Yatooma sees growing case for cover-up
Birmingham attorney Norman Yatooma talked to Free Press reporters Jim Schaefer and Ben Schmitt Thursday about his lawsuit against the City of Detroit on behalf of the three children of slain exotic dancer Tamara Greene. The suit contends former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and police officials thwarted a probe into Greene’s unsolved killing and suggests Greene may have been killed for her role in a never-proved party at the Manoogian Mansion.
Q: How much money have you invested into this lawsuit?
A: More than $1.8 million.
Q: Has the media has been very important to your strategy?
A: I wouldn’t say it’s been a part of the strategy. But it’s unequivocally been critical. The case is about a cover-up. So for us to be able to rely on our defendants … to offer evidence of their cover-up, is foolhardy….
Q: Some say you have used the news media to your advantage in a big way.
A: I haven’t used the media. … I obviously don’t rebuff the media. I recognized the value in this conversation. I know it’s going to lead to a story on Sunday, and I know it will lead to tips on Monday.
Q: What is the point of all the affidavits in your case? What do they tell us?
A: These witnesses have either given us evidence to support the existence of a party, who attended the party, what happened at the party, that Tammy Greene was at the party, that Carlita Kilpatrick assaulted Tammy Greene at the party, etc., etc. Or they are giving us information about the cover-up itself.
Q: Will the publicity one day dredge up an eyewitness?
A: Am I hopeful? Certainly. Do I think we need it to win our case? No.
Q: Some of the people you’ve deposed or taken affidavits from are suing the city or have questionable motives
A: So what? Does any of that demonstrate that the murder investigation wasn’t covered up?
Q: Defense lawyers are going to attack them.
A: I’ll stack my witnesses up against their witnesses any day of the week, principally because none of my witnesses have been prosecuted for obstruction of justice or perjury.
Q: If you’re giving your opening statement tomorrow, you’re talking about the party, right?
A: I believe that I have evidence to support the existence of the party. And I believe that the party and what happened to Tammy Greene there draws a pretty convincing nexus into the murder and what happened there.
Q: And a motivation for covering up the investigation?
A: Of course.
Q: Where are the eyewitnesses? You have a former police dispatcher who says she sent officers from four precincts to the mansion.
A: Maybe they’re not talking because they feel they’d be brought up on obstruction of justice charges if they did. Maybe they’re not talking yet because they’re afraid. A month ago, I didn’t have a 911 dispatcher. So in response to the question, gosh, you don’t even have anybody who says they sent anybody to the party, a month ago I didn’t. Now I do.
Q: Largely because of this lawsuit and because of what we do, the general public thinks there was a party now more than ever.
A: You, respectfully, and others who are opining on this case haven’t seen a fraction of the evidence on this case. Going beyond that, even the evidence that has so far been disclosed, while it may not prove a party, is OK. Because ultimately I’m not suing the mayor for a raucous party. We’re suing the mayor for covering up a murder investigation. … You have police officers who were investigating the Tammy Greene murder who say it was taken from them. They lost their jobs. Their physical safety was threatened. Why?
Q: Guess it’s going to come down to whether they are believable or not.
A: You’re darn right it will.
Q: Here are some things that critics say: Yatooma is trying to force the city into a settlement just to make these salacious allegations go away.
A: We haven’t had a single settlement conference. Not a single settlement discussion.
Q: Let’s assume you wouldn’t be against one.
A: Should there ever be a settlement, (it) would require more than money. … These kids, their dads, they want to see some resolution. They want to find out what happened to Tammy.
Q: Others say this case is your Jack Kevorkian case. You’re trying to be Geoffrey Fieger.
A: (Laughs.) I have much better hair than Geoffrey Fieger. …
Q: Their point is, even if your case has no chance, you’re getting clients because of publicity.
A: Actually I’ve lost clients with the publicity I’m getting in this case. My bread and butter as a lawyer has not been constitutional litigation. … We have done commercial litigation for and against large companies for the lion’s share of my legal career. … The kinds of cases we’re getting now are more of these sorts of cases.
To call these kids my Jack Kevorkian is an ignorant affront. … If anybody can look at this and not see three young children whose mother was murdered and a law firm who is dedicated to helping them find out how and why, I have absolutely nothing good to say to those folks.
