Tales of a Mafia Mistress

This Village Voice piece was fascinating in and of itself, and reading up on the the fallout was even more interesting. Robbins never wanted to become part of the story, clearly. His decision to go public with the inconsistencies in Schiro's testimony brings up several important questions about the reporter/source dynamic. (Here is another VV article where Robbins explains more about the sequence of events.)

Ten years before the DeVecchio trial, Robbins and his writing partner made a promise to Schiro to shield her identity to the best of their ability as they wrote their book. But it became clear during her testimony a decade later that she was lying -- then or now, it wasn't clear. She completely contradicted her earlier statements with regard to DeVecchio's activities and involvement in crimes. And because her testimony seemed to be the lynch-pin for the prosecution, Robbins gave up the tapes, and the case fell apart.

I think it's easy to understand Robbins' decision. But I can't help but wonder if Robbins was motivated, at least a little, by a sense of betrayal. Schiro either lied to him then or was lying on the stand now -- in either case, screw any promises he might have made a decade prior.

Similarly, I wonder if he'd have gone forward if the situation had been reversed -- Schiro was a defense witness making exculpatory statements that contradicted what she had told Robbins. I think I know the answer to this one: No. It's one thing to clear a man's name, another to be to his executioner. Is this not ethically inconsistent, though? Hard to say. The answer would be the same for me, I think.