The prosecution of former Gov. Edward D. DiPrete and his son Dennis L. DiPrete is one of the biggest stories The Providence Journal has covered. The prosecution goes to the core of Rhode Island government. Was the DiPrete administration deeply corrupt, and are our state prosecutors and courts capable of giving the DiPretes a fair trial and the citizens justice?

At stake may well be the faith of the people in their government.

The scope and complexity of the material have challenged the newspaper. Beginning in 1985, the DiPrete administration lasted six years. The prosecution has lasted more than eight, spanning two attorneys general, with a third attorney general, as yet unelected, facing the duty of bringing the case to trial, in January 1999.

Several years ago, The Journal's editors planned to document the case with a reporter covering the trial and another reporter providing both the background and, after the verdict had been reached, a summary. At the time, it appeared that the case would move smoothly through the court; although far from routine, the case fell into a standard category: the criminal-trial story. But as it developed, the case became far more complex, the prosecution far more problematic, and the proceedings far more extended than anyone had expected.

Believing that few readers could keep track of so much information, over so long a period, we changed our plan. It would be of greatest service, we decided, to provide our readers with both facts and context -- so that they could discern from the details the overarching themes.

We put our investigative team on the story.

Thomas E. Heslin was the editor in charge. He is The Journal's metropolitan managing editor. In the past he has directed the newspaper's prizewinning coverage of the RISDIC crisis and the examination of the state Supreme Court that in 1994 won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting.

Mike Stanton is the chief of the current investigative team. He, too, worked on the RISDIC coverage, most notably writing deadline accounts of the hearings, and he was on the team that won the 1994 Pulitzer. He recently spent an academic year as a Knight Fellow at Stanford University.

Tracy Breton is best known as a fine reporter whose beat is the courts and law in general. In 1995 the New England Society of Newspaper Editors named her the year's Master Reporter, in recognition of a career of distinction. She, too, was a member of The Journal's latest Pulitzer-winning team. Recently Breton took a leave to teach journalism at Syracuse University.

W. Zachary Malinowski, before joining the current investigative team, was the manager of The Journal's Pawtucket bureau. In Pawtucket he covered the investigation and conviction for extortion of Mayor Brian J. Sarault.

David Herzog specializes in computer-assisted reporting. He came to The Journal from The Morning Call, of Allentown, Pa., where he had earned a national reputation as an expert in his field.

The Journal's investigative team is a great point of pride to us at the newspaper. We do not often advertise or promote our investigative efforts, as other media do. Perhaps that is a failing. Readers over the last 15 years will no doubt remember our investigative reporters' coverage of the RIHMFC-loans corruption, Chief Justice Joseph A. Bevilacqua, state contracts and leases during the DiPrete years, the RISDIC banking crisis, corruption within the Supreme Court, and, most recently, the inefficiency and injustices at the state traffic court. These investigations and reports are our quiet pride at The Providence Journal -- a heritage that was passed on to us and that we will pass on to others.

We feel this way because these reports -- efforts supported by your subscriptions and loyalty -- epitomize The Providence Journal's purpose: to serve you, our readers.

IN REPORTING and editing the prosecution of the DiPrete case, we struggled with several issues.

One was the sheer volume of material that is now the court record, including a huge amount of grand-jury testimony, as well as supplementary reporting on the actions taken by the administrations of two attorneys general. We considered several approaches to publishing so much information. At first, we designed a series that would have appeared over 15 days; this, however, seemed too segmented and drawn-out a presentation for many readers to follow. So we decided it would be best to present the material in just two parts, on two Sundays, each a self-contained section of the paper that could be easily saved, for later study and reference -- in essence, two small history books.

Another issue for us was the timing of publication. The DiPrete case has proceeded on no schedule; it has been extended by long pretrial hearings, judicial decisions, and the subsequent appeals. As the case grew over time, so did our reporting, which resulted in a longer, more detailed report than anticipated, and a vigorous, thorough review. We determined, in the end, that the date of publication would be dictated by however long it took to do the story right.

During the course of preparing the story, we repeatedly invited the attorney general to speak to our reporters. He declined. In his response to our requests he accused the reporters of misconduct. In today's climate, in which the media are under intense scrutiny and criticism for reporting practices, we at The Journal take any such accusations very seriously. The content of the stories and the conduct of our reporting have been subjected to exhaustive internal review. We have found no basis for the attorney general's accusations. We wrote him telling him of that fact and asking him to contact us if he wished to discuss with us specifics about his accusations. He did not do so.

Still another concern for us was that the time of publication might affect the court's ability to impanel a jury and conduct a fair trial. When the trial date was set for Jan. 4, 1999, five months from now, we felt confident that the court could find jurors free of immediate prejudice.

It is well to remember that although the DiPretes have mounted a strong tactical defense, they have not yet had the chance to tell the public their side of the story and confront their accusers.

Throughout the DiPrete prosecution, The Journal has taken the view that this may well be among the most important cases in Rhode Island's history. It is therefore our duty, we believe, to deliver the story to Rhode Islanders in as clear and complete a way as we know. To that end we have previously published the full texts of the indictment of the DiPretes, of Judge Dominic F. Cresto's decision dismissing the case, and of the Supreme Court's decision reinstating the charges, as well as the dissenting opinions. Yet no amount of daily accounts, complete though they may be, could possibly encompass the scope and the complexity of the case before us today.

It is for these reasons that we now present to you this comprehensive account of the State vs. DiPrete thus far. We hope you will find it informative and useful.

The third book, the trial, has yet to be written.

MAIN | REACT TO THIS STORY

ON TO CHAPTER 1