920 --> 00:19:23,280
Speaker 4: had that single camera. That's typically how it goes in

337
00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:26,240
Speaker 4: these television trials. I got a behind the scenes look

338
00:19:26,560 --> 00:19:29,960
Speaker 4: at how Core TV worked and it's really no surprise.

339
00:19:30,119 --> 00:19:33,240
Speaker 4: I asked Steve, you know what trials are you selecting

340
00:19:33,359 --> 00:19:34,760
Speaker 4: even to televise?

341
00:19:35,760 --> 00:19:39,359
Speaker 5: And basically his choices was really based on the entertainment

342
00:19:39,440 --> 00:19:40,639
Speaker 5: medium of television.

343
00:19:40,680 --> 00:19:43,520
Speaker 4: Whether this was a high profile case with characters that

344
00:19:43,520 --> 00:19:47,320
Speaker 4: could sell well on television, that we could identify with

345
00:19:47,760 --> 00:19:53,280
Speaker 4: the storylines could be captivating to us, date rape, for instance,

346
00:19:53,680 --> 00:19:57,119
Speaker 4: murder of two people out in Brentwood, California, you know.

347
00:19:57,480 --> 00:20:01,359
Speaker 4: And so the values here we see the merging and

348
00:20:01,359 --> 00:20:03,280
Speaker 4: I don't want to get too academic here, but we

349
00:20:03,320 --> 00:20:08,000
Speaker 4: see the merging of entertainment values with legal values, and

350
00:20:08,080 --> 00:20:10,800
Speaker 4: often they certainly didn't coincide.

351
00:20:11,160 --> 00:20:16,120
Speaker 5: We appreciate the relative quiet judicial.

352
00:20:15,760 --> 00:20:18,600
Speaker 4: Notions that go into a trial, you know, the very

353
00:20:18,680 --> 00:20:21,919
Speaker 4: idea that we're supposed to hold off a verdict in

354
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:24,560
Speaker 4: a trial until the very end, until both sides present

355
00:20:24,640 --> 00:20:27,320
Speaker 4: their case. And we know, when it comes to these

356
00:20:27,400 --> 00:20:31,440
Speaker 4: high profile cases, verdicts by the public at least are

357
00:20:31,480 --> 00:20:35,240
Speaker 4: reached much much sooner by their connection to the trial itself.

358
00:20:35,440 --> 00:20:38,879
Speaker 4: In fact, you're pushed into sides, which person do you believe?

359
00:20:39,119 --> 00:20:42,160
Speaker 4: And it becomes a media event itself, what I call

360
00:20:42,240 --> 00:20:44,520
Speaker 4: the thirteenth Dura the public jury.

361
00:20:45,160 --> 00:20:45,760
Speaker 5: Just as to.

362
00:20:45,600 --> 00:20:48,399
Speaker 4: Recall whether this jury members in William Kennedy Smith was

363
00:20:48,440 --> 00:20:50,800
Speaker 4: sequestered or not. I know in the OJ case they

364
00:20:50,840 --> 00:20:54,160
Speaker 4: were sequestered, but they reached a verdict within hours, within

365
00:20:54,280 --> 00:20:57,320
Speaker 4: three hours, and they had a forty five minute lunch break.

366
00:20:57,800 --> 00:21:01,320
Speaker 5: So they took about eleven month trial.

367
00:21:01,240 --> 00:21:05,400
Speaker 4: And even though Judge Edo had instructed them to certainly

368
00:21:05,560 --> 00:21:09,359
Speaker 4: review the evidence, testimony and the like, they came to

369
00:21:09,560 --> 00:21:13,199
Speaker 4: a virtually immediate verdict in that case that the verdict

370
00:21:13,200 --> 00:21:17,160
Speaker 4: itself captured the attention of the public. I was actually

371
00:21:17,160 --> 00:21:22,080
Speaker 4: in a large university space to see the verdict of

372
00:21:22,160 --> 00:21:26,399
Speaker 4: OJ Simpson. Bill Clinton stopped what he was doing to

373
00:21:26,560 --> 00:21:29,680
Speaker 4: go to his secretary's office to watch this on television.

374
00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:34,320
Speaker 4: My mom was on a hospital gurney. She was waiting

375
00:21:34,359 --> 00:21:37,280
Speaker 4: for some check up, nothing terribly serious, but she was

376
00:21:37,480 --> 00:21:41,640
Speaker 4: left there by the nurses. So the medical staff held

377
00:21:41,680 --> 00:21:44,600
Speaker 4: goes see the verdict of OJ Simpson. You know that

378
00:21:44,840 --> 00:21:48,359
Speaker 4: trial wasn't pulling in the American audience. And if you

379
00:21:48,400 --> 00:21:51,359
Speaker 4: were around during that time, you knew what that moment

380
00:21:51,560 --> 00:21:54,400
Speaker 4: was that everyone could tell you where they were at

381
00:21:54,400 --> 00:21:57,000
Speaker 4: the time of a Simpson verdict, And clearly it was

382
00:21:57,040 --> 00:21:59,960
Speaker 4: a shock to the system and divisith because it did

383
00:22:00,119 --> 00:22:03,600
Speaker 4: break down often by racial lines. The double murder trial

384
00:22:03,720 --> 00:22:07,280
Speaker 4: became a story about race of America. So that's a

385
00:22:07,359 --> 00:22:11,720
Speaker 4: whole other, large story that perhaps were deviating from.

386
00:22:11,760 --> 00:22:14,439
Speaker 1: But I think your point to this idea that the

387
00:22:14,480 --> 00:22:17,280
Speaker 1: specifics of a trial sort of get muddied when it

388
00:22:17,359 --> 00:22:20,960
Speaker 1: becomes a metaphor for larger issues, and everyone kind of

389
00:22:21,000 --> 00:22:24,119
Speaker 1: can project their own biases and their own beliefs onto it.

390
00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:26,000
Speaker 1: And for this one, you know, for oj it might

391
00:22:26,040 --> 00:22:29,640
Speaker 1: have been about marriage or race or whatever else people

392
00:22:29,680 --> 00:22:31,240
Speaker 1: were projecting onto it, And for this one, it was

393
00:22:31,280 --> 00:22:34,560
Speaker 1: clearly about the relationship between men and women, and of

394
00:22:34,600 --> 00:22:38,919
Speaker 1: course the idea of privilege and specifically the Kennedy family

395
00:22:39,119 --> 00:22:41,840
Speaker 1: and this idea that they can kind of get away

396
00:22:41,880 --> 00:22:45,240
Speaker 1: with anything because of machine that's behind them. I do

397
00:22:45,280 --> 00:22:47,000
Speaker 1: want to say the jury was se question it. I

398
00:22:47,080 --> 00:22:49,320
Speaker 1: just looked it up. But what I wanted to ask

399
00:22:49,560 --> 00:22:54,000
Speaker 1: was about how the theatrics that already exist in a courtroom.

400
00:22:54,080 --> 00:22:58,040
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously lawyers are grandstanding. They are trying to

401
00:22:58,240 --> 00:23:02,000
Speaker 1: convince a group of people of their side, how those

402
00:23:02,040 --> 00:23:05,160
Speaker 1: theatrics are kind of amplified and distorted by this kind

403
00:23:05,200 --> 00:23:07,359
Speaker 1: of media environment. And I'm wondering if we could talk

404
00:23:07,400 --> 00:23:09,800
Speaker 1: a little bit about some of the moments in this

405
00:23:09,880 --> 00:23:13,200
Speaker 1: trial that became larger stories. So I'm thinking about the

406
00:23:13,240 --> 00:23:17,160
Speaker 1: interrogation of Anne Mercer, who is Patricia Bowman's friend who

407
00:23:17,440 --> 00:23:21,400
Speaker 1: she called after she was allegedly raped to come pick

408
00:23:21,440 --> 00:23:23,639
Speaker 1: her up. I want to talk a little bit about

409
00:23:23,640 --> 00:23:27,000
Speaker 1: the famous urn that was placed right in front of her.

410
00:23:27,160 --> 00:23:29,240
Speaker 1: So if you can talk about which parts of the

411
00:23:29,240 --> 00:23:33,240
Speaker 1: trial basically became front page news because it was being

412
00:23:33,280 --> 00:23:34,440
Speaker 1: livestream to everyone.

