Author Alice Sebold apologises to man wrongly jailed for raping her

Wombatman

He was exonerated on 22 November after a re-examination of the case found he had been convicted on insufficient and now-discredited forms of evidence.

His wrongful conviction came to light after an executive producer working on a film adaptation of Lucky raised questions over the case, and later hired a private investigator.

I wonder what the producer saw to make him to quit and hire an investigator?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59485586

DarkJager21

Sorry just doesn't cut it in a case like this.

85603

"The book detailed how Ms Sebold was attacked when she was an 18-year-old student at Syracuse University in New York.

Months later, she reported seeing a black man in the street who she thought was her attacker, and alerted police.

An officer then detained Mr Broadwater, who had reportedly been in the area at the time.

After his arrest, Ms Sebold failed to pick him out in a police line-up, selecting another man. But Mr Broadwater was tried anyway and Ms Sebold identified him as her attacker in court. He was convicted based on her account and microscopic hair analysis.

After he was released from prison in 1998, Mr Broadwater remained on the sex offenders register."

Wombatman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250480#Comment_118250480

In her 1999 memoir Lucky she wrote that when she was told she’d selected a man from the lineup who wasn’t the one she identified earlier, she said the two looked “almost identical.” Close enough?

padd b1975

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250443#Comment_118250443

He's "picked a spot on the wall" in response to the apology.

Definitely getting his ducks in a row for a shakedown.

padd b1975

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250534#Comment_118250534

Sure they all look the same!!

He's going to end up a very rich man.

Good luck to him.

Hesh's Umpire

He's 61 now. No amount of money will compensate him for the last 40 years of his life.

thefallingman

While this lady has lived a wonderful successful life, it's so unfair she should be saying sorry from behind bars but sure it was a man so who cares right, she didn't even pick him out of a line up ffs.

85603

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250534#Comment_118250534

We're never getting rid of this tendency in society. It goes deep.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250672#Comment_118250672

Yes, God forbid someone's memory of a traumatic event in the middle of the night might not be perfect. To the chair with her!

What fault there is here lies with the prosecution service. Witness and victim testimony is frequently unreliable through no fault of the people involved and it is the job of the police and prosecution to investigate.

padd b1975

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250874#Comment_118250874

She "positively" identified him in the courtroom (under oath) despite failing to do so in the lineup.

She's in a lot of trouble as well as the police and prosecution.

Wombatman

"Alice Sebold’s publisher Scribner is pulling her 1999 memoir Luckyfrom shelves after the man she accused of rape, and wrote about in the book, was exonerated last week.

The company issued a statement on Tuesday (1 December) announcing that Lucky would be withdrawn while Sebold looked at revising it."

Looked at revising it! Disgusting.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/alice-sebold-book-lucky-rape-case-b1967618.html

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250874#Comment_118250874

There's a large difference between failing to identify your "rapist" in a line-up and having an imperfect memory of a traumatic event.

SnazzyPig

Maybe, just maybe, both were victims.

GLaDOS

The whole case seems a bit strange in the cold light of day. The police/prosecution seemed to be gunning for this guy regardless of the evidence.

Wombatman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250874#Comment_118250874

Pity this intelligent and successful author didn't stand up in court, or anytime after for that matter, and declare her "memory of a traumatic event in the middle of the night might not be perfect".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251008#Comment_118251008

And maybe, just maybe, they weren't.

Girl Geraldine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250555#Comment_118250555

I doubt it. Unless she is very wealthy, then what is the point in taking a civil case. No matter what judgement he might get, you can't get blood from a stone.

Any a black man in a US court is unlikely to get a truly fair hearing. The USA is a corrupt, racist degenerate nation run by elderly white conservative men who want to keep it that way. And the judiciary are largely of that ilk too. The ruling class in the USA are more elderly and more homogenous than the old guard in the CPSU in the old USSR.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251027#Comment_118251027

It is unreliable. Generally people don't know when their memory is unreliable as we all universally tend to assume our memory is correct. That is different from simply thinking you don't remember properly

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250952#Comment_118250952

She's in zero trouble (legally or financially anyway). Once she believed what she was saying in the courtroom under oath, and there is no reason to suspect she didn't, then she has done nothing wrong.

padd b1975

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251198#Comment_118251198

What changed in her mind between the lineup and the courtroom to make her so sure?

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251233#Comment_118251233

Who knows. Maybe she struggled to distinguish between two people in the lineup but when told which one it was she became more sure in her mind. This is all pretty rational, understandable and recorded behaviour of people in these situations. Memory is unreliable and can be massively impacted by events after the fact. Those advocating for her to face punishment would basically be suggesting we throw out our entire justice system.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250874#Comment_118250874

Yep. The obsession in many countries is with obtaining a prosecution rather than ascertaining the truth. All of the machinations of justice systems tend towards it; closing cases is prioritised over thorough investigations.

A witness picking someone out of a lineup is not responsible for the system using that testimony alone as evidence.

