On Aug. 4, 2019, an editor at The Philadelphia Inquirer sat down for a long, gossipy interview with Susan Bass Levin, the former mayor of Cherry Hill, N.J.
During a conversation that would spill over into the next day, Bass Levin, a political insider, had plenty to say about George Norcross, the longtime political boss of South Jersey.
And none of it was complementary.
At the time of the interview, Bass Levin was chair of the nonprofit Cooper’s Ferry Partnership, now known as the Camden Community Partnership.
Bass Levin also served as president of the Cooper University Health System’s Cooper Foundation. That’s the charitable branch of the hospital system where Norcross is the longtime chairman of the board of trustees.
In her dual roles, Bass Levin was more than familiar with Norcross and his efforts to revitalize Camden, the poorest city in the state.
But Bass Levin didn’t approve of Norcross, his style or his methods. She told the Inquirer editor that she believed the political power broker was a dictator and a bully heading up a shadow government trying to take over the city of Camden.
Mere political gossip, right? But now we come to the mystery of our story.
Somehow that interview, memorialized in ten pages of typewritten notes, wound up in the possession of the N.J. state Attorney General’s office. The same office that in 2024, under then-A.G. Matthew Platkin, would indict Norcross and five business and political associates for racketeering.
Last year, the state attorney general’s office had to turn over those notes, as part of the discovery process after the indictment was issued. An indictment that wound up getting tossed by a judge.
A wall of silence
Nowhere in the 10 pages of typewritten notes does it say who the author was.
But sources, however, both in the Norcross camp and at the Inquirer, have confirmed that the author of those notes is Nancy Phillips, a longtime star Inquirer reporter and editor.
Bass Levin isn’t talking to Big Trial about her interview with Phillips; however she’s already confirmed to the Norcross team that it was Phillips who interviewed her.
Phillips isn’t talking. Neither are her bosses at the Inquirer, editor and senior vice-president Gabe Escobar, and publisher and CEO Lisa Hughes.
Also not talking are any of the reporters whose work appears to be based on story ideas mentioned in Phillips’s notes.
There are only a couple possible explanations for how Phillips’s notes wound up in the possession of the N.J. state Attorney General.
And none of them are good for the Inquirer.
One possible explanation was that the A.G., or some other authority, had subpoenaed Phillips’s notes. If that’s the case, then the Inquirer apparently didn’t fight the subpoena or report on it when the notes were turned over.
That would be a notable departure from how media outlets have traditionally handled investigators’ demands for a journalist’s notes, as it’s normally viewed as an attack on freedom of the press.
Another possible explanation was that Phillips was voluntarily helping the investigators trying to pin a racketeering indictment on Norcross and associates.
And that’s even worse for the Inquirer.
A nasty falling out
Why?
Because it would be frankly irresponsible of the Inquirer braintrust to let Nancy Phillips within ten miles of any story involving George Norcross.
Why?
Because Phillips, seen above during a Court TV appearance, was involved in a longterm relationship with the late Lewis Katz. He’s the former owner of the Inquirer, who had a nasty, public falling out with Norcross over who would own the paper.
Katz died on May 31, 2014, during a fiery crash of his Gulfstream business jet.
Just four days before he died, however, Katz and his business partner, cable TV magnate and philanthropist Gerry Lenfest, had bought the Inquirer and Daily News for $88 million.
The purchase was made at an auction where minority owners Katz and Lenfest outbid majority owner Norcross, ending a bitter war that spilled into court.
But, according to a knowledgable newsroom source, after the war was over, Phillips held a personal grudge against Norcross. She apparently believes he’s much worse than a dictator or a bully.
A murder-suicide
In at least one newsroom conversation, Phillips is known to have gone as far as to have accused Norcross of having something to do with the death of John Sheridan, a longtime business associate of Norcross’s.
In 2014, both John Sheridan and his wife, Joyce, were found stabbed to death in their burning home.
At first, authorities ruled the deaths a murder-suicide. Then, three years later, after protests from family members and politicians, the cause of death for John Sheridan was reclassified from suicide to “undetermined.” The cause of death for Joyce Sheridan remained homicide.
In 2022, then A.G. Matthew Platkin announced he was going to re-investigate the deaths of the Sheridans. But since that announcement, there’s been no new developments.
