The OCCK Task Force served an investigation subpoena on both Patrick Coffey and Lawrence Wasser. Coffey flew from California at his own expense. Coffey was advised that giving false testimony in murder cases was a felony. He then gave testimony and, to my knowledge, no one has challenged the truth of his story.
After he was served with the subpoena, Wasser hired James Feinberg as his attorney and sought dismissal of the subpoena. At the hearing, Judge Timothy Kenny and Feinberg had the following exchange:
“The Court: And it is further my understanding based on the arguments that have been made before the Court that Mr. Wasser denies that conversation.
Mr. Feinberg: That’s correct.”
After Wasser was ordered to give the name of his person of interest, he made several public comments denying the truth of the Coffey statements. Coffey then commenced a libel action against Wasser and Feinberg for those alleged false statements. Wasser and Feinberg paid Coffey a sum of money. The Settlement Agreement specifically states that Coffey and Wasser had a different interpretation of their 2006 conversation.
How do you have different interpretation of a conversation which never took place?