|
|
"Von Bulow Recounts Trial Experiences"
Harvard
Law Record - April 4, 1986 - Pages 2, 15
By Eric Sullivan
reprinted by permission
Students,
visitors and the press jammed into the Ames Courtroom on March 12 to hear
Danish socialite Claus Von Bulow speak publicly for the first time since he
was tried in 1982 for allegedly attempting to murder his wife, Sunny.
The HLS Forum sponsored the talk.
Von Bulow, who practiced law in England for 9 years, said
he had intended to discuss the differences between the American and British
judicial systems. But professional commentary gave way to discussion of
his two trials. He was introduced by Professor Alan Dershowitz, who
along with Professor Susan Estrich and a team of 23 Harvard Law Students in
1984 helped overturn Von Bulow's 1982 conviction for attempting to kill his
heiress wife by injecting her with insulin.
In his introduction, Dershowitz informed the crowd that the
Von Bulow trial gave him the "rare pleasure" of representing an
"absolutely innocent man."
Dershowitz attacked those responsible for posting what he
called "bravely anonymous" flyers around HLS the day of Von Bulow's
speech. Two types of flyers were plastered on bulletin boards in
Harkness Commons. Both proclaimed the message in large black letters:
"Claus Von Bulow Murdered His Wife."
Both Dershowitz and Von Bulow said four factors enabled the
overturn of Von Bulow's earlier conviction: inconsistent testimony by the
prosecution's witnesses, the develoment of a stronger medical case by the
defense, the inclusion of evidence excluded at the first trial, and the
exclusion of other evidence which had been admitted at the previous trial.
Von Bulow disscussed at some length the "little black
bag" which was, in his words, the "smoking gun" in his
case. He said the detective work which followed the discovery of the
black bag was of questionable quality. According to him, the syringe
found in the black bag was never tested for blood or tissue to determine if it
had ever been injected. He also recalled that although police questioned
him for 4 hours they never asked him about the bag. Von Bulow said he
believes he was not asked about the black bag because the police "didn't
want an answer." He summed up his feeling about the authenticity of
the bag by quoting from the movie Peter Pan: "Do you believe in
fairies?"
Von Bulow was very critical of the media coverage of his
trial, describing it as sensationalistic and "so much
rubbish." He attributed part of this, however, to the "paid
public relations campaign" he said was directed against him by his
stepchildren whom he referred to as "my principal accusers."
Although his criminal conviction was overturned, Von Bulow
is still involved in civil litigation. He said he was, therefore, forced
to be "selective" in his comments. The civil litigation
involves disputes between his daughter and his stepchildren over their
mother's money. Von Bulow said he plans to help his daughter get what he
believes is "rightfully hers," then leave the United States to live
quietly as a "hermit" in Switzerland.
Dershowitz previewed his theory for why Von Bulow's
stepchildren have pursued civil litigation. The theory is fully
explained in Dershowitz's soon to be published book. He said there is
"a lot of evidence" to support it. In Dershowitz's opinion,
the stepchildren "honestly but mistakenly" believe that Von Bulow is
guilty, and that he is "so clever, so insidious" that he could
"get away with it." Dershowitz suggested that this belief may
have led the stepchildren to "frame" Von Bulow. If the theory
is correct, Dershowitz said that Von Bulow case would be "one of the most
remarkable cases in the annals of justice."
One student asked Dershowitz why Von Bulow's conviction was
overturned when the judge at the first trial believed Von Bulow was
guilty. Dershowitz responded that the conviction was overturned because
Von Bulow was innocent. He also noted that the judges at the second
trial were "not certain" that the conviction was appropriate.
Dershowitz said that lawyers are like doctors in that regardless of their
theory they can only work with whatever evidence they have. Another
student asked Von Bulow if his decision to speak at Harvard was an attempt to
"legitimize" himself by using a respected forum. Von Bulow
responded that he had decided to speak at HLS out of gratitude to Dershowitz's
legal team and a fondness for the "venue of Cambridge."
Another member of the audience asked Von Bulow if he
thought it tasteful for him to appear with his leather-clad mistress on the
cover of Vanity Fair while his wife lay in a coma. Von Bulow
conceded that it was not, but added that his wife would have understood his
seeking emotional support during his 5-year ordeal, as would "any other
decent human being."
Both Dershowitz and Von Bulow said the case would not have
existed if both sides had not been able to spend substantial amounts of
money. Dershowitz said justice would not have prevailed if the butler
had been charged because the successful defense required "enormous
investments in expert witnesses and testimony." Von Bulow recalled
how he had heard a female journalist at the trial complain that the
proceedings were boring. She went on to remark, he said, that she wished
she had married someone so rich so she wouldn't have to sit through the
trial. That is exactly why he did have to sit though it, according to
Von Bulow.
Von Bulow concluded the prepared portion of his speed by
reminding his listeners that the case was not melodramatic. He said that
although it had "all the ingredients of Dallas and Dynasty" it was
also tragic. "It was a tragedy and it satisfied all of Aristotle's
definition of tragedy," he said. "Everyone is wounded, some
fatally."