A walled-off editor
Meanwhile, for the past seven years, the Inquirer has published a steady barrage of anti-Norcross stories as the state investigated the South Jersey political boss for allegedly masterminding a racketeering conspiracy.
And during that negative onslaught, Norcross’s representatives, such as longtime spokesman Dan Fee, have repeatedly brought up the bias that they believed Phillips harbored against Norcross.
And every time Fee and others raised the bias issue with Inquirer editors and reporters, they were told the same story — Nancy had nothing to do with any stories involving Norcross.
Phillips, people at the Inquirer maintained, was supposedly walled off from the Inquirer’s extensive coverage of Norcross in the years after Katz and Lenfest won the war to retain ownership of the Inquirer and Daily News.
Story idea?
The notes of Phillips’s interview with Bass Levin, however, show that she was actively collecting story ideas for Inquirer reporters covering Norcross.
Story ideas that found their way into print.
Here’s one example. In the ten pages of typewritten notes titled, “Susan Bass Levin conversation,” Phillips wrote, “Another idea.”
In those notes, there’s a detailed discussion between Bass Levin and Phillips about the sale of the 17-acre L3 waterfront business park in Camden. And how to obtain public records regarding the future effect of tax credits for businesses in the city, as well as associated community benefit agreements.
In her notes, Phillips wrote, “to give [Bass Levin] greater cover on this . . . she suggests sending public records requests to the city as well as the county so the OPRA [Open Records Act] officers won’t focus on the country involvement alone.”
“These were public documents,” Bass Levin told Phillips. “We should get them. They are not uniform.”
Sure enough, in an Oct. 2, 2019 email to spokesman Fee, Inquirer reporter Catherine Dunn wrote:
We’re working on a story about the EDA’s sale of the L3 building in Camden in December 2014. Based on records we received from the EDA [the state Economic Development Authority] through an OPRA request, our understanding is that the EDA had an agreement of sale in place with Cooper’s Ferry Partnership, but ultimately decided to sell the building to an entity called L/N CAC.
‘Sources familiar with the probe’
The investigation into the sale of the L3 complex was a hot topic in the Inquirer.
On Oct. 17, 2019, in a story written by reporters Catherine Dunn and Andrew Seidman, the Inquirer reported that five years after the L3 complex was sold, “the transaction is one focus of the state and federal investigations into New Jersey’s multibillion-dollar tax-break program for businesses, sources familiar with the probes told The Inquirer. Their scrutiny of the deal has not been previously reported.”
Dunn and Seidman did not respond to requests for comment.
Today, one has to wonder if one of the Inquirer’s “sources familiar with the probes” was none other than one of their own editors, Nancy Phillips. Because, in her conversation with Bass Levin, the two women discussed the state’s ongoing investigations of Norcross.
In her notes, Phillips wrote that while doing a Google search, she “stumbled upon some EDA meeting minutes.”
The minutes talk about a holding company formed in September 2014 “for the purpose of acquiring two buildings known as the Camden Aerospace Center” that were part of the L3 complex.
“I have this one-page document if you need it. We have requested the underlying documents,” Phillips wrote.
It’s not stated with whom Phillips was sharing her notes with. And Phillips, as well as Inquirer editors and reporters, aren’t talking.
‘Political bloodsport’
In 2024, then N.J. state attorney general Platkin filed a 13-count racketeering indictment against Norcross and five business and political associates, an indictment that portrayed the longtime political boss as the Tony Soprano of South Jersey.
At a press conference, Platkin charged that Norcross had engaged in “political bloodsport” by using threats, intimidation and extortion to gain control of waterfront properties in Camden.
Waterfront properties that were enhanced in value by $244.8 million worth of tax breaks granted by the N.J. state Economic Development Authority.
Last year, however, Mercer County Superior Court Judge Peter Warshaw dismissed all the charges in Platkin’s indictment, ruling that he found no evidence of a “racketeering enterprise.”
The judge also concluded that Norcross’s hardball business tactics “did not constitute extortion or criminal coercion.”
In January, a panel of three N.J. state appellate judges upheld Judge Warshaw’s decision. The appellate judges concluded that prosecutors hadn’t proven their allegations of criminal activity, and that some charges didn’t fall within statutes of limitation.
