For those who love hip-hop, the deaths of rap artists Tupac Shakur in 1997 and Notorious BIG aka Christopher Smalls in 1998 were the end of an era. All the warning signs were there, red flags that the beef between the two artists was escalating to dangerous levels, but the murder of Shakur still came as a heartbreaking shock. A year later, Biggie was also dead, and the hip-hop community was left reeling, wondering how these two immensely talented young men could be taken out of the game at the pinnacle of their careers.
To this day, despite numerous eye witnesses, their murders remain unsolved. As someone who followed the efforts to find their killers, I had always assumed that their cases were at least in part stymied by a reluctence by witnesses to come forward.
There is some truth to that theory, but an article in the most recent issue of
Rolling Stone reveals a level of scandal involved in the investigation of Biggie's murder that is so wide that it is hard to see where it begins and ends
No one reading this will likely be surprised to discover that the Los Angeles police department was complicit in the cover-up of his murder, but Kossaks might be at least slightly shocked to discover that the L.A. Times--through its own faulty reporting--has also lent a hand in keeping the trail on the case cold.
Reporter for FrontpageMag Jan Globe does an excellent job of breaking down the 14,000-word-Rolling Stone article:
Last July, a mistrial was declared in Wallace's wrongful death lawsuit, which charges that gangster cops killed her son and the LAPD covered it up. A U.S. District Court judge ruled that the plaintiffs were at least half right; the LAPD had in fact engaged in a cover-up, withholding tapes of a jailhouse confession, as well as 1000 pages of crucial documents. This information was turned over to Wallace's attorneys, who are currently conducting further discovery and preparing to re-file the case.
Globe focuses on the Times' role in the case by zeroing in on what Randall Sullivan and the attorney who is representing the mother of Biggie against the City had to say about the L.A. Times' coverage:
"When looking back at this nine-year-long saga of deceit and corruption, nothing is more troubling--or more incomprehensible--than the role played by the Los Angeles Times," the story states. The 14,000 word piece by Randall Sullivan, author of Labyrinth, a 2002 book about the case, details numerous examples of "a deluge of biased reporting" by the Times. Attorney Perry Sanders, who represents Voletta Wallace (Biggie's mom) in a lawsuit against the City, bluntly describes the Times as "a co-conspirator in the cover-up."
By the time you finish reading the Rolling Stone article, it's seems alarmingly clear that rogue LAPD cop David Mack killed Biggie on behest of rap mogul Suge Knight. The man behind this theory, former LAPD Robbery/Homicide Detective Russell Poole, a cop of impeccable reputation, resigned from the force after 18 years in 1999 because, he claimed, the LAPD had suppressed his investigation of the Biggie Smalls murder.
However, throughout the civil trial this summer, L.A. Times' stories cherry-picked information to discredit the case:
One of the more egregious pieces cited by Rolling Stone was written by Pulitzer Prize winning music-biz journalist Chuck Philips, appearing 11 days before the civil trial began. It was headlined "Informant in Rap Star's Slaying Admits Hearsay." The only problem was that the secret informant in question, who told police that Biggie's killer was a Nation of Islam member named "Amir" or "Ashmir," had always told them he received the information second-hand. He never claimed otherwise. The Times story was a blatant smear, inspiring one Wallace team investigator to describe it as "tantamount to jury tampering." Even worse, the Times revealed the informant's street name, which led to his being beaten and threatened by gang members and causing him to disappear, making him unavailable to testify at trial.
One of the biggest controversies for the L.A. Times is Chuck Philips, the Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter, who has been writing the stories covering the case:
[Philips] has long been known for obtaining scoops and exclusive interviews for The Times due to his unmatched access to Suge Knight. Some critics have characterized him as Suge's apologist and as a reporter corrupted by access. Others speculate there may be more to it than that. One key witness at the Biggie civil trial, Death Row insider Kevin Hackie, who identified David Mack as attending Death Row functions, also stated in a pre-trial deposition that "Chuck Philips was frequently at Death Row functions and received payments from Death Row Records." Hackie backed off of this statement at trial, but he also tried to back away from everything he had told investigators, stating, convincingly, that "I'm in fear for my life." Asked what he feared, Hackie stated: "Retribution by the Bloods, the Los Angeles Police Department and associates of Death Row Records."
In 2002, Philips reached new heights of controversy when he reported that there was evidence that Biggie was behind the murder of Tupac Shakur. The accusation that Biggie engineered the hit while in Las Vegas (where Shakur was murdered) was quickly shot down by evidence placing Biggie in New Jersey at the time of Shakur's murder.
To this day, the L.A. Times refuses to retract the story.
That the Times could publish a story that places Biggie in Vegas on the night in question, without any named sources or evidence, remains inexplicable. No editor of any repute would run such a piece without independent confirmation. Furthermore, the Times still refuses to retract the story or reveal its sources--a seemingly untenable position under the circumstances.
Here's what the attorney representing Voletta Wallace had to say about L.A. Times reporter Philips:
"Philips knows who committed the Biggie murder," Perry Sanders stated after the mistrial. "The only reason to write that `Biggie Killed Tupac' story is if your number one job in life is to cover-up for the real murderer. The L.A. Times is a co-conspirator in trying to keep this murder case from being solved and this civil case from being won."
Globe, writing for FrontpageMag, has this to say about mainstream coverage of the story:
The stage is now set for what may become an even bigger scandal--the silence of the mainstream media. The New York Times, 60 Minutes--any news organization--could have done this story. It's what journalists call "a dead skunk in the middle of the road," a story everybody knows about--because it stinks to high heaven--but nobody wants to pick it up and examine.
Why isn't the mainstream media picking up on this case? Part of it has to be that it involves the death of a black man--a "gansta" rap artist no less, who, even if he was a major celebrity, can't hardly compete with the importance of any given missing white woman. And the other part of it is has to be that the media is taking a "no snitch" policy and covering for a fellow media gang member. Reporting scandals at the NY Times, the Wash. Post, nail that trend down with a scandal at yet another major U.S. newspaper--this one of the West Coast even--and Houston, we are looking like we have a problem.
Aren't you thankful you have the mainstream media to keep all us bloggers honest?