It was brilliant, and ever-so-subtle. Unlike the ham-fisted Russell episode, there were no messy settlement papers or $110,000 checks to raise questions about who's telling the truth. Channel 5 and its carrier were faced with a Food-Lion fight over the legitimacy of using undercover spies. Worse, their undercover spy would contradict much of what Griffin said.
"I don't know for sure whether she flipped on Marty," says Babcock wearily, speaking from yet the latest rented room in which he has flopped this year, courtesy of the Oprah suit. "I got to thinking about it, and I don't think it would have mattered much. Someone has to be willing to sponsor her testimony [call her as a witness]. If she gets a 'not guilty' in the perjury trial, then you may be willing to sponsor her testimony; otherwise, she's a convicted perjurer."
But Shahravan could have been a far more damaging witness than Babcock is willing to admit. For the important question was not who would have to call her to the stand; it was who would have to call her a liar. Channel 5 would have to paint her, convicted or not, as a pathological liar--an approach that would not reflect well on Griffin's judgment.
During the mediation, Ginsberg told Channel 5 the bad news about what Shahravan would say at trial. Smith, her lawyer, backed him up.
Channel 5 was faced with a choice. The players had made a demand within the $10 million policy limits. Under the terms of the policy, if the insurer wanted to accept the offer--and it did--Channel 5 could choose to oppose the settlement. If they did so, the insurer would pay Channel 5 the amount of the demand--say, $2 million--less the remaining deductible. The station would then have a war chest just under $2 million with which to pay attorneys' fees.
The insurer would be relieved of liability. Channel 5 would assume the risk of a judgment.
The station chose to go along with the settlement.
The few sources at Channel 5 who are talking are trying to lay it off on the insurer. "The insurance company took the estimates [of attorneys' fees] through trial and basically said that anything under this number, we settle," reveals one person close to the settlement negotiations. "It's their money. What are you going to do?"
Though no one's coming completely clean, they do seem to have been mightily impressed by Irvin. "I think our guys were pretty impressed with his little speech," says one Channel 5 source. "I think he's got good ability as a communicator," says Babcock, sounding bone tired.
Griffin did not sign the agreement, although whether this is for appearance's sake or out of actual reluctance is anyone's guess. He did sign an agreement promising to cooperate with the players in their suits against the city. The case against him was dismissed, as it was against the station.
Nina Shahravan will either plead guilty or go to trial September 15 and hope that the jury will believe she was so badly manipulated that they simply must acquit. The shrinks will testify that because of her overwhelming need for approval, she didn't have a chance of standing up to her powerful puppeteers. And the chief witnesses against her will be all sympathy. "I just think that poor woman was so badly manipulated," says Ginsberg, in a preview of the testimony certain to come on September 15.
"I feel sorry for her," says Erik Williams. "I think she's got a problem. I think she needs help mentally."
And while Victoria Phillips doesn't know the details of what went down in the conference room she sits across from, she does have a pretty good grasp of the issues involved--issues that will now have to be fought out another day, in another suit.
Winning might have been easier than the media defendants thought. Remembering her brief moment of sympathy for the players, she laughs. "I got over it," says Phillips, who got to keep Irvin's cap as a souvenir. "I mean, I can understand that you want that privacy. But I'm sorry--there's just a price to be paid.
