In the second half of her new book, Ms. Fink champions the investigation of badly discredited former Attorney General Foti by telling the “story” through the distorted vision of Foti’s Chief Prosecutor (Butch Shafer) and his lead investigator (Virginia Rider) whose own veracity was tested when they lied to the legal defense team about Dr. Pou’s imminent “media circus” arrest in July 2006. Now, eight years later, having left the Attorney General’s office following their failed pursuit of Dr. Pou and her nurse colleagues, Mr. Schafer and Ms. Rider have apparently worked closely with Fink to expose and publicize investigative files that remain under a court ordered seal—and that contain alleged statements never corroborated or tested in a court of law.
While Ms. Fink pretends to let the reader decide where the truth lies, she repeatedly adopts the prosecution's case as proven fact. For example, Fink recounts that "Pou retreated into a [defense camp]. Lines were being drawn. Those seeking to discover and expose the truth were on the other side". (p. 245)
In a clear effort to resurrect a failed and faulty prosecution, Fink recounts the secret grand jury proceedings as if she had a front row seat. She suggests that a grand juror told her, (in violation of state law if it occurred) of reservations about returning a "No True Bill". This unsubstantiated source will never be tested because Ms. Fink will invoke her First Amendment privilege to keep sources secret, as she has done in the past.
Ironically, while suggesting that the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is somehow "hiding the truth", Ms. Fink asserts a privilege when it protects her interest. Fink will never release any information as to the alleged conversations in her novel. When attorneys attempted to force Ms. Fink to produce her notes and tape recordings of various interviews in connection with a book she wrote in 2004, Fink asserted "her privilege as a journalist" and conveniently added "I did not retain the source materials" and "those materials were shredded and/or destroyed". (See affidavit of Fink)
Privileges exist for a purpose, and Fink should not draw unfair inferences as to Dr. Pou's attorney/client privilege while invoking the journalistic privilege.
While Fink may proclaim her neutrality, it is obvious she has decided, however erroneously, what the truth is.