Jul 10, 2008 6:21 am US/Eastern
Brinkley - Cook Divorce: Can They Settle?
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. (CBS) ―
-
-
Model Christie Brinkley and husband Peter Cook in 2002. (File Image)
Matthew Peyton/Getty Images
There has been something of a misread, I think, by many of those covering this divorce, and sending out bulletins on what is --- or is not --- taking place. This of course happens more and more these days in coverage of what is supposed to be news. And since this overlaps from "news" into the worlds of "celebrity" and "gossip", standards --- guideposts --- that have already been made fuzzy from what they were say thirty years ago have been rendered wack. Thus for every camera crew from a station like WCBS, for example, there are also two crews from the entertainment magazines. For every newspaper reporter, there is also that paper's gossip columnist.
What often happens --- and not just at this trial, or this event --- is that a group of reporters periodically forms a circle, at first to check the accuracy of quotes; but then, somewhat subtly at first, there is a kind of consensus reached as to which way that day's storyline is going. Sometimes, this consensus is off the mark. But there is a kind of weird, safe comfort in everyone at least in this circle agreeing, and so the groupthink is zapped back to newsrooms and eventually, to readers and viewers.
Case in point:
This pseudo-"headline" that the court –appointed psychiatrist who testified Tuesday, Dr. Stephen Herman, said that both Cook and Brinkley needed therapy. Well…yes. And no. What the doctor said was more like, Brinkley should probably have therapy. But Cook --- boy, he really needs it. In fact, Brinkley should get sole custody of the kids. Cook's request for joint custody should be denied. But: the children do love him. So he should be guaranteed regular contact. That's what the doctor said.
And that is a lot different from the headline.
In some cases, if you read the story the reporter wrote, the headline some editor came up with did not match the reporter's story (and how often have you seen that?). At this trial alone, I have seen a story go out on two separate occasions into the digital universe that caused a panicked reaction among producers and editors looking at their computers and frantically contacting their people at the trial ("do we have this?" "this sounds like a lead!") and said digital epistle was written a) by someone who showed up late in the day and b) by someone else who showed up late and was trying to play catch up.
The domino effect of the "they both need therapy" mischaracterization boomeranged back onto the principals. Brinkley came to court Wednesday morning not only having to walk the daily gauntlet the court officers have set up to maintain some kind of order against the media horde (I'm not kidding: two rows of yellow crime-scene-like tape that runs from where the protagonists and their lawyers get out of their cars to the courthouse entrance, roughly the equivalent of a city block. They walk inside; we run furiously outside each yellow row hoping to get a few seconds of sound without bashing into each other, or a tree, or a car, or the poor bystander trying to figure out what's going on. And usually, failing. And slam into something). But she also had to field the shouted "Christie! Do you agree with the psychiatrist that you need therapy!" ("I will do whatever the court wants if it means being with my children.")
(Some of these verbal mortars launched by field producers, still photographers, reporters, and cameramen are designed to elicit anything, something, just so there is "sound." It ranges from the inane ("Christie! Over here! Look this way! You look great today!") to the wicked ("Hey Peter! Do you think three thousand a month is a lot to pay for porn?"). Some of the "civilians" we have nearly trampled have joined in, aiming a few lobs at us ("Hey! Why don't you get a real job!")
However --- and I don't have any great insight here; just observing that she seemed a bit different going in today than past days --- the way the papers and television seemed ready to paint her as being equally "kooky" as he with that "they both need therapy" thing seemed to bother Ms. Brinkley this morning. And you have to understand the three dimensions of chess being waged here.
First and foremost, there is the battle to convince the judge. The lawyers know, though their clients sometimes forget, that winning the mind of the judge is the alpha and the omega. There is no jury. If the reporter or columnist likes you and slants the story your way, that don't mean diddly. It's the judge. Getting the divorce; who gets the kids; who gets what part of the money --- you've got to win that judge over.
Then there is that other court. The court of public opinion.
And for most of this, Brinkley has shown Cook that not only must you reckon with a woman scorned (and scorned badly --- so that before Day One, Brinkley already had a lot of sympathy going in) but mess with a woman with the money and connections to back it up?
It's payback time, fella.
Cook has tried to head this off by saying, Look, I did it: I slept with that woman when she was, I think, eighteen. Uh, about a dozen times. And yes, I indulged way too much not just surfing the Internet for wild pictures. But had sex chat and webcams going. OK, OK, I did this. I'm not contesting the divorce. But come on, a public trial? I'm not denying this, I'm sorry. Please: I love the kids. Please…
Payback time.
Then there is the third arena: the Greater Village of The Hamptons. Where both these protagonists have deep roots. Friends. People they do business with. Have done charity work for. Have enjoyed being a regular at their bar, their restaurant, their floral shop. When Christie Brinkley stunned outsiders by reaching out to Diana Bianchi and saying "I forgive you" this wasn't really for folks watching in Bedford Hills or Laguna Beach or Carroll Gardens. This was for Water Mill and Bridgehampton.