413
00:23:34,720 --> 00:23:37,240
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's interesting you're bringing that up. I should probably

414
00:23:37,320 --> 00:23:39,080
Speaker 4: go back and take a look at some of that

415
00:23:39,119 --> 00:23:43,320
Speaker 4: footage that went on during that particular time. My memory

416
00:23:43,359 --> 00:23:45,159
Speaker 4: of the trial and it did not go back to

417
00:23:45,240 --> 00:23:49,600
Speaker 4: review the trial itself and its specifics, but the larger

418
00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:53,199
Speaker 4: themes certainly are part of my intellectual memory having to

419
00:23:53,240 --> 00:23:56,359
Speaker 4: do with that particular case. But there would be moments,

420
00:23:56,400 --> 00:24:00,159
Speaker 4: and there are moments in every trial that become the

421
00:24:00,200 --> 00:24:02,960
Speaker 4: event of the day on television. You know, it could

422
00:24:03,000 --> 00:24:04,879
Speaker 4: be the day of the urn or the day of

423
00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:09,680
Speaker 4: Anne Mercer. They become front and center on all news coverage.

424
00:24:09,880 --> 00:24:12,600
Speaker 4: You know, there was a case here in New York,

425
00:24:12,960 --> 00:24:16,879
Speaker 4: the Joel Steinberg trial, in which this lawyer is accused

426
00:24:17,080 --> 00:24:18,800
Speaker 4: of killing a six year old daughter.

427
00:24:18,880 --> 00:24:20,280
Speaker 5: It's a horrific case.

428
00:24:20,480 --> 00:24:22,840
Speaker 4: And actually one of the first cases in New York

429
00:24:22,920 --> 00:24:25,320
Speaker 4: to allow cameras in the court. And it was also

430
00:24:25,480 --> 00:24:29,840
Speaker 4: a national and international event. There were folks in Australia.

431
00:24:30,040 --> 00:24:32,560
Speaker 4: I saw the Steinberg case and that might not be

432
00:24:32,640 --> 00:24:35,719
Speaker 4: familiar to but it was a big deal in nineteen

433
00:24:35,760 --> 00:24:39,560
Speaker 4: eighty nine, and it's kind of even predated William Kennedy

434
00:24:39,600 --> 00:24:42,720
Speaker 4: Smith as well as Simpson, and I was actually I

435
00:24:42,760 --> 00:24:45,679
Speaker 4: would actually attend the trial. And there was one moment

436
00:24:45,880 --> 00:24:50,200
Speaker 4: in that trial where a doctor on the stand demonstrated

437
00:24:50,560 --> 00:24:54,240
Speaker 4: the type of blow to the head necessary to kill

438
00:24:54,320 --> 00:24:55,400
Speaker 4: this six year old child.

439
00:24:56,040 --> 00:24:56,919
Speaker 5: A terrible moment.

440
00:24:57,720 --> 00:25:01,320
Speaker 4: So what this doctor did was literally lamb his hand

441
00:25:01,720 --> 00:25:05,159
Speaker 4: and it was dramatic. Well, that testimony went on for

442
00:25:05,320 --> 00:25:08,040
Speaker 4: six seven hours that day, and I went home to

443
00:25:08,080 --> 00:25:13,080
Speaker 4: watch the coverage. Every network, CNN, other networks that covered

444
00:25:13,080 --> 00:25:15,879
Speaker 4: that trial on and on and on. They covered that

445
00:25:16,040 --> 00:25:20,560
Speaker 4: one five second moment over and over and over again.

446
00:25:21,119 --> 00:25:24,399
Speaker 4: And if you were just a citizen trying to understand

447
00:25:24,440 --> 00:25:27,760
Speaker 4: that case. That moment defined it for you. You may

448
00:25:27,760 --> 00:25:30,280
Speaker 4: not have seen the other seven hours that day, you

449
00:25:30,280 --> 00:25:33,119
Speaker 4: wouldn't have had a contextual moment. We're using a very

450
00:25:33,200 --> 00:25:37,560
Speaker 4: dramatic example, of course, but what we see on television

451
00:25:38,359 --> 00:25:41,040
Speaker 4: is not what we see in the courtroom. The courtroom

452
00:25:41,119 --> 00:25:44,640
Speaker 4: often plays out much more slowly, as we know, And

453
00:25:44,720 --> 00:25:49,720
Speaker 4: so you're talking about two particular instances a standout. I

454
00:25:49,760 --> 00:25:51,840
Speaker 4: would venture to say if I went back to take

455
00:25:51,880 --> 00:25:55,040
Speaker 4: a look at those instances, it would play out time

456
00:25:55,080 --> 00:25:57,240
Speaker 4: in and time out on the coverage of that case.

457
00:25:57,600 --> 00:26:08,760
Speaker 2: We're going to take a short break, stay with us,

458
00:26:12,880 --> 00:26:15,080
Speaker 2: and we're back with the United States of Kennedy.

459
00:26:15,720 --> 00:26:20,679
Speaker 1: Are there other big moments or any important questions or

460
00:26:20,720 --> 00:26:24,840
Speaker 1: answers or anything that became magnified in shaped the public's opinion.

461
00:26:25,680 --> 00:26:28,880
Speaker 4: I think it's almost an arguable, frankly, that the biggest

462
00:26:28,880 --> 00:26:32,200
Speaker 4: moment in that case was when William Kennedy Smith goes

463
00:26:32,240 --> 00:26:35,960
Speaker 4: onderstand and I'm looking at it right now, the transcript

464
00:26:36,560 --> 00:26:41,440
Speaker 4: of his description of the alleged incident, and it is pretty.

465
00:26:41,240 --> 00:26:42,440
Speaker 5: Graphic, if that's the word.

466
00:26:42,480 --> 00:26:47,160
Speaker 4: Even Rory talks about taking her panties off, having to

467
00:26:47,160 --> 00:26:52,760
Speaker 4: do with the sexual act itself, very explicit, and I

468
00:26:52,800 --> 00:26:56,640
Speaker 4: could actually see his image in my mind's eye testifying

469
00:26:56,720 --> 00:26:59,399
Speaker 4: during that particular time. So if you were going to

470
00:26:59,440 --> 00:27:02,440
Speaker 4: ask me about one highlighted moment, it would be that,

471
00:27:03,119 --> 00:27:05,120
Speaker 4: and I would probably on the other side of it

472
00:27:05,440 --> 00:27:10,439
Speaker 4: speak about Patricia Bowman's testimony as well. Hers is actually

473
00:27:10,520 --> 00:27:15,240
Speaker 4: a little more obscure, frankly because she was digitally blotted

474
00:27:15,280 --> 00:27:20,360
Speaker 4: out by the electronics there, so her facial image certainly

475
00:27:20,400 --> 00:27:23,600
Speaker 4: doesn't come to mind. But certainly that moment in the

476
00:27:23,680 --> 00:27:27,720
Speaker 4: case just galvanized all media coverage at that time.

477
00:27:28,560 --> 00:27:31,119
Speaker 5: So that would be my memory of that case.

478
00:27:31,560 --> 00:27:34,439
Speaker 2: And it was a surprise that he took the stand.

479
00:27:34,800 --> 00:27:37,480
Speaker 4: Is that well, you know, it's always dangerous, you know,

480
00:27:37,600 --> 00:27:42,080
Speaker 4: for defendant to expose himself to all sorts of questioning,

481
00:27:42,280 --> 00:27:46,280
Speaker 4: certainly by the prosecutor in that case. And then it

482
00:27:46,320 --> 00:27:51,200
Speaker 4: became according to pundits, he said, she said type of case,

483
00:27:51,320 --> 00:27:52,120
Speaker 4: who do you believe?

484
00:27:53,040 --> 00:27:54,760
Speaker 5: And we know what the result of that was.

485
00:27:55,240 --> 00:27:59,320
Speaker 1: It's an interesting media question, a mass media question. What

486
00:27:59,480 --> 00:28:03,600
Speaker 1: effect does the obscuring off someone's face have on the

487
00:28:03,640 --> 00:28:06,520
Speaker 1: people watching her, Because it is this double edged sword

488
00:28:06,560 --> 00:28:08,520
Speaker 1: round the one hand of course, you don't want your

489
00:28:08,600 --> 00:28:12,600
Speaker 1: face exposed to everyone when you're going through this incredibly

490
00:28:12,640 --> 00:28:15,440
Speaker 1: vulnerable thing. But on the other hand, of course it's

491
00:28:15,480 --> 00:28:18,200
Speaker 1: going to hopefully increase empathy if you are looking at

492
00:28:18,200 --> 00:28:22,600
Speaker 1: someone crying and describing the worst night of their lives.

