On the Trail of Innocence

Reed: A few years ago you got into a bit of trouble because of an article you wrote for a certain prominent paper, that heavily influenced public opinion and some believe resulted in the death of James Warner. Are you still feeling the repercussions of what has been called 'some of the most disreputable reporting, verging on complicity', according to Justice Cooper?

Salzman: First of all, all I did was to interview Warner, which I did under supervision, while he was incarcerated and awaiting trial. What he said during that interview was recorded and is a matter of public record. In reviewing those tapes after Warner was murdered, Justice Cooper cleared me of any involvement and I was never charged with a crime.

Reed: You were the subject of a months long investigation. The article was the primary piece of evidence introduced against you in that inquiry and you were fired from your position a week after that investigation began. How can you maintain that this article, one of the most biased and blatantly suggestive pieces I have ever read, had no impact on the opinion of the general public and, in particular, on Sonny Coubrie, who after reading it, shot Mr. Warner as he was entering the courthouse in police custody?

Salzman: It was an interview with a man who was a suspect in the murder of an eleven year old girl. All I did was to record what Warner said and publish his account of the events that lead to his arrest. I don't know how you can consider that 'suggestive'.

Reed: Mr. Salzman, you asked him if he felt he should be executed and then intimated that justice might be better served if someone put a bullet in him to save the general public a few dollars. You don't think that that's suggestive?

Salzman: Do you even know anything about James Warner? James Warner was a cold blooded murderer. I simply asked if he felt any remorse and asked him what he felt he deserved. What Mr. Coubrie did, he did under his own volition, and I can't be held responsible for the actions of and obviously unstable and violent man.

Reed: Were the meetings you had with Sonny Coubrie connected to his decision to shoot Warner? Did you, as was suggested by investigators, supply the obviously distraught Sonny Coubrie, the uncle of the girl, any information about the time and location of the transfer?

Salzman: That is simply untrue. My meeting with Sonny Coubrie was nothing more than an attempt, on my part, to represent the other side of this tragedy. I interviewed him on one occasion, one occasion only, and asked him to verify some of the details that Warner had given about the night that girl went missing.

Reed: Details that, until that point were disputed and would have been vigorously defended by Mr. Warner's council, had he survived to be tried.

Salzman: This is all a matter of public record. I was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Reed: As was Warner, when after his death he was exonerated by evidence that made it clear he was no where near the girl on the night in question.

Salzman: That hadn't been established at the time of Warner's death. Look, there is no doubt that James Warner was a very bad man. What happened to him could have just as easily been an accounting for the life he had lead up until that point.

Reed: Are you suggesting that he should have been executed anyway? That, despite being innocent of the charges, he still deserved to be shot on his way to trial?

Salzman: I did not say that.

Reed: Recently, the Supreme Court commented on the lack of impartiality in the press, while commenting on the decision that sent Mr. Coubrie to prison for the rest of his life. It would seem, despite Justice Cooper's decision in your case, that you are being held accountable, in part, for what transpired that day. How do you feel about that? Do you think the press has forfeited its credibility by pandering to public opinion? Is it true that you recently signed a book deal and will make millions detailing the ruin of three innocent lives?

Salzman: No comment. I want to ask you a question. Who's going to read this? Who is pandering to the public now? And who's innocent anymore, anyway?