We are slowly coming to terms with the idea that witness testimony is of pretty low value when it comes to evidence and that the jury system may in fact not be the fairest or most efficient system for ascertaining guilt.

Wombatman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251149#Comment_118251149

Probably shouldn't make a career out of writing memoirs with an 'unreliable' memory.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251490#Comment_118251490

Every person on the planet has an unreliable memory. Witness testimony is consistently inaccurate and every memoir ever written is full of misremembered falsehoods.

No doubt plenty of things you are convinced of in your memory are completely incorrect.

MarkEadie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251136#Comment_118251136

Very true. The poor guy got railroaded

Wombatman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251509#Comment_118251509

She is planning to revise her memoir Lucky. I guess this involves coming us with a new set of 'misremembered falsehoods'.

joseywhales

Did his defense not question the validity of her identification? Did he even get a trial or was he coerced into taking a plea as usual?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251924#Comment_118251924

And I assume she will be donating all monies received from this memoir to the man who was jailed.

RabbleRouser2k

She wanted someone to pay for what was done to her. And I absolutely believe she was raped. But to say they were both victims I would completely disagree with.

One had their freedom, one did not. But the tragedy of a rape case (outside of the rape and the long term damage, be it physical or psychological) is that the body goes into this sort of 'protective' mode... and it means that it tries to block out the assault, as a coping mechanism.

This creates problems in that a survivor of assault can often fail to recall the appearance of their assaulter. It's why its so difficult for a victim to identify the perpetrator in a line-up. Its beyond their control-it's our body's coping mechanism.

In her case, where it was a random individual who attacked her (rather than someone known to her)... it makes identifying the individual all the more difficult.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251136#Comment_118251136

That's just word salad. Most people who are not rich are going to get a lawyer who's overburdened, underpaid, and with a caseload that's stretched far beyond the norm.

So they'll tell a client (an innocent client) to 'plea to a lesser charge'. Maybe physical asssault. Doesn't matter how strenuously they say they're innocent.

There have been cases where women have contacted the men they sent to prison on social media, asking to friend them, then being like 'no hard feelings about me lying, okay?'.

Another claimed she saw her perpetrator in a dream. (DNA on the other hand, said the contrary).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/24/clarence-moses-el-free-denver-rape-case

In England, one man was accused of rape based on facebook messages. Yet they had actually been edited by the person accusing him. When one saw the full facebook conversation (stored as an archive on facebook, retrieved by a family member), this man's conviction was overturned.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/02/man-convicted-rape-freed-after-sister-law-finds-deleted-facebook-messages-prove-his-innocence/995197001/

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable at the best of times.

This is all on the police/prosecution. Sebold was the victim of the most heinous of crimes and the fact she picked a different man in the police lineup should have set off alarm bells. But no, the boys in blue tunnelled all the way to Mr. Broadwater.

mcmoustache

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251233#Comment_118251233

Probably multiple black people in the lineup made it hard to pick him out. In court, he might have been the only black guy in front of the judge. He probably had hand-cuffs and a jumpsuit on too, making him easy to pick out.

Unfortunately stories like Mr. Broadwaters are all too common. A quick google for 'innocent freed from prison' brings up results for:

• Kevin Strickland (43 years in prison, Cynthia Douglas(One of 4 victims who didn't die) picked him out of a lineup)
• Dustin Duty(8 years in prison-The woman told police Duty looked like the right person)
• Dontae Sharpe (26 years in prison- Months after the trial, a teenage eyewitness for the state recanted her testimony. It still took over two decades for Mr Sharpe to be exonerated and released from prison.)
• Maryland Trio(36 years in prison, again, because witnesses recanted their testimony).
• Walter Forbes (38 years in prison, Key witness admitted she lied on the witness stand)

These are all recent releases that relied on eye witness testimony that was either misremembered or witnesses say they were pressured by the prosecutors or they just lied. In a country where they have a 95% conviction rate is this any surprise? 95% is an impossible conviction rate. Humans are way to fallible.

The only thing that surprises me is the push to 'believe all women' a few years back. No one should be 'believed', woman or man, especially when someone's life is on the line.

Fred Astaire

The issue here is that she chose to take the stand and put and innocent man away without being sure it was him. Regardless of police input.

In her memoir she claimed that he was standing next to someone who looked identical to him. I've seen the picture and I'm not sure how he would be described as identical.

She took the stand and said with certainty it was Broadwater who did it - knowing that she couldn't be certain. That was a knowning false testimony that she chose to give.

Worse again, she lied in her memoir about him having a criminal record - when he didn't.

She also told another lie about him sending a hit man after her friend.

So we know for certain that she lied three times.

She built a career built off both conscious lies and truths that she cannot be sure were truths.