493
00:28:23,119 --> 00:28:26,200
Speaker 1: And I think I would imagine that it really didn't

494
00:28:26,200 --> 00:28:30,160
Speaker 1: help that people couldn't see her face. Unlike William Kennedy Smith, who,

495
00:28:30,200 --> 00:28:34,080
Speaker 1: in fact, through a combination of I'm sure media training

496
00:28:34,119 --> 00:28:37,560
Speaker 1: and sort of natural Kennedy charisma, actually comes across pretty

497
00:28:37,560 --> 00:28:41,360
Speaker 1: well and he's very calm. He really seems like a

498
00:28:41,480 --> 00:28:44,120
Speaker 1: nice kid caught in a bad situation or something like.

499
00:28:44,160 --> 00:28:46,840
Speaker 1: It's interesting, even if you're primed not to believe him,

500
00:28:47,160 --> 00:28:50,200
Speaker 1: he actually gives a very good performance in terms of

501
00:28:50,240 --> 00:28:54,320
Speaker 1: Patricia Bowman's identity to zoom out of it, because of course,

502
00:28:54,360 --> 00:28:57,040
Speaker 1: the media environment isn't just court, t VNCNN, it's also

503
00:28:57,080 --> 00:29:00,320
Speaker 1: the newspapers, it's also tabloids. There's an entire system them.

504
00:29:00,520 --> 00:29:03,959
Speaker 1: Can you talk a little bit about how her identity

505
00:29:04,440 --> 00:29:08,200
Speaker 1: was unveiled and then what the fallout of that was.

506
00:29:08,560 --> 00:29:11,720
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, getting back to your point about

507
00:29:12,160 --> 00:29:17,760
Speaker 4: Patricia Bowman, understand I'm actually thinking whether the electronic distortion

508
00:29:18,480 --> 00:29:21,320
Speaker 4: of her understand helped or hurt her. In terms of

509
00:29:21,320 --> 00:29:24,160
Speaker 4: the public eye, we don't see her, We don't see

510
00:29:24,160 --> 00:29:27,800
Speaker 4: her facial expressions. We do see William Kennedy Smith's face,

511
00:29:27,840 --> 00:29:29,480
Speaker 4: and I would agree with you. I think it comes

512
00:29:29,520 --> 00:29:32,360
Speaker 4: off as the good kid, you know, caught up in

513
00:29:32,400 --> 00:29:35,840
Speaker 4: a bad situation, right, And it's.

514
00:29:35,680 --> 00:29:37,080
Speaker 5: Really kind of a double a sort.

515
00:29:37,200 --> 00:29:40,440
Speaker 4: On one hand, do you want other people who have

516
00:29:40,520 --> 00:29:44,680
Speaker 4: been exposed to this criminality to shy away from reporting

517
00:29:44,720 --> 00:29:46,440
Speaker 4: this because they're going to be part of the public

518
00:29:46,480 --> 00:29:49,120
Speaker 4: eye in some sort of way. On the other side,

519
00:29:49,160 --> 00:29:53,120
Speaker 4: by distorting her features, do you send another message to

520
00:29:53,160 --> 00:29:55,960
Speaker 4: an audience that this is something maybe to be shameful about,

521
00:29:56,080 --> 00:29:58,680
Speaker 4: that this is something that you know, why aren't we

522
00:29:58,800 --> 00:30:01,880
Speaker 4: seeing this? Don't we have the right to say, who's

523
00:30:01,920 --> 00:30:05,520
Speaker 4: accusing us of a crime. That's on a different level altogether,

524
00:30:05,560 --> 00:30:08,680
Speaker 4: I suppose, But it does create a secondary messages which

525
00:30:08,720 --> 00:30:12,560
Speaker 4: are interesting to me someone who studies media and the like.

526
00:30:12,920 --> 00:30:16,000
Speaker 4: Whether we benefit or not by having trials on television,

527
00:30:16,800 --> 00:30:19,719
Speaker 4: I'm still very skeptical of it, frankly, but in this

528
00:30:19,760 --> 00:30:24,000
Speaker 4: particular case, what is the imagery that's coming across from

529
00:30:24,040 --> 00:30:25,080
Speaker 4: the party's concerned.

530
00:30:25,160 --> 00:30:27,560
Speaker 5: By the way, if Kennedy Smith didn't look.

531
00:30:27,440 --> 00:30:31,160
Speaker 4: So boyish, if he really looked like he was guilty,

532
00:30:32,200 --> 00:30:34,960
Speaker 4: is that how we're going to make judgments as to

533
00:30:35,080 --> 00:30:38,760
Speaker 4: his legal guilt or innocence in this case. So it's

534
00:30:38,880 --> 00:30:42,960
Speaker 4: an image based medium that makes us make decisions that

535
00:30:43,120 --> 00:30:45,440
Speaker 4: have less to do sometimes with the law, than to

536
00:30:45,520 --> 00:30:49,720
Speaker 4: do with our own perceptions of the case. So I'm

537
00:30:49,720 --> 00:30:51,040
Speaker 4: not sure I answered your question.

538
00:30:51,400 --> 00:30:53,760
Speaker 1: The second question was just about Patricia Bowman's identity, because

539
00:30:53,800 --> 00:30:56,640
Speaker 1: it was eventually revealed. In fact, sure was it revealed

540
00:30:56,640 --> 00:30:59,200
Speaker 1: by the New York Times or it was something like

541
00:30:59,240 --> 00:31:01,560
Speaker 1: the New York Times are was written without her name,

542
00:31:01,880 --> 00:31:06,040
Speaker 1: and then it was somehow the editor put it in.

543
00:31:06,040 --> 00:31:07,719
Speaker 2: The reporter had not put her name in, and then

544
00:31:07,720 --> 00:31:11,200
Speaker 2: the editor put it in without telling them and published it.

545
00:31:11,320 --> 00:31:12,760
Speaker 5: So that's the backstory in the Times.

546
00:31:12,840 --> 00:31:15,960
Speaker 4: It's interesting because, of course the editor who made that

547
00:31:16,080 --> 00:31:20,520
Speaker 4: decision was accused of having ties to the Kennedy family,

548
00:31:20,600 --> 00:31:23,240
Speaker 4: or whether the Kennedy family influenced the New York Times.

549
00:31:23,280 --> 00:31:27,760
Speaker 4: And then it becomes another question about the political influence

550
00:31:28,000 --> 00:31:31,280
Speaker 4: having to do with these trials. So everything comes into

551
00:31:31,440 --> 00:31:35,000
Speaker 4: question as a result of this trial, and as you

552
00:31:35,160 --> 00:31:38,800
Speaker 4: correctly point out, what happens when you put a camera

553
00:31:38,880 --> 00:31:42,160
Speaker 4: into the courtroom, it feeds all media. It's not just

554
00:31:42,240 --> 00:31:46,080
Speaker 4: television media. All media feel obligated to kind of get

555
00:31:46,120 --> 00:31:48,880
Speaker 4: attached to a particular trial. If I could tell you

556
00:31:49,040 --> 00:31:52,320
Speaker 4: just a brief anecdote, which sometimes shows the absurdity of

557
00:31:52,400 --> 00:31:56,520
Speaker 4: this point. I covered the OJ Simpson case and there

558
00:31:56,680 --> 00:32:02,400
Speaker 4: was an editor from dog World that was covering the case.

559
00:32:02,400 --> 00:32:06,240
Speaker 4: She was at the trial and I interviewed her briefly.

560
00:32:06,280 --> 00:32:09,680
Speaker 4: I said, why are you covering the OJ Simpson case?

561
00:32:10,400 --> 00:32:13,080
Speaker 4: And she said, well, you know, there was a dog,

562
00:32:13,240 --> 00:32:17,440
Speaker 4: a Nikita, that found the two bodies at the scene

563
00:32:17,440 --> 00:32:21,640
Speaker 4: at the Brentwood house, Ryan Goldman and Simpson's ex wife

564
00:32:21,640 --> 00:32:26,560
Speaker 4: and Decle. And she felt her readers wanted to know

565
00:32:27,080 --> 00:32:30,000
Speaker 4: about this particular case. And that is one of the

566
00:32:30,040 --> 00:32:33,920
Speaker 4: strange examples of this. But all media in fact, to

567
00:32:33,960 --> 00:32:36,320
Speaker 4: be out of the Simpson story, and I'm sorry, I

568
00:32:36,400 --> 00:32:39,160
Speaker 4: keep going back and forth on this means you're almost

569
00:32:39,200 --> 00:32:43,400
Speaker 4: out of the culture itself. So other mediums of communication

570
00:32:43,600 --> 00:32:48,000
Speaker 4: kind of come in and gravitate. Pages upon pages were

571
00:32:48,040 --> 00:32:51,640
Speaker 4: devoted in the Los Angeles Times to the Simpson case.

572
00:32:52,040 --> 00:32:52,640
Speaker 5: Regularly.

