2 recensioni
This documentary does justice for how Daniel Holtzclaw was railroaded by the Oklahoma City police department and the one sided media to prevent looting and rioting like what had happened in Ferguson, MO earlier. This documentary discusses all the evidence in the case in detail. He became the poster child for all the decades of social injustices that happened in the past even though there was barely any evidence to convict him to 269 years in prison. The film details the inconsistencies presented by the prosecutor and Holtzclaw's horrible defense team. This was never a case of Racism and Social injustices to begin with but rather manufactured by the prosecutors that won all the attention of the Media as a whole.
On December 10, 2015, sexual predator Daniel Holtzclaw received an unwelcome twenty-ninth birthday present: 263 years behind bars for 18 offences including rape against vulnerable women. Holtzclaw was sentenced formally the following month, and his demise led to cheers from the social justice crowd. Not everyone agrees with the verdicts, including Michelle Malkin, and in this two part series she attempts to convince the viewer why she is right and the jury got it wrong.
Malkin covers a lot of ground but her main points are the police trawled for victims after the complaint filed by Jannie Ligons; that all the alleged victims were coached/lying/unreliable; and that the jury was somehow intimidated by the ragbag mob protesting outside, and at times inside the courtroom.
In cases involving multiple accusers the most noticeable feature is usually the dishonest rhetoric of the prosecution: none of these women know each other so unless this is some vile conspiracy - ho, ho, ho - the accused must be guilty. This type of facile argument can be so powerful to the unwary that jurors will on occasion convict the accused of ludicrous offences, including in the Kelly Michaels case of playing the piano in the nude and smearing her young charges with peanut butter.
Kelly Michaels spent five years in prison before her convictions were overturned; Holtzclaw is likely to spend a great deal longer than that behind bars, and rightly so. Although Miss Malkin has gone the extra mile for him, highlighting inconsistencies in the evidence, showing everything he did in the most favourable light, she can't overcome the hurdle of Jannie Ligons, nor the previous complaint against an unidentified Oklahoma City police officer. There really are a lot of innocent men dragged into court for rape, and not a few of them end up serving hard time. Thankfully, Daniel Holtzclaw is not one of them.
Malkin covers a lot of ground but her main points are the police trawled for victims after the complaint filed by Jannie Ligons; that all the alleged victims were coached/lying/unreliable; and that the jury was somehow intimidated by the ragbag mob protesting outside, and at times inside the courtroom.
In cases involving multiple accusers the most noticeable feature is usually the dishonest rhetoric of the prosecution: none of these women know each other so unless this is some vile conspiracy - ho, ho, ho - the accused must be guilty. This type of facile argument can be so powerful to the unwary that jurors will on occasion convict the accused of ludicrous offences, including in the Kelly Michaels case of playing the piano in the nude and smearing her young charges with peanut butter.
Kelly Michaels spent five years in prison before her convictions were overturned; Holtzclaw is likely to spend a great deal longer than that behind bars, and rightly so. Although Miss Malkin has gone the extra mile for him, highlighting inconsistencies in the evidence, showing everything he did in the most favourable light, she can't overcome the hurdle of Jannie Ligons, nor the previous complaint against an unidentified Oklahoma City police officer. There really are a lot of innocent men dragged into court for rape, and not a few of them end up serving hard time. Thankfully, Daniel Holtzclaw is not one of them.