PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This Blog is interested in false confessions because of the disturbing number of exonerations in the USA, Canada and multiple other jurisdictions throughout the world, where, in the absence of incriminating forensic evidence the conviction is based on self-incrimination (as well as false identification and jailhouse informants) – and because of the growing body of scientific research showing how vulnerable suspects (especially juveniles) are to widely used interrogation methods such as the controversial ‘Reid Technique."
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
--------------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Perhaps the most generous thing that can be said about the Chicago-based firm’s lawsuit (which the Hollywood Reporter’s legal blog described as “very curious”) is that the Reid technique arguably might not have been “universally” rejected at the time of the events depicted in the series so much as very, very widely criticized. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, for example, specifically criticized the interrogation tactics detailed in the Reid manual in the court’s landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. In 2017, another Illinois-based interrogation consulting firm, Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, publicly announced that it would be stepping away from the Reid technique and other “confrontational” methods, citing that approximately 29 percent of all DNA-based exonerations in the United States since 1989 (the year of the Central Park Five arrests, incidentally) involved false confessions. The confession that helped establish John Reid’s career, the nine-hour interrogation of 24-year-old Darrel Parker, wrongfully convicted of brutally raping and murdering his 22-year-old wife in 1955, was officially overturned by the state of Nebraska in 2012. Nevertheless, it’s up to the court in Illinois’ Northern District to review and determine whether Netflix and DuVernay are guilty of defamation, unjust enrichment, false light, and the other counts listed in the suit."
----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "When They See Us lawsuit: Police interrogation consultancy accuses Netflix, Ava DuVernay of defamation," by reporter Matthew Phelan, published by Slate on October 15, 2019.
GIST: "John E. Reid and Associates Inc., a police interrogation training and consulting firm, filed a lawsuit against Netflix, writer-director Ava DuVernay, and her distribution company Array on Monday—over a single disparaging comment made by a character in their “Central Park Five” docudrama When They See Us. In the final installment of the four-part series, Manhattan assistant district attorney Nancy Ryan (played by Famke Janssen) and a co-investigator confront NYPD detective Michael Sheehan (William Sadler) over the coercive interrogation techniques used in the Central Park Five case. As the discussion grows more heated, Ryan’s partner, unnamed in the series and listed as “Man” in the Reid lawsuit, lays into Sheehan saying, “You squeezed statements out of them after 42 hours of questioning and coercing, without food, bathroom breaks, withholding parental supervision. The Reid technique has been universally rejected. That’s truth to you. While representatives for Netflix and DuVernay have not yet responded to multiple requests for comment from the media, the complaint says that they rejected a demand from Reid, made in a July 31 letter, to excise the offending scene or issue a retraction. In their 41-page filing in Illinois federal district court, John E. Reid and Associates (but not John E. Reid himself, as the former Chicago police officer, psychologist, and polygraph expert passed away in 1982) took issue with this characterization of the Reid technique, saying about the slagging:
When They See Us assigns blame for what occurred in the Central Park Jogger Case. Besides Sheehan, other police officers, and prosecutors, Defendants also blame Reid for being the proponent of coercive tactics that were used by Sheehan and others in eliciting coercive and wrongful confessions. The program falsely represents that squeezing and coercing statements from juvenile subjects after long hours of questioning without food, bathroom breaks or parental supervision, is synonymous with the Reid Technique.
Perhaps the most generous thing that can be said about the Chicago-based firm’s lawsuit (which the Hollywood Reporter’s legal blog
described as “very curious”) is that the Reid technique arguably might
not have been “universally” rejected at the time of the events depicted
in the series so much as very, very widely criticized. Supreme Court
Justice Earl Warren, for example, specifically criticized the interrogation tactics detailed in the Reid manual in the court’s landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. In 2017, another Illinois-based interrogation consulting firm,
Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, publicly announced that it would be
stepping away from the Reid technique and other “confrontational” methods,
citing that approximately 29 percent of all DNA-based exonerations in
the United States since 1989 (the year of the Central Park Five arrests,
incidentally) involved false confessions. The confession that helped
establish John Reid’s career, the nine-hour interrogation of 24-year-old
Darrel Parker, wrongfully convicted of brutally raping and murdering
his 22-year-old wife in 1955, was officially overturned by the state of Nebraska in 2012. Nevertheless, it’s up to the court in Illinois’ Northern
District to review and determine whether Netflix and DuVernay are guilty
of defamation, unjust enrichment, false light, and the other counts
listed in the suit."
The entire story can be read at:
https://slate.com/culture/2019/10/netflix-ava-duvernay-when-they-see-us-lawsuit-reid-police-interrogation.htmlThe entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