573
00:32:53,240 --> 00:32:56,800
Speaker 4: The La Times became the Simpson Beat, the paper itself,

574
00:32:57,440 --> 00:33:00,720
Speaker 4: and so did, of course, television network show and cable

575
00:33:00,720 --> 00:33:03,800
Speaker 4: shows as well. It shows the power of these high

576
00:33:03,880 --> 00:33:08,800
Speaker 4: profile cases. Today we're talking about the Menandez case. Most

577
00:33:08,800 --> 00:33:12,080
Speaker 4: folks weren't born I imagine, who are talking about the

578
00:33:12,240 --> 00:33:14,360
Speaker 4: no in this case. Maybe I'm exaggerating only a little

579
00:33:14,360 --> 00:33:18,440
Speaker 4: bit there. It is interesting the afterlife of these cases

580
00:33:18,720 --> 00:33:23,080
Speaker 4: in terms of I made for TV movies and celebrity.

581
00:33:24,040 --> 00:33:27,160
Speaker 4: Again one quick example, there was a case here in

582
00:33:27,480 --> 00:33:30,960
Speaker 4: Long Island, New York, involving a young woman by the

583
00:33:31,040 --> 00:33:34,240
Speaker 4: name of Amy Fisher. I don't know if you that

584
00:33:34,640 --> 00:33:37,680
Speaker 4: name rings a bell, but she was deemed the Long

585
00:33:37,720 --> 00:33:41,959
Speaker 4: Island Lolita, that was her nickname, and she had an

586
00:33:41,960 --> 00:33:44,720
Speaker 4: affair with an older man by the name of Joey Buttafoco.

587
00:33:44,800 --> 00:33:48,280
Speaker 4: Who could forget Joey Buttafuco right In any case, This

588
00:33:48,440 --> 00:33:51,400
Speaker 4: was one of the early days of television trials here

589
00:33:51,560 --> 00:33:55,080
Speaker 4: in New York, and they actually just filmed parts of

590
00:33:55,120 --> 00:33:58,080
Speaker 4: their pre trial hearing. They didn't follow the entire case,

591
00:33:58,880 --> 00:34:03,280
Speaker 4: but in the course of one week there were three

592
00:34:03,680 --> 00:34:08,800
Speaker 4: made for TV movies about Amy Fisher, one from Amy

593
00:34:08,840 --> 00:34:13,160
Speaker 4: Fisher's point of view, one from Joey Buttafoco's point of view,

594
00:34:13,200 --> 00:34:15,920
Speaker 4: and then there was a third that was kind of generic.

595
00:34:15,960 --> 00:34:18,640
Speaker 4: I suppose in one week they had three made for

596
00:34:18,760 --> 00:34:22,759
Speaker 4: television trials, which I find quite astunding if you asked me.

597
00:34:24,000 --> 00:34:26,160
Speaker 4: In the case of oj Simpson, there were all sorts

598
00:34:26,200 --> 00:34:29,080
Speaker 4: of offshoots having to do with that case as well.

599
00:34:29,200 --> 00:34:32,320
Speaker 2: You're reminded me of, like speaking of the Menandez Brothers case,

600
00:34:32,600 --> 00:34:36,480
Speaker 2: something that I think became more popular knowledge, or at

601
00:34:36,560 --> 00:34:40,640
Speaker 2: least within my generation. I would say when this was

602
00:34:40,680 --> 00:34:45,120
Speaker 2: like revisited recently, was that the facts of their abuse

603
00:34:45,520 --> 00:34:48,319
Speaker 2: were not allowed to be admitted in quarter or I'm

604
00:34:48,320 --> 00:34:50,040
Speaker 2: sorry if I'm like saying that the wrong way, but

605
00:34:50,480 --> 00:34:53,480
Speaker 2: I think it's greated. You know, previously had explained that

606
00:34:53,520 --> 00:34:55,319
Speaker 2: they had been abused by their father their whole life,

607
00:34:55,400 --> 00:34:58,320
Speaker 2: and then when this trial went, they weren't allowed to

608
00:34:58,520 --> 00:35:01,440
Speaker 2: say that, which is really strange. But it reminds me

609
00:35:01,520 --> 00:35:04,640
Speaker 2: of this case also in that they knew that William

610
00:35:04,680 --> 00:35:07,319
Speaker 2: Kennedy Smith had been accused multiple times I think it

611
00:35:07,360 --> 00:35:10,560
Speaker 2: was three different women had accused him of a similar

612
00:35:11,000 --> 00:35:14,440
Speaker 2: sexual assault, and that was not allowed to be admitted

613
00:35:14,480 --> 00:35:17,080
Speaker 2: into court, which is I don't know. These things I

614
00:35:17,080 --> 00:35:19,640
Speaker 2: think are confusing to an outsider, at least I find

615
00:35:19,680 --> 00:35:24,680
Speaker 2: them confusing when like facts are not allowed to be included.

616
00:35:24,760 --> 00:35:27,520
Speaker 2: But it's part of the whole making sure that the

617
00:35:27,640 --> 00:35:30,799
Speaker 2: jurors are going to be not biased or.

618
00:35:31,000 --> 00:35:31,440
Speaker 1: I don't know.

619
00:35:31,480 --> 00:35:33,239
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know if you can speak to that,

620
00:35:33,280 --> 00:35:34,479
Speaker 2: because it's just something I find.

621
00:35:34,880 --> 00:35:36,520
Speaker 5: I think you're making a great point.

622
00:35:37,000 --> 00:35:41,680
Speaker 4: Basically, in any high profile television trial, there are essentially

623
00:35:41,680 --> 00:35:44,640
Speaker 4: two juries. There's a jury inside the core room and

624
00:35:44,680 --> 00:35:47,680
Speaker 4: they have vetted, you know, to see that they're unbiased.

625
00:35:48,200 --> 00:35:51,000
Speaker 4: We know that process of warder and the like right,

626
00:35:51,440 --> 00:35:54,720
Speaker 4: and then there's a public jury, and the public jury

627
00:35:54,800 --> 00:35:58,400
Speaker 4: is actually exposed to all sorts of information that is

628
00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:00,719
Speaker 4: not allowed in the case. The judge makes decision what

629
00:36:00,840 --> 00:36:04,720
Speaker 4: is admissible in a courtroom. We know that, and often

630
00:36:04,800 --> 00:36:09,440
Speaker 4: our decisions on a case are certainly influenced by all

631
00:36:09,719 --> 00:36:14,439
Speaker 4: of the evidence and testimony that comes out beyond the

632
00:36:14,480 --> 00:36:17,799
Speaker 4: parameters of that courtroom. And it doesn't surprise me that

633
00:36:17,920 --> 00:36:21,800
Speaker 4: sometimes we come to two different verdicts, a public verdict

634
00:36:22,239 --> 00:36:25,279
Speaker 4: and then there's the courtroom verdict that exists because we're

635
00:36:25,320 --> 00:36:28,160
Speaker 4: working from two different perceptions of the case, and we

636
00:36:28,200 --> 00:36:30,560
Speaker 4: have every right to ask the question, I suppose why

637
00:36:30,680 --> 00:36:34,000
Speaker 4: wasn't this allowed at all? That but there are reasons,

638
00:36:34,080 --> 00:36:37,680
Speaker 4: legal reasons why certain testimony is not allowed because it

639
00:36:37,760 --> 00:36:40,880
Speaker 4: may be highly influential, but the judge thinks it's not

640
00:36:41,000 --> 00:36:45,520
Speaker 4: relevant to the particular case, whatever that is. We feel

641
00:36:45,560 --> 00:36:48,440
Speaker 4: sometimes we know more than the jury members do, and

642
00:36:48,480 --> 00:36:51,360
Speaker 4: in a sense we do. But again, from a legal

643
00:36:51,400 --> 00:36:53,719
Speaker 4: point of view, do we want to have trials by

644
00:36:53,800 --> 00:36:56,680
Speaker 4: public jury or do we want to have trials that

645
00:36:56,760 --> 00:36:59,840
Speaker 4: are contained within the courtroom itself and follow the rules

646
00:37:00,040 --> 00:37:03,319
Speaker 4: of the court rather than the rules of journalism, which

647
00:37:03,680 --> 00:37:05,839
Speaker 4: wants to tell a much bigger story, If that makes

648
00:37:05,880 --> 00:37:06,560
Speaker 4: any sense too.

