Decoding the Madam’s Phone Records: How We Did It
EmailThe numbers in the "D.C. Madam’s" phone records ultimately led ABC News to a number of powerful Washington men, including a deputy secretary of state, military officials, CEOs, academics, lobbyists, lawyers and others. But it wasn’t a simple path that led us there. In mid-March, so-called "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey provided ABC News with several hundred pages of phone records detailing calls from the telephone Palfrey used to run Pamela Martin and Associates. The records included approximately 30,000 phone calls from 2002 to late 2006. THE BLOTTER RECOMMENDS Photos D.C. Madam Affair Unfolds in Pictures Blotter ‘Miz Julia’ Speaks: Inside D.C.’s Most Notorious Escort Service Blotter D.C. Law Firm Suspends Woman Who Worked as Escort Blotter D.C. Madam Wants Washington Clients to Testify Blotter Senior Official Linked to Escort Service Resigns Click Here to Check Out Brian Ross Slideshows The phone records reflected the pattern of business at the service, as Palfrey described it to ABC News. A prospective customer would call in — a call that was not reflected in the phone records, which only showed outgoing calls. Palfrey then called an escort or escorts to assign the "appointment." Then she called the client back — in a call that was captured in the phone records — to confirm the time and location of the appointment and the escort who would arrive. After matching identities to many numbers, the phone records looked less like a torrent of random digits and more like a coherent record of a functioning business. Of course, that’s easier said than done; many of the identities proved difficult to match. For example, calls to hotels frustrated the effort. Many men arranged "appointments" with Palfrey from a hotel room telephone, which made those clients nearly impossible to identify from the phone records. Complicating matters further, Palfrey sometimes used the phone for personal calls — to talk with friends and family as well as to make personal travel arrangements and for other purposes. Despite such complications, ABC News successfully determined the owners of most phone numbers and weighed their importance to the story. The results are reflected in the "20/20" report Friday night. But getting those results from the pages of the records to the final script was another challenge. With stakes understandably high, accuracy was vital to the story. As the team positively identified names of potential clients (or, in the case of business numbers, the names of potential clients’ employers), researchers combed the Internet and various directories to determine their biographies and positions. Palfrey herself wasn’t much help with this aspect. Although she says she personally arranged the vast majority of "appointments" between her "gals" and paying customers during the firm’s 13-year run, she said she had gained precious little knowledge of her clients’ true identities. The men generally did not use their real names on the phone, she said, they paid in cash, and she never saw them in person. Some of her escorts told her of clients they thought were prominent. One customer in particular had told them he worked in the White House. In dramatic tones, he told the story of evacuating the presidential residence during the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Using details gleaned from the phone records, researchers matched the identity of the storyteller: no dice. The man worked near the White House, not in it. He had apparently exaggerated his importance. That wasn’t the only false lead. Another number in Palfrey’s records traced back to a phone number belonging to the head of a recognized educational institution. A closer study revealed his number was the same as one linked to a popular escort with the service, although the area code was different. When ABC News called, the man denied he had ever contacted the service but noted that he had for years been plagued with numerous hang-up calls to his phone, often late at night. Now, he said, he thinks he knows why. Of course, not all leads were false, and those which resulted in news were vetted by the team. When researchers identified former Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias’ number in the phone records, for example, they carefully noted the frequency of the calls, the times and duration of each call and the calls to escorts immediately following or preceding each call to Tobias. Jonathan Gaither contributed to this report.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
SO WHERE ARE THE NAMES, BRIAN ROSS??? THAT’S WHAT YOU’VE BEEN PROMISING. WHERE’S THE BEEF, MISTER?????????????
Posted by: Glenda Scott | May 4, 2007, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
Wow, ABC has figured out that men like sex with young, pretty women. God, I wish you people would spend more time strengthening the scripts of Lost…this is such a waste of time.
Who cares.
Posted by: Bababooey | May 4, 2007, 10:35 pm 10:35 pm
The names! The names! Gimme the names – along with the photographs!
Posted by: mieoux - meanwhile | May 4, 2007, 10:37 pm 10:37 pm
It was inevitable that ‘Johns’ would protect other Johns while denouncing the ‘service providers’ for potentially ruining their lives.
Hey, guess what? Had those little Johns kept their vows and/or not been hypocrites, their lives would never have been affected.
Cops frequently publish the names and photos of Johns as they find it an effective deterrent.
