The Boston Stranglers (14 page)

Troy asked his client what his mental state had been in the summer of 1966.

Troy then brought up the issue of whether Albert might be indicted or tried for offenses he'd allegedly committed in Rhode Island and Connecticut. The lawyer was questioning Albert on his knowledge of any out-of-state warrants pending against him when James Lynch, the attorney for Twentieth Century-Fox, asked permission to approach the bench. Lynch told Judge Garrity that F. Lee Bailey, who was present in the courtroom, had just informed him that he (Bailey) had to leave to make an afternoon appointment. In view of this emergency, Lynch wondered if it would be possible to postpone Albert's cross-examination so that Bailey, who had been scheduled to testify later in the proceedings, might take the stand now. Garrity ruled that Albert's cross-examination be suspended to accommodate Bailey, unless of course Counselor Troy had an objection. Troy did, on the grounds that Bailey hadn't been sequestered but allowed to listen to Albert's entire testimony.

Garrity was not swayed by Troy's objection. Bailey mounted the stand and took the oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Questioned by Troy, Bailey said that he'd first met Albert at Bridgewater in late February of 1965 and that three different parties (he didn't say which ones) had requested him to make this visit. He thought that it had been reported to him that Albert had escaped from incarceration in February of 1967.

Bailey identified a copy of the June 17, 1966, release given to Gerold Frank and verified his own, Albert's and George McGrath's signatures at the bottom of it. He said that a lawyer for New American Library, Frank's publisher, had drawn up the document. Bailey didn't know the lawyer's name.

Troy asked Bailey if he'd explained the meaning of the release to Albert and Bailey testified that he had, “in painful detail.”

At this point, the exchange between Troy and Bailey began to take on the quality of an Abbott and Costello routine.

Bailey didn't recall discussing the Bridgewater guards with Albert on the occasion of the signing of the release. He also said that the document hadn't been folded when Albert had put his name to it and that he had fully explained to Albert what compensation he could expect to receive from Frank under the terms of the agreement. Some $18,443.52 had been paid out so far. Troy asked where that money had gone. Bailey said that fifteen thousand dollars had gone to George McGrath “for the benefit of DeSalvo” and the rest had gone to Albert's brother Richard.

“Mr. Bailey,” said Troy, “who is Robert McKay?”

Troy inquired again as to the whereabouts of the fifteen thousand dollars. Bailey replied that “it was deposited in [his] account and used in part for expenses relating to DeSalvo; in part it was given to his brother Richard.”

Bailey was actually keeping ten thousand dollars in reserve in case he ended up having to pay the reward he'd offered for the safe capture of Albert after the latter had fled Bridgewater in 1967. Two clerks in the uniform store in Lynn where Albert had surrendered to the local police had claimed the bounty. Bailey had understandably refused to pay, and the shop attendants sued him. Happily, the suit came to nothing, thus relieving Albert of the necessity of footing the bill for his own arrest.

Troy then produced a copy of a letter purportedly written by Albert on April 21, 1968. It read:

Bailey didn't know if he'd ever received an original of that letter, nor did he recall Albert ever asking “in those terms” to furnish him with any copies of contracts. He believed he recognized Albert's signature on the paper Troy showed him. He couldn't say that the actual handwriting of the letter was familiar to him.

Returning to the subject of the release, Troy asked if Gerold Frank had been in the Bridgewater vicinity at its signing. Bailey thought that Frank was in the Boston area at the time, because the lawyer had flown the author up from New York himself. He did recall that Frank certainly hadn't been admitted as a visitor to Bridgewater that day to witness the signing. He couldn't remember if the writer had been waiting in a car outside the institution for Bailey to return with the document.

Again, Troy pressed Bailey on the circumstances of the signing of the release.

Troy, who had been circling his prey, suddenly pounced: “Do you know if it is a violation to have an inmate sign a document while they are inmates at Bridgewater?” Said Bailey, “Yes, I know whether or not it is a violation in my judgment to have an inmate sign a document for his lawyer.”

That was not precisely the question Troy had asked. He let it pass for the moment.
⁴⁸

The proceedings continued, with Troy quizzing Bailey on Albert's 1967 trial and the publicity generated thereby; Albert's hypnosis at Bridgewater, which had taken place at Bailey's instigation in order to elicit from Albert more details of the stranglings; Albert's interrogation by John Bottomly; and Bailey's putative interest in the Strangler movie—Bailey denied that he had ever been offered money by the filmmakers for the use of his name. Then Judge Garrity announced that he had been advised that members of the media, toting camera equipment, were gathering in the corridor outside the courtroom. He reminded those present that it was illegal for any photographs to be taken or recordings to be made of the present proceedings.

Under cross-examination by James Lynch, Bailey expanded on his previous testimony: that Albert was aware of and agreeable to the deal with Frank as well as fully comprehending of its terms, and, further, that Albert had endorsed the plan to have the money he received from Frank entrusted to “Robert McKay.” Bailey didn't think Albert had ever objected to the publication of the Frank book, although he had wanted one anecdote in it deleted because he viewed Frank's version of the incident as inaccurate and insulting.