649
00:37:07,080 --> 00:37:09,440
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think what complicates it further is this

650
00:37:09,560 --> 00:37:12,960
Speaker 1: idea that when you can see everything happening in the courtroom,

651
00:37:13,040 --> 00:37:15,399
Speaker 1: you do have the full picture. And I think this

652
00:37:15,520 --> 00:37:17,799
Speaker 1: is kind of the main argument, correct me if I'm

653
00:37:17,840 --> 00:37:19,680
Speaker 1: wrong that a lot of people that are pro cameras

654
00:37:19,680 --> 00:37:22,040
Speaker 1: in the courtroom make is that it is good for

655
00:37:22,080 --> 00:37:26,560
Speaker 1: average citizens to see how justice is deliberated. But there's

656
00:37:26,600 --> 00:37:30,680
Speaker 1: another layer of obfuscation because you, in fact don't have

657
00:37:30,760 --> 00:37:32,520
Speaker 1: all the information. You just know what's going on in

658
00:37:32,520 --> 00:37:34,759
Speaker 1: the courtroom. You don't know, or you might not know

659
00:37:34,760 --> 00:37:37,359
Speaker 1: if you haven't read very closely. For example, that three

660
00:37:37,440 --> 00:37:40,840
Speaker 1: other women had accused this man of sexual assault and

661
00:37:40,840 --> 00:37:43,279
Speaker 1: that just was not allowed in the court. You think, Wow,

662
00:37:43,320 --> 00:37:45,440
Speaker 1: I know everything, I can make a decision, But in

663
00:37:45,440 --> 00:37:48,640
Speaker 1: fact you are in a strange ray, almost more ignorant

664
00:37:48,640 --> 00:37:50,120
Speaker 1: than you would be if you were to just wait

665
00:37:50,200 --> 00:37:54,080
Speaker 1: for the long newspaper article that explained everything in context.

666
00:37:54,600 --> 00:37:55,040
Speaker 5: Yeah.

667
00:37:55,120 --> 00:37:58,600
Speaker 4: I mentioned the Steinberg case before, and here was a

668
00:37:58,600 --> 00:38:02,239
Speaker 4: man who was convicted of manslaughter in the case of

669
00:38:02,280 --> 00:38:04,759
Speaker 4: a six year old daughter, and I interviewed him for

670
00:38:04,760 --> 00:38:07,719
Speaker 4: about thirteen hours up at Danamoor Prison at the time

671
00:38:07,719 --> 00:38:09,799
Speaker 4: I was writing this book. I sat in this little

672
00:38:09,880 --> 00:38:13,080
Speaker 4: room with him and it was a very intensive conversation.

673
00:38:13,280 --> 00:38:15,120
Speaker 4: I tried to go through the case with him and

674
00:38:15,239 --> 00:38:18,680
Speaker 4: talking about cameras in the court and at one time Steinberg,

675
00:38:18,760 --> 00:38:21,960
Speaker 4: who was really very intense individual. But he does turn

676
00:38:22,040 --> 00:38:24,239
Speaker 4: to me and says, how would you like to be

677
00:38:24,360 --> 00:38:28,279
Speaker 4: a defendant in a television trial? A very simple question, right,

678
00:38:28,560 --> 00:38:31,400
Speaker 4: And I thought about that and I said I probably

679
00:38:31,440 --> 00:38:34,240
Speaker 4: would not want to be because for the very reasons

680
00:38:34,239 --> 00:38:37,200
Speaker 4: what we're speaking about right, do we want every facet

681
00:38:37,239 --> 00:38:39,160
Speaker 4: of our life in a high profile case to be

682
00:38:39,239 --> 00:38:42,600
Speaker 4: kind of examined and judged And while we may feel

683
00:38:42,640 --> 00:38:45,040
Speaker 4: we know more than the jury and they really perhaps

684
00:38:45,040 --> 00:38:48,359
Speaker 4: came to a wrong decision, what is the trade off? Right,

685
00:38:48,400 --> 00:38:51,480
Speaker 4: do we really want these cases that are you know,

686
00:38:51,520 --> 00:38:55,000
Speaker 4: have enormous social political impacts sometimes to be judged by

687
00:38:55,120 --> 00:38:58,200
Speaker 4: eleven people or twelve twelve jury members in a case,

688
00:38:58,280 --> 00:39:02,319
Speaker 4: or do we want our founding father said trials should

689
00:39:02,320 --> 00:39:05,400
Speaker 4: be public. But what they meant by that is is

690
00:39:05,520 --> 00:39:08,000
Speaker 4: not the fact that they weren't around for cameras in

691
00:39:08,080 --> 00:39:11,480
Speaker 4: the court. They are much more contained courtroom. I mean,

692
00:39:11,520 --> 00:39:13,759
Speaker 4: we're allowed to go into a courtroom, right, we have

693
00:39:13,800 --> 00:39:17,080
Speaker 4: access into the space itself. The question is do we

694
00:39:17,200 --> 00:39:20,920
Speaker 4: expand that space to make that a national or international

695
00:39:20,960 --> 00:39:25,560
Speaker 4: space in which we all can make our own personal judgments.

696
00:39:25,640 --> 00:39:28,080
Speaker 4: And by the way, sometimes it has real ramifications. It's

697
00:39:28,120 --> 00:39:32,439
Speaker 4: really serious. The LA cops accused of beating Rodney King, right,

698
00:39:33,080 --> 00:39:34,920
Speaker 4: they were quitted in that case, and that led to

699
00:39:35,080 --> 00:39:39,080
Speaker 4: LA riots. So there really are social political consequences.

700
00:39:39,600 --> 00:39:46,000
Speaker 1: We're going to take a short break, stay with us,

701
00:39:53,239 --> 00:39:56,120
Speaker 1: and we're back with the United States. And Kennedy. So

702
00:39:56,160 --> 00:39:59,920
Speaker 1: the question of the relationship between reality and media representation

703
00:40:00,160 --> 00:40:03,640
Speaker 1: of reality is a very big one in the history

704
00:40:03,680 --> 00:40:05,160
Speaker 1: of the Kennedy family. I just want to bring it

705
00:40:05,200 --> 00:40:07,560
Speaker 1: back to you know, this is technically a podcast about

706
00:40:07,560 --> 00:40:11,160
Speaker 1: the Kennedys, and so I did have the question of

707
00:40:11,640 --> 00:40:14,759
Speaker 1: how was the Kennedy name affecting how all of this

708
00:40:14,920 --> 00:40:19,160
Speaker 1: was processed. Obviously, the jury selection was very challenging because

709
00:40:19,160 --> 00:40:21,200
Speaker 1: they had to try to weed out people that had

710
00:40:21,239 --> 00:40:25,160
Speaker 1: specific positive or negative feelings about the Kennedys. The trial

711
00:40:25,280 --> 00:40:28,440
Speaker 1: was covered with the lens of this is a promising

712
00:40:28,600 --> 00:40:31,759
Speaker 1: young man from America's you know, royal family. So how

713
00:40:31,760 --> 00:40:36,360
Speaker 1: do you remember the kind of Kennedy specific coverage?

714
00:40:36,600 --> 00:40:38,840
Speaker 5: Can I gave you a quote by one of my sources.

715
00:40:38,880 --> 00:40:41,000
Speaker 5: She was a French journalist, and here it is. I

716
00:40:41,000 --> 00:40:41,560
Speaker 5: wrote it down.

717
00:40:41,640 --> 00:40:46,320
Speaker 4: Actually I am here because of the Kennedy name. Willie

718
00:40:46,360 --> 00:40:51,000
Speaker 4: Smith is a nobody. So I think that really does

719
00:40:51,160 --> 00:40:56,040
Speaker 4: encapsulate this, I mean, to no one's surprise, right, and

720
00:40:56,360 --> 00:40:59,560
Speaker 4: your own political views come in too, whether this was

721
00:40:59,640 --> 00:41:03,240
Speaker 4: fair or not, certainly the imagery coming out of that court,

722
00:41:03,760 --> 00:41:08,959
Speaker 4: your own political sensibilities come into play. It's a very

723
00:41:08,960 --> 00:41:12,080
Speaker 4: complicated question having to do with cameras in court.

724
00:41:12,080 --> 00:41:16,000
Speaker 2: Frankly, right as George was saying, when you see William

725
00:41:16,040 --> 00:41:21,279
Speaker 2: Kennedy Smith giving testimony and he's so poised, he's so calm,

726
00:41:21,400 --> 00:41:24,480
Speaker 2: there's media training. The Kennedy's get media training. It wasn't

727
00:41:24,560 --> 00:41:27,359
Speaker 2: just him, I mean Ted Kennedy is there. When you

728
00:41:27,400 --> 00:41:31,120
Speaker 2: look at who's telling this story in the court, you

729
00:41:31,239 --> 00:41:34,960
Speaker 2: have Patricia Bowman and Ann Mercer, who are two women

730
00:41:35,080 --> 00:41:39,000
Speaker 2: who probably don't have any media experience or any public

731
00:41:39,040 --> 00:41:43,560
Speaker 2: speaking experience even possibly, and then you have Senator Ted

732
00:41:43,640 --> 00:41:47,120
Speaker 2: Kennedy representing the context of what happened that night, and

733
00:41:47,239 --> 00:41:51,960
Speaker 2: he's painting this story that William Kennedy's father had passed away. Anyways,

734
00:41:52,239 --> 00:41:56,880
Speaker 2: one side has a lot of public speaking experience, expertise training,

735
00:41:56,920 --> 00:41:59,239
Speaker 2: the other side doesn't. And a lot of what we

736
00:41:59,480 --> 00:42:03,240
Speaker 2: read about the trial is that it was lost by

737
00:42:03,920 --> 00:42:08,600
Speaker 2: her lawyer not properly being able to question William Kennedy Smith,

738
00:42:09,320 --> 00:42:13,719
Speaker 2: and also that Roy Black is a very famous, accomplished

739
00:42:14,160 --> 00:42:18,200
Speaker 2: lawyer being able to break down both of the women

740
00:42:18,360 --> 00:42:20,719
Speaker 2: and both of the women's stories of the night.

741
00:42:21,400 --> 00:42:24,960
Speaker 1: And it feels so it feels unfair to you.

742
00:42:25,160 --> 00:42:28,680
Speaker 2: Yeah, not that it's impossible that he's telling the truth,

743
00:42:28,719 --> 00:42:32,320
Speaker 2: but it just seems like he has a lot more

744
00:42:32,920 --> 00:42:36,360
Speaker 2: going for him from the second he walks in there.

745
00:42:36,520 --> 00:42:40,080
Speaker 4: You know, I think you're speaking to the truth of

746
00:42:40,200 --> 00:42:44,080
Speaker 4: our American trial system. You know, there are defendants who

747
00:42:44,120 --> 00:42:48,680
Speaker 4: cannot afford attorneys, and there are defendants who can afford attorneys.

748
00:42:48,760 --> 00:42:53,160
Speaker 4: Right in the oj case, he had seven lawyers, right,

749
00:42:53,239 --> 00:42:56,360
Speaker 4: all high profile lawyers, and they were going up basically

750
00:42:56,400 --> 00:42:59,960
Speaker 4: against state prosecutors in that case who are highly capable.

751
00:43:00,239 --> 00:43:03,560
Speaker 4: But could they match the power of not only his

752
00:43:03,880 --> 00:43:07,440
Speaker 4: legal staff, but his name, his reputation, his money that

753
00:43:07,560 --> 00:43:10,799
Speaker 4: he could spend on that case. And it's perhaps a

754
00:43:10,840 --> 00:43:14,240
Speaker 4: weakness of our legal system. It's interesting in that case

755
00:43:14,719 --> 00:43:18,759
Speaker 4: where actually Patricia Boma was introduced to Edward Kennedy at

756
00:43:18,800 --> 00:43:21,200
Speaker 4: the bar in Palm Beach before they went over to

757
00:43:21,280 --> 00:43:26,040
Speaker 4: the estate, so she'd actually even met the Senator at

758
00:43:26,040 --> 00:43:30,239
Speaker 4: one point in time during that period. And he did

759
00:43:30,280 --> 00:43:33,759
Speaker 4: have the best defense attorneys in that particular case, and

760
00:43:33,800 --> 00:43:37,000
Speaker 4: no doubt he was prepared to go on the stand

761
00:43:37,040 --> 00:43:42,000
Speaker 4: to testify and for asking the question does the legal

762
00:43:42,080 --> 00:43:46,839
Speaker 4: process work? I could certainly understand the questions surrounding this

763
00:43:46,920 --> 00:43:50,720
Speaker 4: particular case. And actually maybe this is the positive having

764
00:43:50,719 --> 00:43:53,400
Speaker 4: to do with the television trial. It makes us question

765
00:43:53,440 --> 00:43:58,080
Speaker 4: the legal system and asks us questions to resolve somehow,

766
00:43:59,040 --> 00:44:02,000
Speaker 4: And so maybe the positive that comes along with these

767
00:44:02,040 --> 00:44:04,319
Speaker 4: television trials in terms of the nation.

768
00:44:05,000 --> 00:44:09,920
Speaker 2: We're talking about the media representation and the theatrics, and

769
00:44:10,239 --> 00:44:13,080
Speaker 2: there are moments from the oj trial that are part

770
00:44:13,239 --> 00:44:16,120
Speaker 2: of the American you know, like if the glove does

771
00:44:16,160 --> 00:44:18,719
Speaker 2: not fit, you must acquit. Like that's a phrase that

772
00:44:18,840 --> 00:44:21,279
Speaker 2: is a part of our communal understanding of.

773
00:44:21,160 --> 00:44:22,320
Speaker 1: What happened in the court.

774
00:44:22,760 --> 00:44:25,200
Speaker 2: And so there's that side of it where it would

775
00:44:25,200 --> 00:44:28,399
Speaker 2: be a very powerful to have access to those kinds

776
00:44:28,440 --> 00:44:31,239
Speaker 2: of lawyers, something that I've always been curious about or

777
00:44:31,239 --> 00:44:35,200
Speaker 2: confused about. Within that context, So Roy Black, some of

778
00:44:35,239 --> 00:44:37,840
Speaker 2: those people that we talked about, like you know, Joe Francis,

779
00:44:37,920 --> 00:44:41,719
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein. This is post this trial, but before this

780
00:44:41,840 --> 00:44:45,560
Speaker 2: trial he had also he'd represented the cop who in

781
00:44:45,600 --> 00:44:48,760
Speaker 2: that shooting ended up leading to the Miami riots. Also

782
00:44:48,880 --> 00:44:52,880
Speaker 2: he had represented a woman who was found not guilty

783
00:44:53,000 --> 00:44:56,520
Speaker 2: of killing her three year old. Her other child had

784
00:44:56,560 --> 00:44:59,040
Speaker 2: died in the same way, drowning in the sink he

785
00:44:59,160 --> 00:45:01,919
Speaker 2: was already kind of known as taking on these kinds

786
00:45:01,920 --> 00:45:04,759
Speaker 2: of cases. Is it not a bit of an admission

787
00:45:04,880 --> 00:45:10,040
Speaker 2: to choose a person who had previously represented these people?

788
00:45:10,520 --> 00:45:13,440
Speaker 4: You kind of get into the essential question of the

789
00:45:13,480 --> 00:45:16,640
Speaker 4: American court room. Is it designed for justice or not?

790
00:45:16,920 --> 00:45:20,120
Speaker 4: We understand that the scales of justice aren't always balanced.

791
00:45:20,760 --> 00:45:24,080
Speaker 4: Most times, frankly, they're balanced against the defendant. If you

792
00:45:24,120 --> 00:45:27,520
Speaker 4: look at the vast majority of cases, those defendants can't

793
00:45:27,560 --> 00:45:29,200
Speaker 4: afford the royal blocks of the world.

794
00:45:29,800 --> 00:45:30,080
Speaker 5: Right.

795
00:45:30,120 --> 00:45:33,480
Speaker 4: But we do pay attention when what we believe is

796
00:45:33,520 --> 00:45:37,680
Speaker 4: an injustice where someone gets off, so to speak, is

797
00:45:37,719 --> 00:45:40,399
Speaker 4: guilty because we've come to that decision because they have

798
00:45:40,520 --> 00:45:43,880
Speaker 4: a high powered attorney who does his job. Do we

799
00:45:43,920 --> 00:45:47,399
Speaker 4: want lawyers to defend people who seem, on the very

800
00:45:47,480 --> 00:45:48,720
Speaker 4: facts guilty?

801
00:45:48,920 --> 00:45:50,400
Speaker 5: Do we want defense attorneys? Right?

802
00:45:50,480 --> 00:45:52,160
Speaker 4: I mean that leads to a whole other set of

803
00:45:52,239 --> 00:45:54,880
Speaker 4: questions having to do with the type of court system

804
00:45:54,920 --> 00:45:58,200
Speaker 4: that we have. Are we innocent until proven guilty? That

805
00:45:58,200 --> 00:45:59,959
Speaker 4: the axiom right?