Posted by: Sindra | May 4, 2007, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
I hope Jeane Palfrey publishes a website or a coffee table book of these guys.
Posted by: mieoux - meanwhile | May 4, 2007, 10:49 pm 10:49 pm
It got 20/20 RATINGS!!!! Me, I like to surf the web and read about it rather than give ABC ratings. I’m 53 yrs old and I remember the 3 major networks in b&w and live on the air! I was devotee watcher of ABC’s One Life to Live, when it was live and in b&w. I stopped watching ABC, NBC and CBS totally in 2004 because of their bias reporting. And the bias reporting is only getting worse!
Posted by: Christine | May 4, 2007, 11:28 pm 11:28 pm
What time will you announce a name of insincere people if you become it?
All the person’s names of a person in public office should announce it!
Posted by: honestper | May 5, 2007, 12:47 am 12:47 am
So you know the names of government officials who illegally bought women for sex but you are going to cover up for them?
I guess the good old boy network is alive and well and journalism has taken it’s last breath.
Who would have thought that the Woodward and Bernstein era would have ended with such a pathetic little misogynistic whimper.
Posted by: sothen | May 5, 2007, 1:59 am 1:59 am
LETS SEE THE RECORDS OR AT LEAST THE NAMES!!!
Posted by: jer | May 5, 2007, 3:15 am 3:15 am
I agree with Sothen. There were undoubtedly multiple high-level media personalities and execs on that list. If ABC won’t reveal people, the prosecutors going after Palfrey ought to subpoena the names- otherwise they should drop the case and end this sexist, selective enforcement.
Posted by: KarlyKirchner | May 5, 2007, 4:56 am 4:56 am
I can’t believe what a short segment that was last night. Every single clip of it had already been shown on the internet during the last two weeks. There was nothing new on the show.
Posted by: Joanna | May 5, 2007, 10:15 am 10:15 am
I have been having a debate with my college-age daughter all week. She said prostitution is no big deal, lots of girls do it. I said no, it is a big deal and they should not do it. She said ABC would never release the names becasue “men rule the world dad and women are hos.”
So I guess ABC proved my daughter right. Men do the rule the world and can get away with whatever they want to do, even if it is illegal. Women are hos and will get punished or have to commit suicide because of the shame.
ABC has just taken us backwards about 100 years. Don’t any of you ABC executives have daughters?
Posted by: disgruntledday | May 5, 2007, 12:56 pm 12:56 pm
Looks like you didn’t do a great job of ‘decoding’ the list. Out of 12,000 phone calls you’ve identified… 3 people?
Posted by: Eric | May 5, 2007, 1:47 pm 1:47 pm
How do you know that the that the lobbyist were the ‘physical’ clients ? They could have simply been the contact client, paying for an officeholder or a key aid to an office holder . Reguardless isn’t their more of a story here ? Taxes etc.
Posted by: Bob Seaver | May 5, 2007, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm
Wow! That was REALLY lame. Even for ABC.
Posted by: Dugun | May 5, 2007, 3:11 pm 3:11 pm
So, last week the names included “people there at the Pentagon, lobbyists, others at the White House, prominent lawyers — a long, long list.” and now all of a sudden they’re not newsworthy? Why the reverse course? Something smells rotten.
Posted by: DJShay | May 5, 2007, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm
Just a few days ago, ‘the list’ was prepared to rock DC on it’s foundation and expose the hypocrites among us. Instead, we have nothing but silence. I am about to agree with my conservative friends that the list is not being published because too many Democrats are on it. I never though I would find myself saying that, but what other reason can there be for this sharp reversal by ABCNEWS?
Posted by: Eric | May 5, 2007, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
Print the names. This is pure sexism and a cover-up for the sexist elite culture of Washington. Ms. Palfrey should print all the evidence she has. Post it all on the internet and let the bloggers track it down. Then we’ll see who’s guilty of what.
Posted by: mariane | May 5, 2007, 7:45 pm 7:45 pm
Once again, ABC drops the ball.
Posted by: Spill the beans! | May 5, 2007, 9:27 pm 9:27 pm
Don’t you people get it? It comes down to R A T I N G S! (And it appears some of you took it hook, line and sinker!) That and the secret society of rich and famous! Has been like that forever and will always be like that forever for that group of people. And yes, they will be protected. Sorta like the code to protect those in the group like doctors, cops, lawyers and any well to do people in the world! It won’t change!
