Who Was Judith Regan's Secret Betrayer?

Why would Judith Regan protect the identity of a former colleague who spread lies about her, betrayed her confidence and played a major part in ruining her career? Of the many questions raised by Regan's 70-page lawsuit against News Corp. and HarperCollins, that may be the biggest.

Regan's complaint repeatedly refers to a "senior executive in the News Corp. organization" who was also "a close ally of Rupert Murdoch." This shadowy figure is never named, in contrast to the hordes of other News Corp. and HarperCollins officials Regan accuses of conspiring against her.

According to the complaint, Regan herself informed the "senior executive" in 2001 that she was having an affair with then-police commissioner Bernard Kerik. Concerned for the future political careers of Kerik and Rudy Giuliani, "senior executive" allegedly sought to pin her with the blame for an incident in which homicide detectives were assigned to investigate the disappearance of her personal items from a Fox News studio. "Senior executive" also, she says, instructed her to "lie and withhold information from investigators concerning Kerik."

Juicy stuff -- but impossible to confirm or refute without knowing who "senior executive is." Why was he left anonymous in the suit? "This is a lawyer decision -- and as you know, they always have reasons for everything," says a rep for Regan.

And since Bert Fields, Regan's attorney, didn't return my call, I can only speculate about what those reasons might be:

1)"Senior executive" has heretofore unrevealed dirt on Regan that she doesn't want him to reveal.

2)"Senior executive" has already agreed to testify; Regan's leaving him anonymous so that he can take the stage in a dramatic, Perry Mason-esque climactic gesture.

3)"Senior executive" doesn't exist. That was the opinion of one former News Corp. official I discussed this with. "Otherwise, why are you protecting this person who put you in a such a bad position?" he wondered. "It just doesn't make sense."

Neither does committing perjury. But does anyone have a better explanation?