Video Voyeurs

by Howard Altman

This is how great Philadelphia really is.

Cathie Abookire, District Attorney Lynne Abraham’s very able spokeswoman, will be the hookup for the hottest porno video in town, if a motorcycle-riding, tough-on-crime judge named Seamus and the city’s two biggest newspapers get their way.

It's stuff like this that would get you laughed at if you tried to make it up.

The video -- starring Billy Rinick, a one-legged minor-league mobster and may-be murderer who once hid under boss Joey Merlino's bed while the boss' wife was home with him and dressed only in sleepwear -- is now the center of a tug-of-war between Abraham and the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News.

At issue is whether the video -- a compilation of 20 surreptitious recordings Rinick made of his sexual encounters with four different women -- should be available to the public because prosecutors trying Rinick on murder charges played the tape in open court.

Abraham and the state attorney general's office, who are jointly prosecuting the horny alleged hit man, argue that, even though they goofed and forgot to clear the court, the video violates the privacy of Rinick's bedmates, who did not know that their sexcapades were being recorded.

The newspapers, on the other hand, are arguing that the public must have access to anything shown in court -- be it Rinick's ruttings or a key government document.

McCaffery ultimately ruled that the media can have access to the video via screenings set up by prosecutors. The D.A. and A.G. are appealing to Common Pleas Court Judge Joyce Kean. No date has been set for the hearing. Which means that, until Kean chimes in, the vulgar video remains under lock and key.

Still, it doesn't hurt to ask for a viewing because, who knows, maybe Kean will be keen on McCaffery's viewpoint.

"There is a price for that," Abookire says with a hearty chortle when I ask her to set up my court-ordered porno viewing session. "[Channel 6 reporter] Vernon Odom is bringing popcorn. Maybe you can bring Jujubes."

Not being a fan of Jujubes, I offer to bring nonpareils, those little round chocolate candies with the crunchy white things on top.

Then the conversation becomes more serious.

The problem, says Abookire, is not so much that the D.A.'s office should not be in the business of purveying porn. The press, after all, is entitled to what it is entitled to, she says. The problem, she says, is that the women in the porn that the office would purvey were not aware that Rinick had the cameras rolling. And to that Abraham had to object.

"For the D.A. to set up a viewing session, where people would be invited to come in to view it, I think that violates the rights of the women," says Abookire, who says she has not seen the recordings. "Imagine it was you on that tape, and the D.A. decided to set up a viewing session."

That would solve the question of anyone wanting to see it, I answer.

So why all the hubbub?

It really isn't about seeing Billy buck.

In fact, local porn houses I contacted say there is not a lot of interest in the prurient proclivities of a third-rate thug.

"That would be considered amateur," says the manager of Venus Video in Southwest Philly, adding that he is familiar with Rinick and his flicks. "I don't think it would have value. He's not that important, like John Gotti."

"I don't think there would be much interest," concurs a manager over at Scorpio Adult Boutique, in Center City, who, like the man from Venus, would not give his name no matter how much coaxing. "He is a turn-off. Who would be interested in him?"

And therein lies the question.

Why should the media want to see this tape so badly that it would pay lawyers to fight it out in court?

"Open access to criminal proceedings serves an important function in a democratic society," argue the newspapers in a motion for access to the records -- in this case, the Rinick tapes. "The First Amendment ... as well as the common law and constitution of this commonwealth make it clear that open criminal records are essential to a properly functioning democracy.

"While privacy is an important interest," argues Michael Baughman, attorney on behalf of the newspapers, "the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that the public's right to know what happens in an open court outweighs the privacy interests of victims of crime."

It was an interesting juxtaposition, then, that on the day prosecutors and the media duked it out over the Rinick tapes, Judea Pearl, father of Daniel, wrote a New York Times op-ed piece excoriating the Boston Phoenix for running pictures of the Wall Street Journal reporter's death and offering a link on its website to a video of his execution.

"As devastating as this experience has been for us, the issue goes beyond the anguish of one family," writes Judea Pearl. "Displaying this murder undermines efforts to fight terrorism and anti-Semitism."

Having seen the video and its gruesome depiction of Pearl's head being cut off and held up like a trophy, the journalist in me says people should witness this, if they can stomach it, to get a real sense for our world as it now is.

The father in me?

I hope that I never gain the wisdom necessary to be able to assess these issues from the viewpoint of the parents of the girls in the Rinick tapes or of Judea Pearl.




	search citypaper.net