In February, acting N.J. Attorney General Jennifer Davenport announced the formal end of the failed prosecution by saying that she wouldn’t appeal the appellate judges’ decision to toss the racketeering indictment of Norcross.
‘George would openly berate John’
In the conversation between Bass Levin and Phillips, the two women discussed the late John Sheridan, a prominent Republican attorney who was chairman of the Cooper’s Ferry board.
In addition to being chairman of the Cooper’s Ferry Partnership, Sheridan was the CEO of Cooper University Health Care. It’s a separate entity where Sheridan reported to its chairman, none other than the ubiquitous George Norcross.
According to what Bass Levin told Phillips, the purchase of the L3 complex was a flashpoint between George Norcross and John Sheridan.
“She [Bass Levin] remembered deep discord between GN and Sheridan over the issue,” Bass Levin told Phillips.
“George would openly berate John,” Bass Levin recalled.
“This happened in front of others, including at meetings of the senior Cooper team. She [Bass Levin] remembered thinking why would John take this.”
“It was horrible she said to watch this well-respected lawyer be subjected to such treatment,” Bass Levin told Phillips.
Bass Levin told Phillips that if George Norcross “behaved that way toward her, she said, she would have quit.”
Singing a different tune
On Sept. 5, 2023, however, Bass Levin and her lawyers sat down for a proffer session with Assistant Attorney General Michael Breslin, himself a former FBI agent, and two current FBI agents.
And regarding the subject of George Norcross, Bass Levin sang a different tune.
“Her relationship with Mr. Norcross was cordial and professional and she respected his political acumen and knowledge of local and national politics and other topics,” Bass Levin was quoted as saying in a 23-page “privileged and confidential” memorandum drafted by Bass Levin’s lawyers.
During the proffer session, Breslin confronted Bass Levin “with information he suggested he learned from a third party.” The memorandum doesn’t say who that third party was, but at this point in our story a logical suspect would be Nancy Phillips.
Among the information conveyed by the unidentified third party, Breslin told Bass Levin, was that “Mr. Norcross berated Mr. Sheridan about the deal [the L3 sale] in front of other people . . .”
According to the memorandum, however, Bass Levin “stated that she had no recollection of these matters and that she believed they [the allegations that Norcross berated Sheridan] were untrue.”
Asked specifically if “Mr. Norcross berated Mr. Sheridan in front of others, [Bass Levin] stated that she would not use the word ‘berated.’ ”
‘An almost Victorian demeanor’
For decades, Nancy Phillips has been a star at the Inquirer.
“Although Phillips has an almost Victorian demeanor, she goes after the grittier stories,” Alicia Shephard wrote in a 2001 profile of Phillips for the now defunct American Journalism Review.
Such as when Phillips coaxed a tearful confession out of the guy who had arranged the murder of Carol Neulander, at the request of her husband, Cherry Hill Rabbi Fred Neulander.
And when Phillips outed former Daily News sports columnist Bill Conlin as a serial child molester.
“She’s the antithesis of a rough-hewn, monomaniacal investigative reporter,” Bill Marimow told AJR about Phillips in 2001. “She’s a very civilized, very cultured, very decent person.”
So cultured that on a weekly basis, Phillips used to send bouquets of flowers, usually lilies, to decorate the newsroom. While on her social media posts, she talked about flower arrangements and favorite foods, such as truffles and caviar.
“Lovely tea sandwiches never go out of style,” Phillips wrote on X. Such as “salmon mousse with radish and chives.” And “cucumber and watercress with creme fraiche.”
A public outing
When a new ownership group bought the Inquirer in 2012, a group that included Katz, Lenfest and Norcross, initially everyone got along.
In announcing the purchase on April 3, 2012, however, the Inquirer decided to publicly out the relationship between Phillips and Katz:
Katz and his wife, Marjorie, have two children. The couple have lived apart for many years. Katz is in a long-term relationship with Nancy Phillips, an award-winning Inquirer investigative reporter.
Phillips, however, was against the idea of being outed by her own newspaper, to the point of offering to resign.
Why? Because, she wrote in emails, she was concerned about “hurting a frail and profoundly ill woman,” namely Katz’s wife.
“The relationship [with Katz] poses no conflict for the newspaper,” Phillips wrote to Norcross in 2012. “I have always stayed out of stories involving Lewis. Also argued that there was really no relevance to this, beyond gossip appeal.”
