So the task of defending the book fell squarely on editor Barry Neville's shoulders. What makes that job difficult is that Hatfield used three unnamed sources to confirm his allegations about Bush -- and Neville only knows the identity of one of them. But the editor, who has worked at St. Martin's for over a year, is nonetheless confident about its pedigree.

"The source is impeccably placed, privy to a lot of personal information, and has occupied this position for decades," Neville said in an interview Tuesday.

Ideally, Hatfield would have disclosed Neville a full list of his sources, but the editor says, "I believe Jim, and we stand behind him." Neville said. "If we had named the one source, I know the reception would have been different."

But in the event that the Bush camp mounts a serious challenge to Hatfield's credibility, would the sources come forward and identify themselves? "I don't get the sense that they'll come forward, but it hasn't gotten to that point yet. Their lives with the Bushes are so involved. It would be cataclysmic. That's my personal take on this."

Corroborating evidence, too, could make Neville's task easier -- a photo, an arrest record, any kind of court document proving Bush was arrested and volunteered at Project PULL as part of a community service deal. But no such evidence exists, Neville says.

"I know [the key source] hasn't given Jim anything in a formal document or physical piece of proof or evidence," says Neville.

In terms of journalistic ethics, St. Martin's may take a lot of flak for publishing "Fortunate Son." But legally, its situation is less shaky, depending on the proximity of the source to the Bush family or the arrest. According to David S. Korzenik, an attorney who teaches media law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, the quality of the sources is more important that their quantity.

"Some people tend to follow a two-source rule -- that they want is two sources. What that means, however, remains unclear at times. What's really more important in these things is always the pedigree of the source and the basis of the source's knowledge," says Korzenik, who was Spy magazine's legal counsel during its muck-flinging heyday. "So someone with extraordinary firsthand knowledge would be worth ten sources with indirect pieces of knowledge."

Neville admits to being overwhelmed by the controversy. "I'm a little taken aback at the opprobrium we're getting," Neville said. "I wouldn't say that political books are my specialty," he conceded. Neville, who as an associate editor at his previous job edited two "X-Files" books and "The Tick: Mighty Blue Justice" among other titles. Before working on the Hatfield book, Neville said that he edited a book for Thomas Dunne, "Glass Houses," an examination of the foibles of congressional figures such as Henry Hyde.

But former colleagues say Neville is a hard-working, professional editor.

"He's very smart," said Tom Coogan, a Berkeley Books executive editor who worked with Neville during his employment there. "Personally, he's very low key. He seems so low key and then he comes up with these ideas that are so outrageous, or book proposals that make you think, 'Wow, where did a quiet guy come up with an idea like that?' He's very talented and has a big career ahead of him." Coogan said Neville was meticulous about factual details in books he edited for Berkeley.

Another Berkeley colleague had similar sentiments. "He was well-liked, but had a better opportunity at St. Martin's. There was nothing mysterious about his departure. He left on favorable terms."

"I really hope that the presence of the story will inspire the press to look into it and the story will break," said Neville.

Recent Stories