72sheep

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251960#Comment_118251960

Exactly this. No doubt she was admired for her bravery in publishing such a raw memoir at the time. But no one demanded this book, she got it wrong, he suffered and so she should make full reparations. (I have no doubt she, and her husband, can create another NYT Bestseller about this new chapter.)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118253197#Comment_118253197

She is brave and beautiful and must be believed. It's also sad that a man was in jail but it wasn't her fault. She is the victim. The man too was a victim of sorts.

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250952#Comment_118250952

This,

if she didn’t know... as in 1000% sure she shouldn’t have picked him out... she did... now may she face the consequences.

Hangdogroad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118253041#Comment_118253041

He was apparently the only black person in the courtroom, in an article I read about it over the weekend.

spurious

The hair analysis would have been the clincher for me (had I been on the jury). Identified by the victim? Maybe. Hair strand match? Slam dunk.

Now though it appears there was something dodgy about the hair 'match' as testified to by the FBI folk.

The J Stands for Jay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251136#Comment_118251136

Nah, she must be poor. Bestselling books that are adapted as movies don't generate much cash.

The J Stands for Jay

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118251490#Comment_118251490

Everyone's memory is unreliable. Ban memoirs! Burn existing memoirs!

Will she give him any money from the book she wrote ?.…...just to make it up to him ? .....she wanted justice at any cost and got it...

notAMember

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255000#Comment_118255000

Victims are not the judges, prosecutors, police, defense or juries in criminal cases, they are merely witnesses.

People with no experience of court have an idealised notion of how it works. The victims words are taken with all the other evidence presented. By design... because we know that victims don't remember things well and are traumatised.

Backpedaling comes to mind ...sorry ...and movie was in the works ?? She's certainly doing better than some that have had the same thing happen to them

RabbleRouser2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118253084#Comment_118253084

That genuinely frustrated me too. I wasn't ever accused of a false rape allegation, thank hell. But I was accused of something that nearly got me evicted. (Someone accused me of noise pollution, despite the accuser going on drinking binges, every few days, and screaming and shouting abuse at all hours of the morning.) No amount of witnesses, it seemed, would convince my landlord that I wasn't the problem. I took recordings of the person yelling, audio recordings of my place at night, nightly, to prove how it wasn't me that was causing the issue.

Finally had to go get legal advice. (This, despite the accuser being evicted, and no further complaints close to a year later).

I saw someone else (male) talking about how he was in an abusive relationship (with a woman) who gave him all sorts of abuse. Then made accusations towards him to people. He then proceeded to tell people 'believe women'.

IF people had 'believed women', he'd have been locked up in prison. Folks jumped on the 'Amber Heard is a victim' bandwagon... and then more and more details came out about Johnny Depp, and the abuse he suffered... and there were lots of apologies on twitter. They are useless to him. His name's been dragged through the mud.

notAMember

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255112#Comment_118255112

Doing well, by getting raped?

Nozebleed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118250672#Comment_118250672

#Ibelieveher

Bannasidhe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118252040#Comment_118252040

Tell me you have never been raped without telling me you have never been raped.

A young woman was raped. She thought she recognised her rapist. She told the police. They then built a case. The prosecutors argued that case. A man was wrongfully convicted. But apparently that is all the fault of a traumatised young woman and not the criminal investigation or legal system.

But let's trot out a few other cases from different countries to 'prove' what exactly? That there have been miscarriages of justice? Or that when they occur it is women's fault and not the system? The same system that in Ireland allows convicted rapists who have pled guilty to get off with a fine.

The fact is we do not know what pressure was put on Sebold to help get a conviction - "help us or he will rape someone else." in the days when a rape victim's sexual past and what they were wearing was considered fair game by defense lawyers is very likely. And if she had thought she had recognised a white man from a 'good' family her testimony would have most likely been discounted.

But this is all her fault now.

They are both victims.

mcmoustache

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118254923#Comment_118254923

That'll be it then. She was raped by a black guy and he was the only black guy in the court. She wasn't going to identify one of the white guys in there as her attacker. It could only have been the black man.

I assume that was her logic.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118255296#Comment_118255296

Tell me you've never been falsely accused without telling me you've been falsely accused.

Did you read this post:

'The issue here is that she chose to take the stand and put and innocent man away without being sure it was him. Regardless of police input.

In her memoir she claimed that he was standing next to someone who looked identical to him. I've seen the picture and I'm not sure how he would be described as identical.

She took the stand and said with certainty it was Broadwater who did it - knowing that she couldn't be certain. That was a knowning false testimony that she chose to give.

Worse again, she lied in her memoir about him having a criminal record - when he didn't.

She also told another lie about him sending a hit man after her friend.

So we know for certain that she lied three times.

She built a career built off both conscious lies and truths that she cannot be sure were truths.'

She's made a lot of money off lying. Being a victim of rape doesn't exonerate her of this.

joseywhales

I wouldn't have thought "beyond reasonable doubt" is satisfied by a hair and a lineup. The real issue here is the adversarial nature of the attorney general/prosecution in the us. They honestly don't care if they find the truth, their job is to get a conviction. That seems like the problem to me.