A Murder in the Park

What happens when a college professor and his students set out to end capital punishment in the state of Illinois? Would ending said executions be worth overturning the conviction of a guilty man? This documentary boldly asks this question.

There is a lot to unpack here, but the biggest takeaway is that a lot of these innocence projects will use any methods they can to end capital punishment (and advance their own fame), including distorting the truth to free a murderer. One needs to ask, was it naivete that led them to do this or a deliberate attempt to free a guilty man and imprison an innocent one? And if in fact that is the case, are these groups really about justice.

A lot of documentaries and podcasts today seem to focus on exposing corruption and freeing defendants purposely wronged by an uncaring state. There is big money in it, all of us have seen some of these on Netflix. But what if, the injustices weren't perpetrated by the state, but the self-appointed crusaders fighting for a cause?

A cautionary tale that everyone involved in the criminal justice system has the potential to be susceptible to biases; even those with the purest and most altruistic motives.

In 1982, convicted murderer Anthony Porter was hours from execution when journalism professor David Protess of Northwestern University and his Innocence Project students got him freed. Instead, Astory Simon pled guilty and was sentenced to 37 years in prison. But in a twist, in 2013, Simon was released. This movie tells the story of how Protess and his team railroaded Simon, forced a confession from him, and then saddled him with a lawyer who was a partner of one of Protess' team.

There's little doubt in my mind that the various Innocence Project groups throughout the nation serve a valuable function. But just as the administration of the law in seeking justice is flawed, so at least occasionally attempts to repair justice within the judicial system go off the rails. This documentary makes a very good case that the conviction of Simon was one such case.

As for the production values, it has all the hallmarks of one of those true-crime shows that air at 2AM on basic cable: a story narrated by an authorative-sounding baritone punctuated by short clips of individuals sounding defeated, a narrative that admits of no nuance, and musical stings that consists of short, depressed, bass stings.

Greetings again from the darkness. The concept of "the scales of justice" refers to what is right and just. It's a lofty and worthy goal, and one that we U.S. citizens grow up learning is the foundation of our legal system. Sometimes, however, the wheels fall off and the system gets off-track. Co-directors Shawn Rech and Brandon Kinder explore one such quite infamous case.

Here's a quick synopsis: Cops arrest suspect for a double murder (1982). Suspect found guilty and sentenced to death (1983). Just prior to execution, additional information is submitted and the suspect is freed (1999). Another suspect is charged, found guilty and sent to prison. Fifteen years later, charges against the second man are dropped and he is released from prison. Evidence points to original suspect, who has been pardoned and cannot be re-tried.

The above phrase "additional information" is the key to the film. Northwestern University Professor David Protess and a group of his journalism students, working under the auspice of the "Innocence Project", set out to cast doubt on the guilt of Anthony Porter – the prisoner just days from execution. The students' work with Private Investigator Paul Ciolini yields contradictory witnesses and a confession from another man, Alstory Simon. The result of their findings gets Porter released and turns him and themselves into media stars, while also leading to the state of Illinois banning the death penalty.

The film is exceedingly well documented and researched, and provides interviews from detectives, lawyers and Mr. Simon, among others. It's a procedural documentary that questions the very procedures of the justice system … shooting holes and raising red flags on the steps and a multitude of people involved with the cases over the years. Unfortunately, we don't get any account directly from Professor Protess (since released by Northwestern), but that's likely due to the inexcusably shoddy work from his group and his endless grandstanding since getting Porter released.

We all know there are truth-minded journalists, but it's quite frightening when those on the other end of the spectrum can so easily gain power and influence … especially when teamed up with a less-than-scrupulous private investigator who proudly spouts that the rules don't apply to him.

This is a very interesting and detailed look at different personality types, legal procedures, media influence and the role of truth and justice. The film begins with a very unusual disclaimer stating the film studio "does not guarantee the accuracy of the content". The name of the studio? Whole Truth Films.