Letters to the Editor

Rogue Cop Wasn't Railroaded

To the Editor:

I'm sure that most people who read Michael J. Gorman's recent letter (Sept. 8 issue) in which he defended William Phillips found it very persuasive, and were convinced that Phillips is indeed deserving of parole, if not an outright pardon. That's because few people remember the ex-patrolman and convicted murderer (or had even heard of him in the first place); fewer still can recall the specifics of this almost 40-year-old double murder.

Phillips was a star witness at the Knapp Commission - not by choice, but because he'd been caught on tape trying to shake down Xaviera Hollander (aka "The Happy Hooker") and was forced to cooperate. His three days of testimony in front of the commission in October of 1971, during which he described in detail the acts of corruption committed by himself and his colleagues, led to 39-some-odd indictments, numerous firings, incarcerations, and the suicide of a Lieutenant who (mistakenly) believed Phillips had evidence on him.

Like others who have tried to defend Phillips, Gorman makes much of the resentment other cops must have felt toward him, particularly Det. John Justy, who connected Phillips to the double homicide that occurred on Christmas Eve of 1968. Gorman's argument: Justy was once partnered with the Lieutenant who killed himself, so he retaliated by claiming that Phillips resembled the composite sketch made of the killer - a sketch that Gorman says "could have been almost anybody."

True enough. But Gorman neglects to mention that while watching Phillips' televised testimony, Justy took interest not only in his resemblance to the sketch, but also of his admission to regular shakedowns of a bookie at 155 East 55th Street whose last name began with "S." The two homicide victims were a prostitute named Sharon Stango and her pimp, James Smith. Though the brothel they were killed in was on East 57th St., Smith - who was also a known gambler - had operated out of several locations, including the East 55th St. address mentioned by Phillips. Justy then reached out to the Knapp Commission and confirmed that the bookie referred to in the hearings as "Mr. S" was, in fact, the same James Smith.

The sketch of the killer had been made with the help of two witnesses - another prostitute in the apartment, and a "John" who had also been shot but survived. Both testified that Phillips was the gunman who killed Smith and Stango (and tried to kill the male witness). Gorman makes no attempt to discredit the female witness (other than mentioning she was a prostitute), but tries to dismiss the male witness - Charles Gonzalez - as someone with a "psych history" (another well-worn Phillips defense). As a retired NYPD Lieutenant, Gorman knows that when cops hear the phrase "psych history," they think of a violent, deranged individual who is routinely dragged kicking and screaming to the psych ward. Mr. Gonzalez's entire "psych history" consisted of him having been treated for a nervous breakdown when he was 15 years old - almost 30 years before the shootings.

Gorman also neglects to mention the dozen or so other witnesses who either saw Phillips in Smith's building the night of the murder or heard him threatening Smith the previous day over a $1,000 payoff. He also makes much of two "witnesses" who worked in the building and who died of natural causes prior to the trial. Had they lived, Gorman argues, they possibly could have offered testimony beneficial to Phillips. Gorman provides no evidence to bolster this underwhelming argument, but cites his source for this information as a 1973 book written by Leonard Shecter - in collaboration with Phillips himself - entitled "On the Pad," and suggests that anyone interested in the case should read this book.

The prosecutor in Phillips' murder trial also thought this book might make for an interesting read, and unlike Gorman, found information that tended to implicate rather than exculpate Phillips. When portions of the book were introduced into evidence at his second trial (the first one having ended in a hung jury) Phillips claimed he never said the things attributed to him by Shecter, who must have misquoted him in his authorized biography. Shecter, having died prior to the second trial, was unable to clear up the matter.

Gorman suggests that Phillips - an admittedly corrupt cop - must have indeed been a smart man to have survived in the bad old days of shakedowns and extortions, and that being so smart, he wouldn't have committed so colossally stupid an act as to leave witnesses behind. Though I agree that a corrupt cop operating today the way Phillips did would need to be extremely intelligent in order to avoid detection, crooked cops in the pre-Knapp days would have fit right in, with little to fear from their colleagues. It was the honest cops who had a difficult time of it.

As for the argument that Phillips would not have been stupid enough to leave living, breathing witnesses behind - well, that's a boneheaded move for anyone to commit, and obviously someone did just that. Whoever wound up getting charged for the crime - be it William Phillips or Tony Soprano - would have undoubtedly used the "would-I-be-stupid-enough-to-do-that?" defense. As for Phillips being a smart guy - Wow, where do I begin?

1). Phillips had once been a Detective, but was busted back down to Patrolman in 1965 for accepting a free drink. In 1965!? When police corruption was so highly organized and pervasive, this guy gets demoted for taking a free drink? He either stepped on some mighty big toes, or he had to be one of the dumbest cops on the force.

2). Phillips testified in front of the grand jury that he hadn't seen Smith since trying to shake him down in 1965. Yet he testified in Federal District Court (as a witness in the trial of another officer) that he'd visited Smith "eight-to-ten times" in the fall of 1968. Phillips tried arguing that the court reporter in the Federal court must have misquoted him (sound familiar?), but eventually Phillips's lawyer, the very capable F. Lee Bailey, had to acknowledge his client's perjury.

3). Phillips had actually stated to undercover Knapp Commission investigators that he'd killed three people during his career. Problem: Department records recorded only one fatal shooting (ruled justified) that Phillips had been involved in. That leaves two killings unaccounted for - precisely the number of people Phillips was accused of murdering. Coincidence? When confronted with the audiotape of his own words at his trial, Phillips insisted that he had just been bragging.

4). And then there's my personal favorite: On the day of the Smith-Stango murders, Phillips had made an entry in this memo book referring to the "Case of Smith." The prosecutor contended that Phillips wrote this to remind himself to see Smith later that day to get the $1,000 in protection money that Smith owed him. Phillips, of course, denied this, claiming that the entry was a reference to a phony court case. He'd written it, he said, so he could get out of work by pretending he had to go to court. As proof of this preposterous claim, Phillips cited a similar entry he'd made in his memo book the previous April for the "Case of Smith," claiming that this, too, was a phony entry that got him a day off patrol. Unfortunately for Phillips, the prosecutor was easily able to produce reams of court documents showing that the "Smith" referred to in the April entry was one very real Charlie Smith, for whom Phillips did indeed have to appear at the DA's office. Once again, Phillips had to admit to perjury. (It would not be his last time, either.)

I have no idea what Gorman's interest in the Phillips case is, or why he so vigorously defends him. Smith and Stango were murdered in the precinct I currently work in, which is why I was curious enough to research this case. Having read numerous books and over 100 articles relating to Phillips and his murder trial, it's clear to me that Gorman was wearing his attorney's hat when he wrote his letter in defense of Phillips. His careful cherry-picking of some facts and glaring omissions of others is classic lawyering in action. But Phillips already had his trial. He also appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost.

Perhaps it's time for Gorman to put on his police hat one more time and view this case not from an advocacy position but from in impartial one, and base his conclusions on the totality of the circumstances.

SETH A. KAUFMAN, Police Officer, 17th Precinct, NYPD