Was Barbara Graham ever found innocent after her execution?
See subject line
shareActually, Barbara Graham was guilty as charged. This is an attempt by Hollywood to rewrite history to suit themselves, much as Oliver Stone and Michael Moore do today.The only reason a movie was made of this case was because Graham was a good looking woman.
shareBarbara Graham was arrested in the Nude with Jack Santo and Emmitt Perkins. She walked out on her husband and child to be with these bums. She was on her 4th marriage and never had any intentions of being responsible for her family or children. She was complete trash. Nevertheless; she was attractive and that definately is the reason you are reading this today. I'm not too convinced she actually did the "pistol whipping" of Mabel Monohan like John True testified she did. However, it's pretty certain she was the one that got entry into the Monohan house and was looking to get a monetary reward for a heroin habbit she had. Barbara Graham participated in this crime and she definately had motive for her actions she was convicted for. So in my opinion, Barbara was never innocent but her death sentence was questionable. Jack Santo and Emmitt Perkins definately deserved the Gas Chamber many times over, especially since they were convicted of many other murders outside of this case.
shareBarbara Graham was indeed a heroin addict and a convicted perjurer. We can agree that she was an unsavory character who sought out career criminals like Santo and Perkins. The main problem I have with the prosecution is that she was essentially convicted on the BASIS of the testimony of ONE witness-John True. True was a principal in the homicide with the other three but received IMMUNITY from prosecution for his testimony. Was this fair? I don't think so. Did he tell the truth on the stand? The jury thought so. But, then again,juries wrongly convict innocent people all the time. If she had had criminal attorneys of the caliber that Caryl Chessman had it is doubtful that she would have been executed, as least as not as rapidly as she was compared to Chessman's twelve years of obtaining stays.
It would be interesting to find out what happened to John True after he testified against her and the other two.
So... because of the times she lived in, where more was expected from a wife and mother and a woman in general, Barbara Graham was executed.
So much for the fifties mentality...
Flanagan
What a stupid comment. More is expected from women today than was expected then.
She wasn't executed because she wasn't like a 50s TV Mom, but because of being involved in the crime. She likely didn't commit the murder but was an accessory, and that's often just as bad. Consider today's laws, where just by being of some sort of help to the killer, one is as guilty of murder as the killer.
The overall mentality of people today is no great improvement over that of those in the 1950s. Yes, there are areas where it's better, and there are just as many where it's worse.
-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)
This one is the most agreeable one. Taking someone's life from one witness who received immunity right there is enough to take the death sentence off the table. Truly a disgusting situation only happened due to the times. This would never fly in today's society whether it was big news or not at the most she'd of gotten life until further investigation.
shareI can understand your opinion and agree with most of it.
However, your spelling needs improvement.
You wrote: “ she was attractive and that definately is the reason you are reading this today”.
You also wrote: “… she was the one that got entry into the Monohan house and was looking to get a monetary reward for a heroin habbit she had”.
You have misspelled the words “definitely”, and the word “habit”.
Check a dictionary and you will see that the word “definitely” does not contain the letter “a”.
In addition, the word “habit” contains only ONE “b”.
As a published writer, misspelled words are extremely noticeable.
Thank you.
Who are you to be correcting someone's grammer UNSOLICITED? You get a d*mn dictionary yourself, smart a*s!
shareAfter doing a large amount of research on this subject*, I have a strong suspicion that Barbara Graham was not guilty of this murder. It was a flimsy case at best and it is rather shocking on top of that to realize she is only the 3rd woman to be executed in Calif. in the 20th century.
By the way...excellent, powerful movie - I grew up watching it (I was named after Susan Hayward!)
*Susan C.*
*Check out this excellent article on the case from a law review magazine: http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/okla/foster22.htm
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return" ~ Nat King Cole
Give me a break. About two years after her execution, Warden Teets told two different people what a burden it was for him to carry around her confession for two years. She admitted to the warden that she had indeed laid Mrs. Monahan's head open. He gave a reason for not going public beforehand--he felt that if her family and friends thought her innocent, he didn't want to be the one who ruined it for them.
Most people know only what that stupid "I Want to Live" script portrayed about the case. For another side of the case, try reading the trial transcripts, the California Supreme Court review, and interviews with people involved in the investigation. You'll be shocked at how thoroughly guilty Barbara looks when you're not seeing her through the eyes of an anti-death-penalty crusader. The sad thing is, they could probably have sent a credible anti-DP message through the film even without all the revisionist crap they used for the purpose of making her out to be innocent.
The jury did their jobs well in 1953. The system worked. Three cold blooded killers paid the price. Shame on the movie producer and writers.
(But two thumbs WAY UP on the musical score. The opening scene is priceless.)
Playing God (taking someone's life) instead of putting them behind bars for the rest of their life (doing hard labor) does not solve anything. It does not bring the dead person back. It is sickening (and not to mention a little scary) that "decent" people would want to watch someone be executed.
shareAside from the issue of guilt or innocence the manner of her execution was a great embarassment to the State of California at the time. The delays on the day of execution reduced her to a state where she just about had to be carried into the gas chamber. It wasn't easy on the witnesses or staff handling the procedure. This film was absolutely true as to what happened to Barbara Graham on that day. The realism still unsettles viewers to this day.
shareIt didn't go easy on Barbara's victim, Mabel Monahan, either. She died from multiple blows to the head followed by strangulation. So, I don't have much sympathy for Barbara's falling apart after being brought in and out of the execution chamber. Besides, there was no "issue of guilt or innocence" once the warden disclosed Barbara's post-conviction confession. She was an oxygen thief, pure and simple.
share[deleted]
you can't undo a mistake if you convinct an innocent
People's heads can be cryogenically frozen and kept in a freezer thing until they find a cure for whatever did them in.
So, to sum it up in legal terminology: Get lost, you bum.
I think being jerked around by the stays was part of the punishment.
shareWho said it was pretty? And the poor little thing helped kill an old lady.
shareYou say it is "Playing God (taking someone's life)". That's your opinion, which is as valid as anyone else's. However, unfortunately for you, the majority does not agree that it is playing God to execute a criminal in accordance with the law. We the People, in its majority, elected the legislators who wrote the DP laws. It seems you forgot to preface your statement with "In my opinion, ...."
You say "it does not solve anything." However, do you know of any cases where people have been murdered by any of these scumbags after they've been executed? I didn't think so. You know it and I know it--it solved plenty to execute Graham, Santo, and Perkins. It saved the lives of their future victims--victims like Mrs. Monahan who had the audacity not to fork over cash at gunpoint.
You say "It does not bring the dead person back." Show me in the DP laws of any state, the DP laws of the federal government, the transcript of any prosecutor's arguments in the punishment phase of a murder trial, etc., where the stated objective of execution is to bring a victim back to life. We've all heard such "won't bring victim back to life" nonsense for many decades, but who knows where it's coming from? Where does one learn such ridiculous logic?
Ok what about all the DNA exonerations in the past few years showing scientific fact that innocent people have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death? What about all the lousy public defenders who fall asleep during their client's death penalty trials? How would you like some one you love to have a lawyer like that? Don't think it can happen to you? Don't bet on it?
Show me the transcript of any DP trial that proves it has prevented a future murder.
Actually, the tide is turning against the Death Penalty. It is too expensive, too long, and too many innocent people are getting caught in it's web. Tell me, how is it that abortion is a no no, but if the fetus kills someone as a juvenile or older, it is ok to execute it? Why not just kill it before it's born?
How is that any different from your "logic?" The mind is the glad that secretes justification.
[deleted]
Why not just kill it before it's born? Because, oh dumber than dirt, the fetus has not done anything to warrant the death penalty. This might be a strange thing to think, but we don't punish people for what they might do or what they could do. we punish them for what they have done. If you had been born with any brains you might figure out that if we did other wise no one would live outside the womb.
Why not just kill it before it's born? Because, oh dumber than dirt, the fetus has not done anything to warrant the death penalty. This might be a strange thing to think, but we don't punish people for what they might do or what they could do. we punish them for what they have done. If you had been born with any brains you might figure out that if we did other wise no one would live outside the womb.
Your statement was dumb and the funny thing is you do not even realize what you've just said.If you have trouble seeing it don't worry I've made the font bold just so it jumps right out at you.Now Perhaps you should point what you just typed out to every single woman whose ever aborted her baby,or who plans to.
"Yo Soy Boricua Hasta La Muerte"
share
How about MCDuff in Texas he made it off death row in Texas after the supreme court ruling in 1972 and was eventually released and killed several women after that which he was later executed for. If he had been executed like he was supposed to have been those women would still be alive.
shareAnd if he had spent his life in prison those women would also still be alive.
www.freerice.com
His sentence was commuted to life. Then he was paroled. The problem with "life without parole" can always be changed, and more often than not, it is.
"Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in the room."
Winston Churchill
Or, he might have killed people in prison, or finally got out, and killed people.
Idiot.
You say it is "Playing God (taking someone's life)". That's your opinion, which is as valid as anyone else's. However, unfortunately for you, the majority does not agree that it is playing God to execute a criminal in accordance with the law. We the People, in its majority, elected the legislators who wrote the DP laws. It seems you forgot to preface your statement with "In my opinion, ...."
