Letters to the Editor
Thin Case Against Rogue Cop

To the Editor:

Police Officer Seth A. Kaufman obviously believes that justice was served in the prosecution and conviction of rogue cop William R. Phillips for a double murder of a pimp and a prostitute in 1968, as well as Phillips's continued incarceration and denial of parole. However, as one who supports the parole of Phillips, it's not what Officer Kaufman says in his letter to The Chief (Sept. 29 issue) that I dispute, but what he doesn't say.

Let's look at the evidence that led to Phillips's conviction:

There was absolutely no physical evidence to tie Phillips to the murder scene. A police ballistics expert testified that the rounds that killed the pimp and prostitute definitely did not come from either of Phillips's service guns - the only guns owned by Phillips. While fingerprints were recovered from the apartment by a police fingerprint technician, none were Phillips's fingerprints.

The only eyewitness to the killings was a "john" named Charles Gonzalez, who had been with the murdered prostitute, Sharon Stango, and was wounded by the gunman. However, during both trials, Gonzalez (a psychiatric patient in Creedmoor State Hospital for six months 30 years earlier) had first described the killer as being between 5'8" and 5'9" tall. When Gonzalez, who is 5'7", stood next to Phillips, who is 6', Phillips towered over him. When asked why he had changed his testimony about the killer's height, Gonzalez said "Because he seems taller to me."

After being shot, Gonzalez said he stumbled out of the apartment and confronted the killer, who was waiting for the elevator. Gonzalez said the killer told him to get back into the apartment. Does this sound like the action of a cop turned killer?

Gonzalez (who testified that "I'll never forget his face as long as I live") also admitted that at the line-up, he had first pointed to another man, saying that the man looked like the killer, but that (unlike the man he had indicated) the killer looked Italian. Finally, he settled on Phillips as the one who shot him. When questioned about the reference to the killer being Italian, Gonzalez said it was not important, but admitted that Phillips did not look Italian.

Furthermore, Gonzales said that he had watched the Knapp Commission hearings, and after seeing Phillips's face numerous times on TV and in the newspapers, he never recognized Phillips as the man who shot him and whose face he said he'd "never forget." Four years later, after first picking another man in the lineup, he changed his mind and "recognized" Phillips.

Another key witness (not an eyewitness), prostitute Terry Rogers, admitted that prosecutor Jack Litman had offered to consider her cooperation as a witness in connection with warrants outstanding against her for possession of stolen credit cards. She admitted that throughout the Knapp Commission hearings as she saw Phillips testify, she never connected him with a man she saw in the apartment house that was the site of the murders in late 1968 (within months of the murders). Only on Feb. 10, 1972, at the prosecutor's office, did she point out Phillips.

Isn't it amazing how these witnesses' memories got better with time and location (the prosecutor's office)? Judge John Murtagh noted that most of the witnesses were "creatures who are in the depths of depravity."

While Officer Kaufman, in his letter, considers Phillips to be a stupid cop - stupid enough to leave a clear trail of evidence - prosecutor Litman, in his summation, characterized Phillips as a "wily professional witness ..." An important question is whether a wily, professional witness and veteran street cop would be likely, in his Knapp Commission testimony, to admit to regular shakedowns of a bookie named "S" (known to the Commission as James Smith) if he had murdered Smith. Would Phillips tell a victim and eyewitness to go back into the murder scene as he was making his getaway? Anyone who believes Gonzalez is probably as crazy as he is - or biased enough to put common sense aside.

The first criminal trial ended in a hung jury, 10-2 for acquittal. Apparently, those jurors didn't think much of the "evidence" against Phillips.

The Knapp Commission's Chief Counsel, Michael Armstrong, believes Phillips is serving time for another man's crimes. He not only says the evidence doesn't add up, but said that Phillips, even if he were capable of murder, is "not capable of murder where he leaves a live witness." Hero cop Frank Serpico believes the NYPD was capable of framing Phillips because of his testimony against corrupt officers like Phillips himself. Even Judge Whitman Knapp (before his death) supported Phillips's release from prison.

New York Court of Appeals Judge Sol Wachtler said that any prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich - seven years before his own indictment for sexual harassment. Well, if overzealous cops and prosecutors are biased and not particularly interested in the truth, they can also convict a ham sandwich. In this case, police officers and prosecutors couldn't wait for the Knapp Commission to conclude before trying to get Phillips. They had the means, the motive and the opportunity to railroad Phillips, and I believe that is just what they did.

MICHAEL J. GORMAN

Editor's note: The writer is a retired NYPD Lieutenant and an attorney.