The Claus von Bulow Case

The most important new evidence came in connection with the black bag found by Alexander and Lambert. A careful rereading of the interviews and transcripts showed glaring inconsistencies among the reports of the various handlers of the bag. The differences were enough to call into question whether the bag could be reliably used as evidence.

At trial, Alexander had testified that inside the black bag he had found "two vials, one containing different types of pills with a prescription on it" bearing the name Claus von Bülow.

Eddie Lambert, who in Dershowitz's view was hired "to find and preserve any and all evidence linking Claus von Bülow to Sunny's coma," claimed to have actually conducted the search of the closet. The appeals team expected to find that his testimony backed up Alexander's. That was not to be. "The detective remembered finding 'two containers containing one a liquid and one a dry substance, a powder.' But he did not remember seeing 'any containers with pills inside the black bag,'" Dershowitz wrote.

Lambert said he was the only one to touch anything in the black bag and that he did not recall seeing a vial with a prescription on it in the black bag.

Further, when Lambert was shown the pill bottle with von Bülow's prescription on it, he said he did not recall seeing it in the black bag at all. Dershowitz posited that Alexander and Lambert had conducted a haphazard search of the area and scooped up as many seemingly relevant items near the black bag as they could find. They then put all the items together inside the bag.

Most importantly, at the pretrial hearing on the exclusionary motion, Lambert testified that he had found a bottle of Inderal in the black bag. That bottle did have a prescription on it — in the name of Sunny von Bülow.

However, at the first trial's final summation, Famiglietti told jurors that "the only thing in the black bag... which has anybody's name on it or any indication as to who owns it is the prescription of Dalmane... for Claus von Bülow." This incorrect allegation went unchallenged in the first trial.