806
00:46:00,120 --> 00:46:02,360
Speaker 1: And in the most generous reading of the value of

807
00:46:02,400 --> 00:46:05,520
Speaker 1: cameras in the courtroom, you could say, well, it puts

808
00:46:05,520 --> 00:46:08,719
Speaker 1: out there in the open the various power imbalances and

809
00:46:08,760 --> 00:46:12,520
Speaker 1: injustices that shape our justice system for the public to see,

810
00:46:12,520 --> 00:46:14,759
Speaker 1: and then it's a sign of a healthy society that

811
00:46:14,800 --> 00:46:18,600
Speaker 1: then they might react by protesting, or they might react

812
00:46:18,680 --> 00:46:21,399
Speaker 1: by attempting to change the way things are done. Of course,

813
00:46:21,440 --> 00:46:23,920
Speaker 1: I don't think it always works out that simply, and

814
00:46:23,960 --> 00:46:26,400
Speaker 1: that's a very sort of optimistic and liberal in the

815
00:46:26,400 --> 00:46:29,839
Speaker 1: traditional sense way of viewing things. But along those lines,

816
00:46:29,880 --> 00:46:31,520
Speaker 1: I do want to ask a little bit about just

817
00:46:31,600 --> 00:46:33,600
Speaker 1: the legacy of the trial, because we've talked a lot

818
00:46:33,640 --> 00:46:36,759
Speaker 1: about the legacy of the oj trial. Obviously, there are

819
00:46:36,800 --> 00:46:39,279
Speaker 1: other cases, like Rodney King or Jeffrey Dahmer that were

820
00:46:39,320 --> 00:46:42,360
Speaker 1: just such, you know, huge media events that have stuck

821
00:46:42,400 --> 00:46:45,040
Speaker 1: with us. This one is kind of interesting because, on

822
00:46:45,080 --> 00:46:48,640
Speaker 1: the one hand, it was so important in its time,

823
00:46:48,719 --> 00:46:51,400
Speaker 1: and as you argue, it ushered in this new era

824
00:46:51,560 --> 00:46:55,120
Speaker 1: of you know, to use an overused term, true crime obsession.

825
00:46:55,440 --> 00:46:57,400
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, it's not one that people

826
00:46:57,920 --> 00:47:02,320
Speaker 1: reference as much when talking about the important public trials

827
00:47:02,400 --> 00:47:04,719
Speaker 1: of the nineties and two thousand. So I'm wondering what

828
00:47:04,719 --> 00:47:08,000
Speaker 1: do you think it's legacy was in terms of conceptions

829
00:47:08,040 --> 00:47:12,719
Speaker 1: of date rape, in terms of women victims survivors being believed.

830
00:47:13,040 --> 00:47:14,160
Speaker 1: Where did it get us?

831
00:47:14,200 --> 00:47:16,400
Speaker 4: It's a great question, Georgie. I wish I had a

832
00:47:16,480 --> 00:47:19,920
Speaker 4: clear answer for you. I'm not sure how far any

833
00:47:19,960 --> 00:47:23,640
Speaker 4: of these cases actually take us in understanding. Is there

834
00:47:23,680 --> 00:47:25,960
Speaker 4: a resonance from the OJAC case, which is much more

835
00:47:26,000 --> 00:47:30,120
Speaker 4: high profile, lasted much much longer. I do wonder if

836
00:47:30,120 --> 00:47:32,359
Speaker 4: one trial kind of replaces the next, and we get

837
00:47:32,360 --> 00:47:35,440
Speaker 4: to that social issue, and then we move on to

838
00:47:35,480 --> 00:47:37,840
Speaker 4: the next, and the next and the next. This was

839
00:47:37,880 --> 00:47:41,000
Speaker 4: a ten day trial, I believe it was that had

840
00:47:41,080 --> 00:47:45,440
Speaker 4: a sensational immediate impact. You know, when Patricia Bowman actually

841
00:47:45,440 --> 00:47:48,480
Speaker 4: goes on the air when she testifies over two days,

842
00:47:48,880 --> 00:47:51,640
Speaker 4: CNN gets an average of three and a half million

843
00:47:51,960 --> 00:47:55,920
Speaker 4: viewers during that time, which is nine times the number

844
00:47:56,000 --> 00:47:58,920
Speaker 4: of viewers that would have watched CNN during that time.

845
00:47:59,000 --> 00:48:01,680
Speaker 4: But I wonder if it's kind of like a good

846
00:48:01,719 --> 00:48:04,000
Speaker 4: meal that you forget the next day in a way,

847
00:48:04,440 --> 00:48:07,399
Speaker 4: if that's even a proper analogy, the idea, it's it's

848
00:48:07,440 --> 00:48:10,480
Speaker 4: here and then it's we're onto the next meal, so

849
00:48:10,600 --> 00:48:15,040
Speaker 4: to speak, television culinary idea, you know. And I wish

850
00:48:15,120 --> 00:48:18,680
Speaker 4: I could say these trials really have real significant impact.

851
00:48:18,719 --> 00:48:23,120
Speaker 4: But I just wonder, in this melding between entertainment and

852
00:48:23,200 --> 00:48:26,880
Speaker 4: the law, what is the residue of that? Do we

853
00:48:26,960 --> 00:48:31,719
Speaker 4: actually do learn from these trials or are they entertainment

854
00:48:32,040 --> 00:48:35,240
Speaker 4: that is replaced by the next entertainment, the next trial,

855
00:48:35,280 --> 00:48:37,960
Speaker 4: the next to where it becomes a genre, the television

856
00:48:38,000 --> 00:48:40,719
Speaker 4: trial cour TV. You just plug into court TV. You

857
00:48:40,760 --> 00:48:43,680
Speaker 4: could see all of these old trials and movies that

858
00:48:43,760 --> 00:48:46,880
Speaker 4: we could watch now from another time. But it's a

859
00:48:46,880 --> 00:48:49,640
Speaker 4: good question you asked, what is the cultural resonance?

860
00:48:49,680 --> 00:48:53,160
Speaker 5: Does it really have impact? I'm not quite sure. Yeah.

861
00:48:53,200 --> 00:48:55,400
Speaker 1: Something that strikes me is that with all these other trials,

862
00:48:55,440 --> 00:48:59,239
Speaker 1: I can imagine other images, like either fictionalizations of them

863
00:48:59,440 --> 00:49:01,640
Speaker 1: or you know, it was Saturday Night Live sketch about

864
00:49:01,640 --> 00:49:05,279
Speaker 1: OJ a TV movie about Anita Hill. You know, I

865
00:49:05,360 --> 00:49:08,960
Speaker 1: think this is a strange exception because I really can't

866
00:49:09,239 --> 00:49:15,160
Speaker 1: picture in my head the definitive newspaper cover, the definitive dramatization.

867
00:49:15,840 --> 00:49:19,359
Speaker 1: Somehow it was never picked back up again after it

868
00:49:19,400 --> 00:49:19,759
Speaker 1: was over.

869
00:49:20,080 --> 00:49:20,319
Speaker 5: Yeah.

870
00:49:20,560 --> 00:49:23,799
Speaker 4: Yeah, maybe William Kennedy Smith did not have the same

871
00:49:23,880 --> 00:49:26,759
Speaker 4: residents as John Kennedy or Robert F.

872
00:49:26,840 --> 00:49:29,560
Speaker 5: Kennedy, so maybe he was just hate to use it.

873
00:49:29,600 --> 00:49:33,799
Speaker 4: This way, but a secondary Kennedy figure that didn't have

874
00:49:33,960 --> 00:49:37,520
Speaker 4: the gravitational pull over time. I speculate with you why

875
00:49:37,560 --> 00:49:40,360
Speaker 4: that's the case, but in talking about it with you,

876
00:49:40,440 --> 00:49:42,680
Speaker 4: it certainly becomes vivid in my mind.

877
00:49:43,000 --> 00:49:46,239
Speaker 2: Well, I think they knew that because they showed up.

878
00:49:46,440 --> 00:49:49,960
Speaker 2: JFK Junior came. It was notable at the time, the

879
00:49:50,040 --> 00:49:53,640
Speaker 2: Kennedy families showing up to support Oh, there's.

880
00:49:53,480 --> 00:49:54,720
Speaker 5: No question about that.

881
00:49:54,760 --> 00:49:59,160
Speaker 4: The clan kind of came together to support William Kennedy Smith.

