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)
*****
