Cipriano: My response to Gabe Escobar

I wrote a story yesterday about a mystery.

A mystery about ten pages of gossipy typewritten notes written by a Philadelphia Inquirer editor about South Jersey political boss George Norcross. And how those notes wound up in the hands of investigators for the New Jersey state attorney general.

Apparently, it’s still a mystery.

But there’s no mystery about who wrote the notes — Gabriel Escobar, editor of the Inquirer, after initially stonewalling me, has confirmed in an official message to all staff members yesterday that Inquirer editor Nancy Phillips is indeed the author of those notes.

In his message to staffers, Escobar also confirmed that the notes wound up with the N.J. state attorney general. But, according to Escobar, how those notes got there is still a mystery that continues to baffle the collective Inquirer braintrust:

“When we learned that state investigators had the notes, we conducted an inquiry and determined that the material was not provided to them by The Inquirer,” Escobar wrote to his staffers.

In his message, Escobar confessed to one lie that the Inquirer’s been peddling for years.

Editors and reporters at the Inquirer had repeatedly claimed to Norcross’s representatives that Nancy Phillips had nothing to do with the Inquirer’s onslaught of negative publicity against Norcross.

That’s the same Nancy Phillips who was the longtime companion of the late Lewis Katz, who, before he died in a fiery airplane crash, fought a long and bitter battle against Norcross over who would own the Inquirer and Daily News.

The same Nancy Phillips, who apparently still holds a grudge against Norcross. And in at least one newsroom conversation, is known to have accused Norcross of being involved in murder!

But, according to Escobar’s message to the troops, Nancy Phillips indeed had something to do with the Inquirer’s onslaught of negative publicity against Norcross.

And by making that admission, Escobar basically just admitted that the Inquirer’s been lying about it for years.

Here’s what Escobar wrote:

Nancy has established a network of sources in her long career, and the information she has been able to gather has aided our journalism across many fronts.

In 2019, she was approached by a source who was offering unique insights on a significant and running story. Nancy conducted an interview, typed up the notes and then shared them with two Inquirer reporters who were working on the story.

She was not directly involved in the coverage but served as a conduit for information only she could access.

The source was Susan Bass Levin, the former mayor of Cherry Hill, N.J. who was president of the charitable branch of Cooper University Health System, where Norcross is the longtime chairman of the board of trustees.

Hey Gabe, did you ever read those notes?

In those notes, Nancy was gathering story ideas for Inquirer reporters. She was offering documents she had gathered to others presumably outside of the Inquirer.

She was Googling things pertaining to Norcross. And she was coaching Inquirer reporters on how to handle requests for public records.

Her involvement in the paper’s Nocross coverage was not as simple as you would have us believe.

In his message to the troops, Escobar got up on his high horse and claimed I had committed some imaginary offenses against Phillips and the integrity of the Inquirer:

A story published today by Ralph Cipriano, a former Inquirer reporter, includes some unfounded and irresponsible speculation about our reporting. Let me first address two erroneous claims:

• The Inquirer did not turn over notes to state prosecutors in New Jersey, nor did we receive a subpoena. We protect our journalism and our journalists.
• Speculation that Nancy Phillips, who has a long and distinguished track record as a reporter and editor, was working with state prosecutors is both false and outrageous.

Yo Gabe, in the story I wrote I never claimed that the Inquirer had turned over Phillips’ notes to state prosecutors.

Nor did I claim that the newspaper had been served with a subpoena.

Nor did I claim that instead of fighting that subpoena, that the newspaper had simply rolled over, like it always does for Larry Krasner.

Let me explain what I did write.

Since I was being stonewalled for six straight days by yourself, Phillips, and the reporters who ran with Nancy’s story tips, I merely explained in the story the few possible explanations for how those notes could have wound up in the hands of state investigators.

Investigators for the N.J. state attorney general’s office that indicted Norcross in 2024 for alleged racketeering. An indictment, however, that was tossed a year later by a judge who couldn’t find any evidence of any crime committed by Norcross and five associates.

