Author Archives: sp077546

Absence of Malice is a film about a Miami liquor wholesaler, the son of a deceased criminal, who is at the center of the disappearance and assumed murder of a longshoreman union official, Joseph Diaz. The title of the movie refers to defamation of character. This is centered on a news reporter, Megan Carter, who is fighting to advance her career. In doing so, she severely hurts people around her through unethical decision-making and journalistic sins.

One key error Carter made was not contacting Gallagher before she released the story about him. She was supposed to call him and see what he had to say about the allegations she was going to make in her article. However, she did not; and she released highly speculative information about Gallagher that created much unwanted attention for him. She should have repeatedly called Gallagher and left multiple messages; or perhaps, left a copy of the story at his place of business. A reporter must be persistent in attempting to contact the private individual that he or she is releasing a report about. This allows the target of the story to defend him or herself, correct any blaring errors, and make any appropriate comments. Gallagher, like any private individual, can sue the reporter and the newspaper service for defamation of character.

The former error pales in comparison to the one including Teresa Perrone’s name and the details of her story in an article in the paper. Under much emotional stress and being badgered by Carter, Perrone told Carter intimate details about, what could be, Gallagher’s potential alibi. At time the Diaz went missing, Gallagher was with Carter in Atlanta, where she had had an abortion. Megan Carter was so focused on proving Gallagher’s innocence, or lack of involvement, with Diaz, that she went against Perrone’s wishes to not be mentioned in the paper. Carter went against her own morals, ethical boundaries, as well as those expected from a journalist of a major newspaper.  After Perrone’s wishes were ignored and the story was published, she committed suicide.

I am still uncertain if Megan’s relationship with Michael Gallagher was genuine. Was it mere infatuation? Love? Or was it simply using him to benefit from more intimate details surrounding the story. There is, perhaps, some interplay between all of the abovementioned questions.

-Shaun

I saw the documentary, The Central Park Five, last Thursday at the IFC Center. The one word that informally sums up my reaction to the film is “wow.” I was completely gripped by the real accounts given by the five, falsely convicted, men. These five poor boys were guilty until proven innocent. This was a complete and utter failure of the legal system and the press. The result of this you may ask? Seven to thirteen years in prison, 5 individual lives ruined, families tarnished and tortured, all in the purview of political “prowess.” After Ray Donovan was acquitted, he asked “What office do I go to get my reputation back?” Similarly, where could these men go to get their lives back? Simply stated, nowhere.

Who’s job was it to ensure the innocence of the five boys that were convicted? They were coerced into giving false statements, wrongly detained and questioned for over 26 hours, and those children who were under 16 years old were unlawfully denied access to a parent or guardian. Where was the higher power here to assert our ‘esteemed’ legal process and system? Clearly, the police officers, DA’s, and prosecuting attorneys failed. Who, or what entity, was supposed to keep them in check? The answer to that question is rather simple, the press. Instead of being the guiding light in this tragedy, the press victimized these five boys for months. The imagery of the public lynching in the film was rather ironic, as the press metaphorically hanged these five children before they ever had a chance. How could this possibly happen? I think it’s important here to write the words given by District Attorney Robert Morgenthau’s office after the convictions were vacated. This one paragraph sums up the failures of the press and legal system alike:

“A comparison of the statements reveals troubling discrepancies. … The accounts given by the five defendants differed from one another on the specific details of virtually every major aspect of the crime — who initiated the attack, who knocked the victim down, who undressed her, who struck her, who held her, who raped her, what weapons were used in the course of the assault, and when in the sequence of events the attack took place. … In many other respects the defendants’ statements were not corroborated by, consistent with, or explanatory of objective, independent evidence. And some of what they said was simply contrary to established fact.”

Interestingly enough, the next morning I had a conversation with my mother about the film before she left for work. I said to her “It’s really unbelievable how the lives of these five boys were completely railroaded.” With a perplexed look on her face, she responded, “What are you talking about? You mean the five boys who raped and practically murdered that poor woman?” I went silent for a few moments, completely in shock of what she had just said. Mind you, my mother has been a court reporter (stenographer in the courtroom who writes every single word that is said) for over 30 years. She pays very much attention to important court cases (especially ones as popular as this one). So, when SHE was not aware that the five boys’ convictions were vacated, I was in complete shock. This speaks to what Craig Wilder had said in the film, “Their innocence never got the attention that their guild did.”

-Shaun