When all this is over, when we all go away and on to the next one…these folks…their kids…their friends and the people they do business with…people who are the kids' teachers, the kids' friends…they will have to pick their way through the pieces. Through the sides that have been chosen. Through what is said to their faces. And behind their backs.
And that brings us to The Settlement.
They should have settled this thing the night before the first day of trial. The judge --- remember, the one guy they've GOT to impress --- told 'em as much. Instead, on this fifth day and into this second week, the wheels finally started creaking in that direction. Coincidentally, this was the day Ms. Brinkley was to be followed on the witness stand by Ty and Steve Dux. Retired NYPD officers now with "Investigative Protective Services." Oh: and, identical twin brothers. Last week, the day before Diana Bianchi testified, these two guys showed up in black with the parents (her stepfather is a retired officer, and many of us assumed they were cop friends of his. They all had that…"look.") Now it seems they're working with the Bianchis (besides private investigator work, they double as bodyguards. And before this, did security work for Dina and Lindsay Lohan). Brinkley hired them to put together a damaging file on Cook. They were supposed to spill the beans today on the witness stand. Instead, the lawyers went into a huddle. And another. And another.
At 11:30 this morning, they left the courthouse to see if they could agree on a settlement by 3.
The Dux Brothers came out; and Ty said, We really can't talk about the case. But they're afraid of what we're going to say, and they're trying to get an agreement instead (when Cook walked out and he was asked about the "damaging evidence" they may or may not have uncovered, he said, "Do I look like I'm scared of a couple of guys named Ducks?" He may regret that.).
But:
When they all started coming back around 2:30, to tell that judge there was no settlement (yet), Brinkley was as downcast and angry as we have ever seen her. Cook had a cat-and-the-canary grin. But that smile that Brinkley can flash and suddenly make you forget what you were going to say…it was not there. And for the first time, she left without saying even a few words (so much is for the camera: earlier this morning, Cook walked "the gauntlet" and two-thirds of the way through, pulled out a thick wad of bills, which completely threw some of us who caught it; later he sarcastically said, Oh, I have to give my driver's license for ID, and my money came out with it. To me, it was more like, Hey, I don't need anybody's money; I got my own) (which brings me to a George Costanza – worlds are colliding moment: if we are all still at this courthouse next week, there could be a pop culture flash supreme. Fitty Cent is supposed to be in the building at the same time. Newspaper photographers have been checking their wide angle lenses for the chance at that Brinkley-Fitty shot).
The Dux Brothers say what they've got on Cook is why there are settlement talks, implying Cook doesn't want this aired. But it is not Cook --- it is Brinkley, who hired the Dux boys --- who is the most upset. Cook --- Cook looks like he's reached that point where a guy who's screwed up royally and has taken the beating he deserves and then some shoves back and says, YOU KNOW WHAT?! YOU'RE RIGHT! I MESSED UP! BUT GUESS WHAT: IT"S MY TURN!!
Which is what he told me yesterday: "When do I get a turn?"
Remember: the different arenas. Cook wants to get on that witness stand next week and give his version of what happened. And of Ms. Brinkley. So he can salvage something of himself when he walks into that Hamptons joint again. Or tools around town again. Or escorts a client again.
Next month. Next year.
Cook's lawyers may be telling him, Look, we cut our losses here, this may be better than what we'll get if it goes to the judge. But he may not be going for it.
Brinkley hired the Dux, and they've come back with some dirt (and trust me, I'm not guessing; I know). And this was going to be her trump card. But now…now the off-the-chart wild Mr. Cook is saying, RUN IT! WHAT MORE CAN YOU DO TO ME?! She seems hurt; she does not seem to want to play that card now. For the kids? For herself? For her own future in that Greater Hamptons Village arena? Where maybe, some will whisper as she walks past, Well, it was one thing to get revenge; but to go public with this…
No: if you are reading or hearing that it is Cook who is throwing up a roadblock to the settlement I am not so sure (remember what I said at the top about the bad pack journalism that reduced what the psychiatrist really said to somebody's convenient but off the mark headline) (leaving aside for the moment that other question: how the money is divided).
No: the anguish about pulling the (Dux) trigger is not coming from the Cook side being worried about the smear, a smear that may very well be on the money. It is coming from Christie. She paid for leverage. And now may not want to use it. She wants this to be over. And probably hoped he'd finally cave. Without the children having to be hurt.
Cook was tired of all this too. But he wanted his day in court. That is what he was using to get the leverage back. And that was the fight going on behind the scenes that decide on whether there would be settlement.
(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
2009 Celebrity Deaths
Click to enlarge
Stumble It!
Reporting
Comments