The Confessions
This documentary film was shown on US television (PBS) in 2010.
It is an episode of the long-running program Frontline that focuses on current affairs.
Here is some basic information about it:
** Writer, producer and director: Ofra Bikel
** Narrator: Will Lyman
** Run time: 84 minutes
This is the story of the Norfolk Four: four young men who were arrested and charged with a horrible crime: the rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko that took place in Norfolk, Virginia, in July 1997.
The four suspects were tried in a court of law where they were found guilty.
Three were sentenced to life in prison, while one was sentenced to eight and a half year in prison.
There was no physical evidence against them and DNA evidence from the crime scene did not match any of them, so why were they found guilty?
Because they had confessed!
But their confessions were forced.
Detective Robert Glenn Ford interrogated them for many hours and he told them that they were going to get a death sentence if they did not collaborate with him and offer him a signed confession.
In the end, they all gave in to the pressure. As a result, they all served time in prison for a crime they did not commit.
One of them was released in 2005 when he had served his time. The remaining three were released in 2009 when the governor of Virginia signed a conditional pardon.
They were no longer in prison, but they were not really free, because they had not been exonerated. Supported by several lawyers, the Norfolk Four were still trying to clear their names.
In 2017, all members of the Norfolk Four were exonerated when the governor of Virginia issued an absolute pardon for them.
Several persons – including the four suspects - are interviewed in the film. Here are the names of the participants. Listed in the order of appearance:
** Danial Williams, suspect # 1
** Don Salzman, attorney for Danial Williams
** Rhea Williams, mother of Danial Williams
** Richard Leo, University of San Francisco
** Jay Salpeter, former NYPD detective
** Gregg McCrary, FBI special agent, 1969-1994
** Peter Brooks, professor, Princeton University
** Joseph “Joe” C. Dick, suspect # 2
** Pat and Joe Dick Senior, parents of Joe Dick
** Michael Fasanaro, attorney for Joe Dick
** Danny Shipley, attorney for Danial Williams
** Eric C. Wilson, suspect # 3
** Derek Tice, suspect # 4
** Allan Zaleski, attorney for Derek Tice
** James Broccoletti, trial lawyer for Derek Tice
** Jennifer Stanton, attorney for John Danser
** Ramey Wilson, mother of Eric Wilson
The police arrested suspect # 1 and gave him a polygraph test. He passed the test, but they told him he had failed, which increased the pressure on him. This was one of several tricks used by the police to get him to confess. It worked.
When the police got the results of the DNA testing, it was negative. Now they had two options:
# 1. They could say: this man is innocent; he was not there; he did not do it; we must apologize to him and let him go home.
# 2. They could say: we think this man is guilty; we think he was there. We cannot release him. If the DNA does not place him at the scene of the crime, it does not prove him innocent. It only means somebody else was with him. Now we must find one more suspect.
The police did not consider option # 1. They chose option # 2. They soon found a new suspect. They made him confess as well. When the DNA did not match him either, they concluded that a third man must have with them.
Whenever they had a new confession, they had to revise the old confessions, so they would match the new theory of how the crime was committed and how many persons were involved.
The process continued until the police had arrested seven men, even though the DNA evidence did not match any of them. Suspects # 5, 6, and 7 had alibis.
This fact did not prevent the police from arresting them, but the alibis were too strong to be ignored, and therefore the last three suspects were released without any charges.
But the first four suspects remained in prison and they were all convicted in a court of law.
Meanwhile the real perpetrator was discovered. His name was Omar Ballard. He was already in prison for some other crimes.
While in prison, he wrote a letter in which he bragged that he was the one who had raped and killed Michelle Moore-Bosko in 1997. When his DNA was taken, it turned out that he was a match.
When questioned about the crime, he admitted that he was guilty. He also said he had acted alone. No one was with him. But the police and the court were still not prepared to release the Norfolk Four. They said the four suspects had been with Omar Ballard when the crime was committed.
According to the police, there was a conspiracy to rape and murder Michelle. The four men were white sailors from the Norfolk base, who were hanging around in the car park outside her building, when Ballard happened to pass by. He was a black man who did not know them.
Nonetheless, the four sailors told this complete stranger about their plan to rape and murder a woman and he said he was ready to help them. How likely is that? This suggestion is implausible.
In addition, we may ask: why did Ballard leave his DNA evidence, while the four sailors left nothing? How could he be so careless? How could the others be so careful? The conspiracy theory does not make any sense.
Nonetheless, it was used by the police and by the prosecutor and it was accepted by the judge and the jury who found them guilty.
It would be nice to explain this case away by saying that all of this happened because of one rogue detective who forced the suspects to confess to a crime they did not commit. But this does not work. Remember there was a prosecutor; and there was a judge. None of them objected to the charges.
In addition, there was a jury. How could the twelve members of the jury believe the story that was concocted by the police and the prosecutor? Apparently, the confessions were the key point.
How could the twelve jurors fail to realise that these confessions were forced? The Norfolk Four is not the only case where the police forced a suspect to confess, even though it was obvious that the suspect was innocent.
Richard Leo – who appears in the film - says there is a flaw in the judicial system.
Detectives want to close cases. Prosecutors want to secure convictions. None of them wants to admit they made a mistake. This is not good for your career. It is better to cover it up and move on to the next case, hoping that no one will ever discover the truth.
The detective who forced the Norfolk Four to confess was later arrested, charged with extortion. He did not want to talk to Frontline. The prosecutor of the cases was also contacted. He did not want to talk to Frontline either.
Ballard, who was still in prison when this film was made, agreed to make a telephone interview with Frontline. He confirmed he was responsible for the crime. He also confirmed he had acted alone.
In this film, Frontline covers the whole case, step by step, and documents that this is a case of wrongful conviction. As far as I can tell, this film is an ABC product: it is accurate, balanced and comprehensive.
The formal objective of the US judicial system is to secure “Freedom and justice for all.” But in the case of the Norfolk Four the system failed.
This film explains how and why it happened. It is a powerful document. I think it will make a big impression on you. It is highly recommended.
REFERENCES
# 1. For more details about the case, see the following book:
The Wrong Guys:
Murder, False Confessions and the Norfolk Four
By Tom Wells and Richard A. Leo
(2008)
(one of the authors, Richard A. Leo, appears in the film)
# 2. For more information about false confessions, see the following books:
Troubling Confessions
By Peter Brooks
(2000)
(the author appears in the film)
True Stories of False Confessions
Edited by Row Warden & Steven Drizin
(2009)
Kids, Cops and Confessions
By Barry C. Feld
(2014)
# 3. The Case for Innocence is a documentary film from Frontline which is also written, produced and directed by Ofra Bikel (2000)
# 4. The case of the Norfolk Four is not an isolated case. For other examples of how things can go wrong in the judicial system, see the following documentary films that were released some years ago:
** West of Memphis (2012)
** The Central Park Five (2012)
# 5. The following items are available online:
Adam Liptak,
“Out of Prison? For some that might mean out of Luck,”
New York Times
01 April 2013
(about the Norfolk Four)
Sara Macaraeg and Yana Kunichoff,
“‘Nothing happens to the police’: Forced confessions go unpunished in Chicago,”
The Guardian
28 January 2016
*****
The Wrong Guys:
Murder, False Confessions, and
the Norfolk Four
By Tom Wells and Richard A. Leo
(2008)
*****
