The Confessions (2010)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Confessions

 

This documentary film premiered 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, four US sailors, 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 A. 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 Norfolk 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 been 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.

 

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 have to ask: why did Ballard leave his DNA evidence, while the four sailors left nothing? How could he be so careless? How could the other four be so careful? 

 

The conspiracy theory does not make any sense. But 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 one rogue detective 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 – a professor of law, who appears in the film - says there is a fatal 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 sign false confessions was later arrested, charged with extortion. He was found guilty. In 2011, he was sentenced to twelve years and six months in prison. He was released after serving ten years. 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.

 

Omar Ballard, who is still in prison, 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)

 

*****

 

 

Estimados Señores (2024)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Estimados Señores

[English title: Dear Gentlemen]

  

This historical drama about the campaign for the female vote in Colombia premiered in 2024. Here is some basic information about it:

 

** Writer, producer and director: Patricia Castañeda

** Language: Spanish

** Subtitles: English

** Run time: 102 minutes

 

The cast includes the following:

 

** Juliet Restrepo as Esmeralda Arboleda (1921-1997)

** Paula Castaña as Josefina Valencia (1913-1991)

** Barbara Perea as Bertha Ospina (1907-1993)

** Victoria Ortiz as Maria Currea (1890-1985)

** Marcela Mar as Teresa Santamaria de Gonzalez (1897-1985)

** Claudio Cataño as Ortiz Gonzalez (1911-1990)

** Mario Jurado as Enrique Santos Castillo (1917–2001)

** Jairo Camargo as general Gustavo Rojas Pinilla (1900–1975)

** Luis Alberto as Felix Angel

 

***** 

 

Since this historical drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. This is why I feel free to mention some of them here.

 

While this historical drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatised version of reality.

 

Not everything happened as shown here. Some details may have been altered, added or excluded for practical purposes or dramatic reasons. But the basic story is true.

 

***** 

 

The story of this historical drama is set in 1954 when Colombia has a military dictatorship.

 

The ruler is Gustavo Rojas Pinilla who comes to power by a military coup d'état in 1953. He holds onto this power until 1957.

 

In 1954, female activists like Esmeralda and Josefina are conducting a campaign for the female vote.

 

Only men are allowed to vote in Columbia. The women want to change this situation, but it is difficult for them to get the attention of people who matter. Many politicians listen to them and then brush them off by saying that they understand but “now is not the right time!”

 

One day, Esmeralda and Josefina manage to meet general Rojas Pinilla face to face. They urge him to introduce the female vote. They say he must do this, because Colombia is a member of the United Nations, and as such the country has a duty to allow both men and women to vote.

 

The general says he will consider their request.

 

The Colombian politicians are working on a new constitution. The general says the question of the female vote will be considered when a new constitution is drafted.

 

A special committee is established to consider the female vote.

 

Having discussed the question, the committee must make a recommendation to the National Constituent Assembly, which will meet later in the year.

 

Most of this historical drama is focused on the discussion in this political committee.

 

All members are men.

 

Esmeralda and Josefina are present. They are joined by Bertha Ospina and Maria Currea.

 

The women are allowed to observe the discussion. They are not allowed to join the discussion.

 

But when one of the members make an outrageous statement, the women cannot remain silent. They have to protest. They are told to be quiet. They are quiet, until the next outrageous statement. And so it goes for a while.

 

When the meeting ends, the members conclude that the female vote must eventually be introduced. But the committee does not say when this should happen.

 

Later in the year 1954, the National Constituent Assembly is convened.

 

During the time before the assembly convenes, general Rojas Pinilla is under pressure from liberals and conservatives who say he should appoint a women to be a member of the assembly.

 

The general appoints Josefina. But the public is not satisfied. They say a second woman should be appointed to be a member of the assembly.

 

The general who wants to please the public, appoints Esmeralda. This is the reason why Josefina and Esmeralda are both members of the assembly when it convenes in August 1954.

 

Josefina and Esmeralda are the first women to be members of an official political institution in Colombia.

 

When the assembly begins its work, the question of the female vote is the first item on the agenda.

 

At this moment in time, the male opposition to the female vote has become a clear minority.

 

The majority of the members support the introduction of the female vote.

 

Esmeralda and Josefina are regarded as heroes, because they organised a successful campaign to secure the female vote.

 

Three years later, in 1957, when the military dictatorship of general Rojas Pinilla ends, Colombia holds the first national election in which women are allowed to cast a vote.

 

***** 

 

What do reviewers say about this historical drama? 

Here are some answers:

 

** 68 percent = Letterboxd

** 75 percent = IMDb

** 75 percent = Mabumba

 

The ratings are quite good, as you can see. I understand the numerous positive reviews and I agree with them. 

 

But I cannot go all the way to the to the top. This historical drama is good but not great.

 

What is wrong?

 

There are some flaws:

 

# 1. The director does not reveal that the women’s movement is divided into two distinct groups:

 

The first group supports the military dictatorship of general Rojas Pinilla and is prepared to work with him. Josefina is a prominent member of this group. She represents the Conservative party in the National Constituent Assembly

 

The second group is opposed to the military dictatorship and does not want to work with the general. Esmeralda is a prominent member of this group. She represents the Liberal party in the National Constituent Assembly.

 

# 2. The director does not tell us what happened to Josefina and Esmeralda after the victory in 1954.

 

Both women became politicians.

 

Both had a remarkable career.

 

Josefina was governor of Cauca 1955–1956. She was the first female governor of a province. Josefina was minister of education 1956–1957. She was the first female member of the government.

 

Esmeralda continued her criticism of the military government after the victory in 1954. She was harassed. Her husband Uribe was fired just to put pressure on her.

 

One day, some men tried to kidnap her while she was standing outside her mother's flower shop. They did not succeed, but this episode convinced her that she had to leave the country. She went into exile in the US.

 

In 1958, when the military dictatorship was over, she returned to Colombia. She ran for public office.

 

She was a member of the Senate 1958–1961. She was the first female Senator. She was minister of communication 1961–1962. She was the Colombian ambassador in Austria 1966–1968

 

# 3. There are many characters in this historical drama. It is not always easy for the viewer to know who is who.

 

A few characters are presented with name and title. One example is general Gustavo Rojas Pinilla. 

 

But many characters are not presented with name and title. The viewers want to know who is who and how they are connected with each other.

 

The director could have solved this problem by adding an on-screen message the first time each character appears on the screen. Sadly, this easy and obvious solution was not used.

 

***** 

 

The story of the campaign for the female vote in Colombia is important. In this historical drama it is told quite well. But there are some flaws which cannot be ignored.

 

In my opinion, this product deserves a rating of four stars (80 percent).

 

REFERENCE

 

Rania Woodward,

“Estimados Señores honors the women who changed Colombia,”

The Loyola Phoenix

16 April 2025

 

*****

 

La lucha 

de unas

cambió

la historia 

de todas

 

*****

 

The struggle of a few women 

changed the history of all women

 

*****