Phillips was right about gossip appeal
On May 24, 2012, Steve Volk of Philadelphia magazine wrote an online blog post about the Inquirer’s public outing of Katz and Phillips, headlined “Philly Journalism’s New Power Couple.”
“On one level, this passage is remarkably French — identifying both Katz’s wife and his mistress without so much as the literary equivalent of a raised eyebrow,” Volk wrote.
“On another, it raises a host of questions, from exactly how these relationships work to what the heck will be going on at the Inquirer when one of its reporters is also a de facto owner.”
‘The official story’
With her longtime companion took over the newspaper, Phillips functioned as far more than a star reporter, or influential editor.
She became a headhunter for the new ownership group, officially recruiting her old pal, Bill Marimow, to return as editor of the Inquirer. She also brought back former publisher Brian Tierney as a sales consultant.
While out recruiting, Phillips was just a reporter in the Inquirer newsroom, and a member of the Newspaper Guild, before she was promoted to Inquirer city editor.
But then the ownership group split into factions. And both sides went to court to battle over a decision by then-publisher Bob Hall to fire Marimow as Inquirer editor.
In one email that surfaced during the litigation, publisher Hall wrote that his plans for making changes “have been frustrated by the direct interference of Lewis Katz (and by extension through his longtime companion Nancy Phillips) in the editorial process and management of the newsroom . . . The Katz/Phillips interference, unfortunately, continues to this day.”
On the witness stand in Common Pleas Court, Phillips testified how she had personally recruited Marimow to return as Inquirer editor, on behalf of two of the new owners, Katz and Norcross.
The six new owners, however, had just drafted a non-interference pledge where they promised to stay out of editorial operations, and not to meddle in the newsroom. But two of the six new owners had just meddled in the newsroom by choosing a new editor.
On the witness stand, Phillips rationalized that decision by arguing that the hiring of the editor of the Inquirer was a business decision, and not an editorial decision.
Phillips was then asked to explain what she described in an email as the “official story” about how then Inquirer and Daily News CEO Greg Osberg had supposedly been involved in the decision to rehire Marimow.
On the witness stand, Phillips said she wasn’t concerned about the no-meddle pledge when she concocted the “official story” about how Marimow supposedly got hired.
“The concern was how Mr. Osberg would feel in all of this and that his feelings would be spared because a decision had not been made by him, but, rather by Mr. Katz and Mr. Norcross,” she testified.
Osberg was not a fan of Marimow’s. In 2010, when he first took over as CEO, Osberg had busted Marimow from editor of the Inquirer all the way down to reporter.
To get the “official story” out, however, the Inquirer used its news columns.
“Bill Marimow is one of the most respected journalists in the nation, and his return reinforces the company’s commitment to aggressive investigative reporting,” Osberg was quoted as saying on April 5, 2012 in the Inquirer.
“Marimow said he had been in discussions with Osberg and several members of the new ownership group in recent weeks,” the Inquirer story said. “I believe the local owners may have suggested it would be great if I could return,” Marimow was quoted as saying. “Now, I’m coming back.”
On the witness stand, however, Osberg testified that he was not part of the decision-making process to rehire Marimow, and that he didn’t agree with the decision.
When Katz testified, he went even further, saying that Osberg was “vehemently opposed” to bringing back Marimow as editor of the Inquirer.
Malicious prosecution
What Norcross’s lawyers want to find out now is whether the Inquirer was putting out another “official story” when its reporters and editors were repeatedly saying that Phillips was supposedly walled off from having anything to do with the Inquirer’s coverage of Norcross.
While behind the scenes, Phillips may have been directing that news coverage, as well as assisting state investigators out to get Norcross.
And the issue isn’t over.
In ongoing litigation, Norcross’s lawyers are seeking more discovery from the N.J. attorney general’s office in preparation for a possible lawsuit against the state alleging false and malicious prosecution.
A legal battle that before it’s over, may drag Phillips and her Inquirer editors into court.
Phillips may know whether any more of her work is contained in that discovery — but she’s not talking.
Neither are her bosses at the Inquirer, or the reporters who turned her tips into news stories.
So stay tuned for further developments in what looks like a mushrooming ethical scandal at the Inquirer.
A scandal that the so-called “paper of record” won’t say a word about.
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.