Escobar also claims it’s both “false and outrageous” of me to suggest that Nancy Phillips was “working with state prosecutors.”

Well, Gabe, we know that on Sept. 5, 2023, Bass Levin and her lawyers sat down for a proffer session with an assistant N.J. state attorney general and two FBI agents. And at that session, the assistant A.G. apparently was armed with Phillips’s notes, which he claimed came from an unidentified “third party.”

During that proffer session, the assistant attorney general peppered Bass Levin with questions about the many allegations contained in those notes. And he got in response mostly denials from Bass Levin.

So somebody must have given those notes to the A.G.

Let’s see if we can put our heads together and solve this enduring mystery that continues to baffle the inquiring minds at the Inquirer.

According to Gabe Escobar, the notes were in the possession of only three people at the Inquirer — editor Phillips and a couple of reporters who published stories based on Nancy’s news tips.

According to their bylines, those reporters would presumably be Catherine Dunn and Andrew Seidman.

Yo Gabe, let’s review the possibilities here:

A. Either Phillips, Dunn or Seidman gave the notes to the state A.G.

B. Either Phillips, Dunn or Seidman gave the notes to a mysterious middle man or middle woman, who then proceeded to give those notes to the state A.G.

C. A team of burglars from the N.J. state A.G. broke into the Inquirer newsroom in the dead of night and stole the notes.

D. Either Phillips, Dunn or Seidman left those notes on a SEPTA bus, or on a park bench. And whomever found the notes, instead of returning them to the Inquirer, gave them to the state A.G.

According to his in-house message, Escobar seems to subscribe to the possibility of either C or D. Why? Because he concludes his message to the newsroom troops with this stern admonishment:

There is an important lesson here. The information we gather in the course of reporting should always be safeguarded. And no matter how well established a source-reporter relationship is, each interaction should establish clear parameters for the use of the information.

So Inky staffers, don’t go carelessly leaving your notes on a SEPTA bus, or on a park benches. You never know who may find your notes, and then use them for nefarious purposes.

Such as falsely indicting George Norcross for racketeering!

Finally, Gabe, let’s make this clear: you don’t have to invent any imaginary attacks I may have made on the integrity of the Inquirer.

Why?

Well, for years now, I’ve been blasting you and your editors and reporters on a regular basis for functioning as P.R. agents for D.A. Larry Krasner.

Rather than holding him accountable for systemic corruption, as a majority opinion of the state Supreme Court just did last month.

Remember your editorial response to that majority opinion of the state’s highest court?

How editorial writer Daniel Pearson wrote the editorial that attacked the state’s highest court for overstepping its bounds. Why? Because the court appointed a legal guardian over Krasner for the next time he wants to perform a phony “exoneration” on a convicted killer.

In in that same editorial, Pearson defended Krasner as being “far from perfect.” While Pearson whitewashed Krasner’s systemic crime wave, as exposed in that 109-page majority opinion issued by the state’s highest court.

Such as Krasner’s “prosecutors” routinely lying to and deceiving judges, submitting false evidence to the courts, while withholding real evidence. While dodging required evidentiary hearings.

All for the fraudulent purposes of having Larry Krasner the Great Emancipator empty the prisons of convicted killers.

In his editorial, Pearson downplayed the claims of Krasner’s critics over the years as merely accusing him of being “overzealous.”

And according to Pearson, the differences between Krasner and the state’s highest court boiled down to a mere “difference of opinion.”

So in response, I outed Pearson as the writer of that editorial. Then, I pointed out all the fallacies of that editorial.

And finally, I awarded Pearson an honorary Big Trial dunce cap.

So when it comes to assailing the integrity of the Inquirer, Mr. Escobar, I don’t have to make anything up.

Because you guys on a daily basis keep supplying me with fresh material.

Click HERE to read Cipriano’s original story.

This story originally appeared on Substack and is reprinted with the permission of the author.  Click HERE to subscribe to Ralph Cipriano’s Substack page.