882
00:50:00,000 --> 00:50:02,880
Speaker 1: They were showing up in rented Sedan's and not you know,

883
00:50:03,040 --> 00:50:07,040
Speaker 1: fancy cars. There was no coverage of them going out

884
00:50:07,080 --> 00:50:09,560
Speaker 1: to fancy restaurants in the area. You know, they were

885
00:50:09,640 --> 00:50:15,479
Speaker 1: also operating as side characters in a media narrative, which

886
00:50:15,520 --> 00:50:18,720
Speaker 1: is something that they have decades of experience doing, whereas

887
00:50:18,719 --> 00:50:21,720
Speaker 1: of course everyone involved on the other side, so to speak,

888
00:50:22,040 --> 00:50:23,799
Speaker 1: was new to the whole media game. So, I mean,

889
00:50:23,920 --> 00:50:27,080
Speaker 1: something that was a huge part of the Ann Mercer

890
00:50:27,520 --> 00:50:30,960
Speaker 1: fallout is that she accepted money to give an interview

891
00:50:31,040 --> 00:50:33,359
Speaker 1: for some you know, video tabloid. And it's like, if

892
00:50:33,400 --> 00:50:36,040
Speaker 1: she had been properly trained to be a perfect witness,

893
00:50:36,120 --> 00:50:37,960
Speaker 1: she would have never done that because of course, it's

894
00:50:37,960 --> 00:50:40,520
Speaker 1: going to come back to bite her. Nowadays, everyone is

895
00:50:40,560 --> 00:50:42,920
Speaker 1: so used to the ins and outs of how media works,

896
00:50:42,960 --> 00:50:46,960
Speaker 1: because everyone is aware of how they're coming across online

897
00:50:47,080 --> 00:50:49,759
Speaker 1: or wherever they're projecting versions of themselves. And at that point,

898
00:50:49,800 --> 00:50:52,320
Speaker 1: it was just so new that you had no idea

899
00:50:52,360 --> 00:50:54,920
Speaker 1: what the rules were and what incredibly bad luck to

900
00:50:55,000 --> 00:50:57,359
Speaker 1: be going up against. The Kennedy's the one family who

901
00:50:57,480 --> 00:50:59,280
Speaker 1: does know how all of this works.

902
00:50:59,560 --> 00:51:03,720
Speaker 4: You speaking to the bifurcation of the courtroom and the public.

903
00:51:04,360 --> 00:51:08,240
Speaker 4: The Kennedys, of course, are very super aware of public

904
00:51:08,280 --> 00:51:11,600
Speaker 4: opinion surrounding this case, so they're going to do whatever

905
00:51:11,640 --> 00:51:15,200
Speaker 4: they can to kind of manufacture whatever image. They're going

906
00:51:15,280 --> 00:51:17,359
Speaker 4: to come in rented cards and not going to come

907
00:51:17,400 --> 00:51:21,120
Speaker 4: in limousines to that case. They understand it perfectly. They've

908
00:51:21,160 --> 00:51:25,160
Speaker 4: been broiled in that media life forever, right, and they're

909
00:51:25,320 --> 00:51:28,440
Speaker 4: very savvy to do that, frankly, in terms of projecting

910
00:51:28,600 --> 00:51:30,960
Speaker 4: that kind of image that they're trying to project. And

911
00:51:31,000 --> 00:51:34,000
Speaker 4: there's no question that Patricia Bowman was going up against

912
00:51:34,280 --> 00:51:36,760
Speaker 4: that power because they had the power also to control

913
00:51:36,840 --> 00:51:39,960
Speaker 4: the press. The press in that regard was on their side.

914
00:51:40,360 --> 00:51:42,920
Speaker 4: The Kennedies were very savvy in the way in which

915
00:51:42,960 --> 00:51:45,480
Speaker 4: they dealt with the media. We still think of the

916
00:51:45,560 --> 00:51:48,280
Speaker 4: Kennedys in such fashion, all right. For the most part,

917
00:51:48,400 --> 00:51:50,719
Speaker 4: it is the age of Camelot, you know. It's that

918
00:51:50,920 --> 00:51:54,040
Speaker 4: public image that Jackie Kennedy wanted to create around this family,

919
00:51:54,560 --> 00:51:58,040
Speaker 4: and so this case really kind of violated that image

920
00:51:58,040 --> 00:52:00,399
Speaker 4: in our mind, and the Kennedys were going to whatever

921
00:52:00,440 --> 00:52:03,600
Speaker 4: they could to restore public opinion over to their side.

922
00:52:03,680 --> 00:52:06,800
Speaker 4: So it's certainly an interesting story to revisit, at least

923
00:52:06,840 --> 00:52:10,480
Speaker 4: to see what happened then and draw any conclusions.

924
00:52:10,560 --> 00:52:13,239
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I want to just read just one small thing,

925
00:52:13,320 --> 00:52:15,480
Speaker 1: because this is relevant to what we're talking about. I

926
00:52:15,520 --> 00:52:18,800
Speaker 1: want to read a quote from William Kennedy Smith's statement

927
00:52:18,880 --> 00:52:22,320
Speaker 1: after he was found not guilty outside the courtroom. He says,

928
00:52:22,640 --> 00:52:25,480
Speaker 1: I have an enormous debt to the system and to God.

929
00:52:25,760 --> 00:52:27,919
Speaker 1: I have terrific faith in both of them, and I'm

930
00:52:27,960 --> 00:52:30,360
Speaker 1: just really really happy. And to me, that is like

931
00:52:30,440 --> 00:52:33,680
Speaker 1: the quintessential Kennedy quote. I have an enormous debt to

932
00:52:33,719 --> 00:52:36,239
Speaker 1: the system and to God. It's almost too perfect. It's

933
00:52:36,280 --> 00:52:38,239
Speaker 1: like out of a TV movie. So I just wanted

934
00:52:38,280 --> 00:52:38,920
Speaker 1: to end on that.

935
00:52:39,000 --> 00:52:42,440
Speaker 4: Well, we do find even in events that are happening today,

936
00:52:42,560 --> 00:52:46,480
Speaker 4: this tie in between politics and the lord, right, So

937
00:52:46,760 --> 00:52:51,279
Speaker 4: it doesn't necessarily surprise me that this confluence between these

938
00:52:51,360 --> 00:52:55,560
Speaker 4: two systems that's, for lack of a better term, coming

939
00:52:55,560 --> 00:52:58,719
Speaker 4: to play in a statement like that. So again, he's

940
00:52:58,840 --> 00:53:03,000
Speaker 4: very savvy to kind of draw in the public in

941
00:53:03,080 --> 00:53:04,160
Speaker 4: terms of that sentiment.

942
00:53:04,280 --> 00:53:06,560
Speaker 5: So yeah, well, thank you very much.

943
00:53:06,600 --> 00:53:09,000
Speaker 1: This was really great and I think we both learned

944
00:53:09,000 --> 00:53:09,360
Speaker 1: a lot.

945
00:53:09,560 --> 00:53:12,640
Speaker 4: Well, I really appreciate this discussion. It kind of opens

946
00:53:12,719 --> 00:53:16,160
Speaker 4: up what was once old territory, and we visited that

947
00:53:16,239 --> 00:53:17,920
Speaker 4: look at some of the things that I wrote about

948
00:53:17,920 --> 00:53:21,120
Speaker 4: in fact, and it's wonderful actually to see that this

949
00:53:21,600 --> 00:53:26,120
Speaker 4: issue still is resonating. You know, that case study obviously

950
00:53:26,160 --> 00:53:29,080
Speaker 4: done many years ago, but I think it's still relevant

951
00:53:29,080 --> 00:53:32,320
Speaker 4: today having to do with this kind of collision between

952
00:53:32,320 --> 00:53:36,080
Speaker 4: the medium and the message. And I think in revisiting

953
00:53:36,160 --> 00:53:39,680
Speaker 4: the Kennedy case, it gives us some lessons even for

954
00:53:39,760 --> 00:53:41,760
Speaker 4: today having to do with television trials.

955
00:53:41,880 --> 00:53:43,560
Speaker 5: So thank you, thank you for all of that.

956
00:53:44,480 --> 00:53:47,440
Speaker 2: So that's it for this week's episode. United States of

957
00:53:47,520 --> 00:53:50,800
Speaker 2: Kennedy is hosted by me Lyra Smith and George Severes.

958
00:53:51,080 --> 00:53:54,800
Speaker 1: Research by Dave Rus and Austin Thompson. Our executive producer

959
00:53:54,840 --> 00:53:58,839
Speaker 1: is Jenna Cagel. Original music by Josh Wittapolski, edited by

960
00:53:58,880 --> 00:54:02,600
Speaker 1: Graham Gibson, and mixed by Doug Bain. Next week, we're

961
00:54:02,600 --> 00:54:05,720
Speaker 1: digging into Bobby Kennedy and his pursuit of organized crime

962
00:54:05,800 --> 00:54:06,600
Speaker 1: and Jimmy Hoffa.

963
00:54:06,840 --> 00:54:10,279
Speaker 2: So subscribe and follow United States of Kennedy for all

964
00:54:10,320 --> 00:54:14,360
Speaker 2: things Kennedy every week