A Murder in the Park is a documentary film which premiered in 2014. The topic is the criminal justice system in the US with special focus on the question of wrongful convictions and forced confessions.
Here is some basic information about this film:
** Directed by Christopher S. Rech and Brandon Kimber
** Produced by Pater Devers, John Fecek, Andrew Hale, Ralph McGreevy, Christopher S. Rech, and Brent Reichers
** Narrated by Dan Nachtrab
** Released on DVD in 2015
** Run time: 90 minutes
PART ONE
Many witnesses, many documents, and many facts are presented in this film. I will not mention all of them in this review. Instead I will offer a brief chronology of the case that is covered in the film:
1982 – Two black teenagers – Marilyn Green and Jerry Hillard - were killed in Chicago, next to a swimming pool in Washington Park. Hence the title of the film: A Murder in the Park.
1983 – A black man – Anthony Porter – was arrested and charged with committing the crime. He was tried in a court of law where he was found guilty. He was given the death sentence, but it was not carried out at once. He was placed on death row while he waited for his turn.
1999 – Just two days before the death penalty was to be carried out, the order was cancelled. Porter was given a pardon and released from jail after spending more than fifteen years on death row.
The authorities explained that Porter had been released because an investigation had turned up new evidence which showed that he was innocent of the crime. The investigation was carried out by David Protess - professor of journalism at Northwestern University and director of the Medill Innocence Project - who had studied the case with some of his students and with assistance from a private investigator, Paul J. Ciolino.
Because Porter had been saved only moments before he was going to be executed, the governor of Illinois declared that the death penalty was abolished in the state of Illinois from now on.
The Medill Innocence Project did more than secure Porter’s life and freedom and inspire the governor to abolish the death penalty. It also claimed to have discovered the identity of the real killer: Alstory Simon, another black man.
When Porter was released, Simon was arrested and tried in a court of law where he was found guilty. Since the death penalty had just been abolished, he was sentenced to life in prison.
While Simon was in prison, the case was studied again and it seemed clear that something had gone wrong here. The evidence against Porter seemed to be solid, while the evidence against Simon seemed to be fabricated. It seemed Simon had been framed for a crime he did not commit.
According to this film, Porter was guilty. When the police arrested him back in 1983, they had the right man. In 1999 the authorities released the man who had in fact committed the crime. When Simon was arrested and put in prison in 1999, the authorities arrested a man who had nothing to do with the crime.
2011 - David Protess was fired from his job at Northwestern University where he had worked since 1981.
2014 - Simon was released from the prison where he had spent more than fifteen years. The authorities explained that the evidence against him had been studied and it could not justify his sentence.
PART TWO
Back in 1999, when Porter was released, his case received a lot of attention in the media. It was described a case of wrongful conviction. Fortunately, David Protess and his students had decided to study the case and their efforts had saved the life of an innocent man, only moments before he would have been executed.
For a while, David Protess and his team were regarded as heroes. But a few years later, this image turned upside down and Protess went from hero to zero. His Innocence Project had secured the release of a man who was guilty. How had he managed to do this? By framing another man for the crime!
According to this film, the wrongful conviction did not take place in 1983 when Porter was found guilty. Because he was the real perpetrator. The wrongful conviction took place in 1999 when Simon was framed, when he was found guilty, and when he was sentenced to life in prison.
The film covers a span of more than thirty years. The witnesses are presented one by one and the evidence is discussed in great detail. In addition, several scenes have been re-enacted by actors. The re-enactments are shown in black-and-white in order to distinguish these scenes from the rest of the film.
Wrongful conviction is not the only issue that is covered in this film. Another issue is the question of forced confessions. If a confession is forced, there is good reason to believe it is false. Many people think an innocent person will never confess to a crime he or she has not committed. The argument runs like this: why did he confess? If he confessed, he must be guilty.
But this argument is not always valid. There can be many situations in which an innocent person may be “persuaded” to confess to a crime he or she did not commit.
How did the private investigator Paul Ciolino convince Simon to confess? First, he fabricated some evidence against him. False statements by witnesses. Then, he showed Simon this evidence and told him that he might as well give up at once and confess to the whole thing. Under pressure, he gave in. The confession was rehearsed several times; and when Ciolino was satisfied, it was recorded on video.
One of the statements that pushed Simon into making his confession came from his ex-wife. She said she had been at the scene and that she had seen Simon shoot the two victims. None of this was true. Neither she nor Simon had been there, but she was angry at him for leaving her, so she used this opportunity to get back at him. In 2005, while she was on her deathbed, she admitted that she had made a false statement in 1999.
It is hard to understand why this type of evidence was accepted by the authorities. When an ex-wife makes a negative statement about her ex-husband, it has a low degree of credibility, because she has clear motive to say something bad about her ex-husband.
As the film reveals, Protess and Ciolino used both stick and carrot to make their witnesses say exactly what they wanted them to say:
** They threatened them: if you do not co-operate with us, we will make life difficult for you.
** They promised them financial rewards: money from books and movies about the case, if they were prepared to co-operate with them.
Obviously, both these approaches are a clear violation of the law. The witness must give his or her statement because it is the truth; not because the witness is scared or because the witness hopes to gain a financial reward.
CONCLUSION
What do reviewers say about this film? Here are the results of three review aggregators:
70 per cent = Metacritic
71 per cent = IMDb
75 per cent = Rotten Tomatoes
I understand the numerous positive reviews and I agree with them. This film is a powerful document about the criminal justice system of the US, which does not always produce justice. I want to go all the way to the top with this product. I think it deserves a rating of five stars!
PS # 1. Conviction is an American movie which premiered in 2010. The topic is a case of wrongful conviction.
PS # 2. The question of false confessions has been covered by the long-running program Frontline in three episodes:
** The Case for Innocence - season 18, episode 1, 2000
** The Burden of Innocence - season 21, episode 11, 2003
** The Confessions - season 28, episode 15, 2010
PS # 3. For more information about this topic, see the following book: True Stories of False Confessions edited by Row Warden and Steven Drizin (2009)
PS # 4. The following review is available online: Alan Scherstuhl, “‘A Murder in the Park’ Exposes the Innocence Project Gone Wrong,” The Village Voice, 23 June 2015.
*****
No comments:
Post a Comment