I’m in the middle of former federal defender Alexander Silvert’s book, “The Mailbox Conspiracy: The Inside Story of the Greatest Corruption Case in Hawai‘i History.” It is a very good read!
The book is available from the publisher, or as an Apple Book or in Kindle format.
It tells the story of the case of Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha and his wife, Katherine Puana Kealoha, a top deputy city prosecutor. Silvert represented Gerard Puana, Katherine Kealoha’s uncle, who was framed for allegedly trying to steal the couple’s mailbox.
It’s full of interesting details about the process of a criminal case, both from the prosecution and defense perspectives, although the latter is obviously his focus, and we follow Silvert and his legal team as they discovered one flaw after another in the supposed “facts” behind the mailbox prosecution.
But there are other tidbits as well. This one puts the state’s largest daily newspaper in a poor light, in my opinion at least.
At an early stage, Silvert describes his decision to approach several reporters.
He hoped that by asking questions and reporting the story, they could get Louis Kealoha on the record talking about the mailbox caper in ways that could trip him up later.
Silvert had been struck by Kealoha’s cautious tone when talking about the video clearly showing HPD Sgt. Darren Cachola chasing and hitting his girlfriend in a Waipahu restaurant back in 2014, when he said the tape didn’t necessarily tell the whole story, could have been doctored or edited, and that a rush to judgement would be a mistake.
The contrasted with Kealoha’s quick accusation that the man caught by in a blurry surveillance camera video taking the Kealohas’ mailbox was actually Puana.
“Hypocrite” was the word Silvert used to describe Kealoha’s divergent reactions to the two videos.
In any case, here’s a short passage in which Silver tells of his contact with a reporter from the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
Remember, this is before the whole story broke, and Silvert was offering selected reporters an inside look at pieces of the defense’s case. In retrospect, it was an offer to get in on the ground floor of reporting on what eventually became the biggest public corruption case in decades, perhaps in Hawaii history.
Here’s his account of this interaction, which by his account went nowhere.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ian,
This allegation against “an unnamed reporter” is weak at best. Even by your bias standard. I’m sure the reporter said he wanted the story done for him and “signed sealed and delivered”. Sure. It’s bogus quotes like this that help boring books that might sell 100 copies sell 101. The story was widely covered by all media and we all know the result. I’m not sure what your point is other than a cheap shot against an unnamed reporter.
The timidity of the Star-Advertiser is systemic and not the fault of any individual reporter. The owners have no incentive other than to strip-mine the news for advertising profits for as long as they can before the newspaper-reading generation dies off. If you look at the local ownership, there is no one who isn’t already profitably invested in the status quo with no reason to disturb it.
Such a long used and tired response Wailau. Oh my, a newspaper sells advertising and might make a profit. Shocking I tell you. This type of commentary has been around all the way back to the Hawaii Newspaper Agency days….which was over 30 years ago. Big deal. Keep rooting for its demise and then look out for all the hand wringing over the loss of their beloved local newspaper..
Noticeably absent from this is the accolades for the other two media mentioned. So how did they respond that was so earth shattering???
How did the Civil Beat report react?
An observation: Ian describes this as “the case of Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha and his wife, Katherine Puana Kealoha, a top deputy city prosecutor.” Why the names in this order, and why refer to she being his wife?
Couldn’t the post have said “husband and wife” or “wife and husband” and then identified them?
;
An observation: Ian describes this as “the case of Honolulu Police Chief Louis Kealoha and his wife, Katherine Puana Kealoha, a top deputy city prosecutor.” Why the names in this order, and why refer to she being his wife?
Couldn’t the post have said “husband and wife” or “wife and husband” and then identified them? Equal billing, so to speak.
You are not wrong, but I think you are trying too hard to look for bias in a blog written voluntarily by one person. It’s pretty obvious that “police chief” is more important than “top deputy city prosecutor” and “his wife” is the most concise way to establish their relationship.
That bit on Kealoha being extremely cautious about Cachola and then immediately going for the jugular when it came to Puana is indeed most interesting and telling! And Puana was even “family” so to speak!
Silvert was trying to basically stick the noses of the journos right into the poop, so to speak, and apparently that S-A journo couldn’t be bothered. Pathetic. Long gone are the days of the worn out shoe leather beat writers.
Or maybe not pathetic. Maybe the reporter exercised sound judgment. The Star-Advertiser has some excellent, seasoned reporters. I like the paper..
What you like is irrelevant.
A LOT of people like Tucker Carlson but that doesn’t make him a credible journalist.
Maybe the reporter was LAZY and and just didn’t feel the story would pan out any more despite Silvert throwing a bone right at the reporter’s face? A bone in which any reasonably curious reporter might have said “Hmmm…you’re right, that IS a bit unusual…”
Well, Tucker Carlson aside, I don’t think you’ve made your case.
The real mystery is why the US Attorney’s Office ever went to a full-blown jury trial over the alleged theft of a mere mailbox—which turned out to be criminal bullshit of a far greater magnitude. Nobody has ever really explained that blatant misuse of resources that smacked of law enforcement favoritism, or why they they let themselves get played so badly. That’s far more interesting and important than the SA’s typical timidity.
I KNOW nothing, or at least very little, about professional journalism, so I will come to Ian’s defense considering his extensive professional background as a working journalist. So yeah, why couldn’t a reporter from the SA just ask the Chief “how come you tell the public to exercise caution in one video that has high definition quality, then in another video that is blurry, you take an opposite approach and tell the public that video clearly proves a theft?”
Thank goodness we have Ian’s blog and Civil Beat to keep our local news landscape somewhat honest.