Posted by: Christine | May 5, 2007, 10:34 pm 10:34 pm
They won’t post the names because they are afraid of expensive lawsuits. Even if the are entitled to list the names they would end up paying big money to lawyers defending themselves.
Posted by: steve | May 5, 2007, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
yo steve…it’s a code for the rich and famous or other status like doctors, cops and etc. It WILL NOT change. The names will NOT be exposed, accept it!
Posted by: Christine | May 5, 2007, 11:53 pm 11:53 pm
I feel like this is a personal thing and the rest of us shouldn’t really care; except for those who preach one thing and do another…Put all their names out there. Tobias is a good start. Hypocrites are the worse people in the world….
Posted by: Carol | May 6, 2007, 1:04 am 1:04 am
I think it’s highly hypocritical of ABC not to publish the names of the clients and alleged prostitutes. ABC had no problem printing the names of the Duke lacrosse players, based only on one woman’s very questionable allegations. Yet now ABC won’t print the clients’ names because they’re not “newsworthy.” The only thing that made the Duke players “newsworthy” I suppose was the fact that they were white, and the accuser was black. If this prostitution case were about race, would you then print the clients’ names?
Posted by: Jennifer | May 6, 2007, 9:53 am 9:53 am
Relax people, as the names are subpoenaed, we will have the right and ability to find out ourselves, if ABC publishes now, some of the more powerful will smack ABC in the wallet. Some anchor sponsors, or even higher-ups at ABC may possibly be involved, this is, after all, a service for the rich and powerful, the media would of course be there to maintain their access network. Let it go wherever it goes, we already know that Washington DC smells worse and is more toxic than a Sao Paolo cesspool, the real question is when will we ever do more than just “tsk tsk” about it?
Posted by: brian | May 7, 2007, 3:55 am 3:55 am
Jennifer is correct–you have to be careful how you release this information, and how-rapidly. They’re using caution, but we shouldn’t be worried, since Ms. Palfrey likely has copies of everything safely locked-away in safety deposit boxes throughout North America. Ms. Palfrey is the one who decides when this ends.
Posted by: Matt Janovic | May 7, 2007, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
THE PEOPLE WANT THE NAMES OF THE CLIENTS. THE NAMES THE NAMES THE NAMES!!
Posted by: 007Corey007 | May 7, 2007, 11:19 pm 11:19 pm
ABC should have asked for the phone numbers for the period prior to 2002. Is this because that would have included the Clinton Administration. More Liberal Bias. hmmmm. The Madam did not want to hurt those clients, only those that might be in the Bush Administration, an believe me, if there were more names, they would have been published in Time Magazine, Newseek, NY TImes, etc. Or because Karl Rove was not on the list, so it became a non story.
Posted by: homjett | May 8, 2007, 11:57 am 11:57 am
The fact is: ABC didn’t expose the names of the men, they just used you busybody’s to get ratings. I wish ABC only knew what I think of them. I will think twice before tuning in to ABC.
Posted by: artist22 | May 9, 2007, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
We need to see the names and know who they are. That will do more for your ratings than anything else. If you tip toe around it and give us nothing…..you (ABC) will suffer with a loss of public trust.
Posted by: Dave | May 9, 2007, 8:43 pm 8:43 pm
Boy, did this story get shut down quickly once it got leaked that a certain V.(I).P. was on the list.
Way to look out for us ABC.
Posted by: Bob Foronsky | May 10, 2007, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
Where are the prostitution charges?
Posted by: IronyMan | May 11, 2007, 2:19 pm 2:19 pm
What possible good was decoding it, only to cave in and not print the names of the fat cat officials and politicians along with the little guys?
Posted by: Zach | May 11, 2007, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
Posting the list is the only way to do the right thing now that ABC has quashed the story one or more times.
The bums will eventually be thrown out and when that happens ABC and others will have some explaining to do.
Posted by: Carl Ballard Swanson | May 13, 2007, 2:56 pm 2:56 pm
“Despite such complications, ABC News successfully determined the owners of most phone numbers and weighed their importance to the story. The results are reflected in the “20/20″ report Friday night
Can you honestly believe that the report will be fair and balanced reporting when this network is known to provide unfair and bias reporting to further their political agenda. Until the full list is released, I will never believe their reporting because they are the liberal media and protect their own. They act like this behavior is new to DC. I grew up there and I remember well a congressional member swimming in the reflecting pool and another having sex in an open boat in full view of others. Nothing happened then so why should the press be holy than thou now?
Posted by: Flo | July 13, 2007, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm