Experts Question Witness’ Indictment

In the criminal justice system, when a witness retracts a previous statement on grounds that it was a lie, the presumption of prosecutors nearly always is that the retraction represents the hard truth.

This is especially so when the recantation raises doubts about the person’s own credibility, as in the case of Julie Hiatt Steele, the onetime friend of Kathleen Willey.

But Kenneth W. Starr’s indictment of Steele, returned on Thursday, represents a twist of that principle, legal analysts say.

Starr has chosen to disbelieve Steele when she retracted her 1997 claim that Willey, a former White House volunteer, had confided to her in November 1993 that President Clinton made an unwanted sexual advance.

“Starr apparently won’t take no for an answer,” says one Democratic lawyer and former prosecutor. “He chooses to believe Willey rather than Steele.”

Starr’s theory, according to knowledgeable sources, is that Clinton supporters pressured or influenced Steele to change her account--and he intends to try to prove this--even though her indictment gives no specific hint of such evidence.

Steele, who is charged with three counts of obstructing justice and one count of making false statements, says she first backed up Willey’s claim to a Newsweek reporter as a favor to her friend of 20 years. She says she thought the conversation with Newsweek in March 1997 was “off the record,” but when she heard the magazine was publishing Willey’s account five months later she had a fit of remorse and told the reporter she had lied.

The magazine subsequently reported her original statement together with her recantation.

From there Steele’s case took on a life of its own. Early last year, after attorneys for Paula Corbin Jones had signaled an interest in Willey’s alleged encounter with Clinton, Steele gave a sworn statement in the sexual harassment lawsuit that backed up Clinton’s denial of Willey’s charges.

Steele swore that Willey had pleaded with her to say she visited Steele at her home near Richmond, Va., where both women live, and told her that Clinton had groped her in the White House. Steele said that she, in fact, knew nothing of this.

Later, Steele repeated what she claimed is the true story on two visits to Starr’s federal grand jury and in interviews with FBI agents assigned to Starr’s office.

Although Starr’s office refuses comment on the case beyond saying that its investigation is continuing, it was learned that Bill Poveromo, another Richmond resident, testified before the grand jury that Steele told him over dinner in 1997 about Willey’s encounter with the president, saying the former White House volunteer was flattered by the advance.

According to Steele’s lawyers, Steele has no recollection of that conversation. But one lawyer added that she was giving out the false story to many people she knew in 1997. The indictment, in fact, also listed an unnamed woman as having received the same information from Steele.

In addition, Steele has admitted she once sought to profit from Willey’s allegations by selling a photograph of her former friend and the president to the National Enquirer for $9,000.

As to allegations the White House pressured her to abandon her support of Willey’s account, John Coale, one of Steele’s attorneys, says, “It’s absolutely, 100% not true. It sounds like something out of a chat room on the Internet.”

Some lawyers believe the indictment may be an effort to coerce Steele to enter into a plea agreement to testify against any Clinton supporter who may have tried to influence or intimidate her. “Julie is such a peripheral figure. They really can’t be interested in prosecuting her,” one legal source said.

Steele, 52, has told reporters she has never been a personal supporter of the president and did not vote for him. But outside the U.S. Courthouse after a grand jury appearance in June, she said, “I want to apologize to the president and to his family.”

Steele’s lawyers have protested to Starr that his prosecutors are the ones exerting all the pressure. Starr’s office has summoned Steele’s daughter and brother before the grand jury, has subpoenaed Steele’s bank records and credit history, has tracked down friends and has even grilled neighbors about the possibility that her son was adopted illegally from Romania, the lawyers have said.