The Eddie Curran piece just became available at the Montgomery Independent's Web site.
The article can be read in its entirety here.
Haven't had a chance to fully digest the piece yet. But you can tell right off that it comes with an interesting editor's note. In fact, it seems that Editor Bob Martin is trying his darnedest to distance himself from Curran's work.
Why was the story run? It is well documented that Scott Horton, of Harper's, has been highly critical of Alabama's three Newhouse newspapers--in Birmingham, Mobile, and Huntsville. As a reporter for the Mobile Press-Register, Curran evidently took issue with Horton's work and felt he deserved an opportunity to respond.
The Independent decided to give him that opportunity and publishes the article without editing.
They publish the piece with editing, but not without editorializing about it at the beginning.
Seems at first read to be quite a lot of bluster, with a few pot shots at Ms. Simpson, but not much more substance than first-hand observations of the Siegelman trial. Maybe all will be told in Mr. Curran's book.
I've known Jill since '83 at U of A. Recall her talking about Rob Riley; never met him. She and her family did Repub. party work in N. AL over the years, as I recall, but I don't know the extent of it.
They certainly did publish it without editing. My. And you're right, the editor's note is a little strange. He's my friend, yeah yeah, but you know, the judge does own 47% of that company...we're just sayin, is all....
This jumped out at me a little: "It is also impossible to summarize all of the conspiracies borne from Simpson's statements. They are wide-ranging and if true would be, in most cases, highly illegal." Well yeah, that's the whole point, isn't it?
What's that saying: even the paranoid can have enemies? Even the guilty can be the target of a political hit job.
Post a Comment