You say "it does not solve anything." However, do you know of any cases where people have been murdered by any of these scumbags after they've been executed? I didn't think so. You know it and I know it--it solved plenty to execute Graham, Santo, and Perkins. It saved the lives of their future victims--victims like Mrs. Monahan who had the audacity not to fork over cash at gunpoint.
You say "It does not bring the dead person back." Show me in the DP laws of any state, the DP laws of the federal government, the transcript of any prosecutor's arguments in the punishment phase of a murder trial, etc., where the stated objective of execution is to bring a victim back to life. We've all heard such "won't bring victim back to life" nonsense for many decades, but who knows where it's coming from? Where does one learn such ridiculous logic?
Your reply:
Hear, hear!! Well put!
"It's only a moovie"
Alfred Hitchcock. share
I didn't think this was a debate on the dealth penalty, just a question of guilt or innocence.
sharePlaying God (taking someone's life) instead of putting them behind bars for the rest of their life (doing hard labor) does not solve anything. It does not bring the dead person back. It is sickening (and not to mention a little scary) that "decent" people would want to watch someone be executed.
emma_ruhalt_bovary on Wed Apr 6 2005 03:07:28
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm anti-death penalty and a massive liberal, but I'm a thoughtful one.
It never ceases to amaze me how little thought people give to the conscious construction of these issue films. Why is it that we never see, an anti-death penalty film that features a despicable, horrifying, black protagonist who splatters people all over without remorse, and then taunts the public during the trial? (I'm not racist, but black people are white America's boogeyman) Because that figure doesn't exist? NO, because it's unlikely that that story would win you over or change your opinion! You don't think you'd be more ambivalent to watch a character like that executed?
I was outside the dramatics of the movie as I watched the final sequence, thinking thoughts like that. It's always some misunderstood victim who's been framed that's most useul to the argument; that middle class values can accomodate, in these movies. If they can win you over by forcing the point, you'll change your mind without even considering more hardened and despicable perps. It's called, presenting viewers with a false dilemma.
The death penalty accomplishes nothing but it was not hard to watch Richard Allen Davis, the truly nasty (white) killer of Polly Klaas receive the death sentence, yet to be carried out. I am also troubled (always) by the expansive team of neutral assistants who willingly take part in executions.
Complex thoughts have been bred out of the society by partisan manipulation.
Playing God (taking someone's life) instead of putting them behind bars for the rest of their life (doing hard labor) does not solve anything. It does not bring the dead person back. It is sickening (and not to mention a little scary) that "decent" people would want to watch someone be executed.
Tell me, Emma, if you had been present at the scene of the crime, seconds before the killing took place, and you had a handgun in your pocket, and you knew that the only way to prevent the murder of that innocent little old lady was to shoot those three people dead, what would you do?
And saying "freeze!!" doesn't count. You have to shoot, or not shoot. Kill, and not merely wound.
What would you do?
"It's only a moovie"
Alfred Hitchcock. share
No it doesn't bring the person back but it prevents them from ever hurting anyone ever again.Ted Bundy escaped twice and was able to claim numerous victims. If a animal has rabies we euthanize it to protect others and to put the poor animal out of it's suffering, what's the difference?
Anyway Barbara Graham was guilty as sin and so was Susan Hayward of being one the biggest over actors in the history of film.
I agree. It is so barbaric.
shareand they'll never hurt you or yours or anyone else ever again. period.
RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008
You seem to know all the answers mister. It's obvious you are for the DP and it is your choice. An eye for an eye like the Old West. Some men think they are God in person. And some are quick on the trigger to juge others. Where you there when the crusade anti DP join in when the film "I want to live" was shot? Too bad the producers, directors, screenwriters, etc...could not show their side of the medal(most of them must be dead), about that "stupid" film as you call it. At the same time, they would have the opportunity to wash the "shame" you splash on them bunch of "idiots" who made one of the best film ever. You have got a lot to learn mister!
shareYou must have spent all your school life taking philosophy; it sure couldn't have been grammar and spelling. And, by the way, your philosophy makes as much sense as your other scholarly endeavors.
shareScrew grammar and spelling. And don't go yelling at me, mister, since I happen to be in honors high school junior English and with good reason. I say that because whether or not she was guilty, NOTHING, and I repeat, NOTHING, gives ANYONE the right to kill anyone else. Humans are fallible. Our laws are fallible. And the death penalty is the greatest piece of hypocrisy ever committed by the United States Government. Why are we so much better than others? We're not. We're all human. We're all fallible. Committing the very crime for which the accused was sentenced is INEXCUSABLE.
Listen to the music of the night!
You'll be shocked at how thoroughly guilty Barbara looks when you're not seeing her through the eyes of an anti-death-penalty crusader.
No, we'll all be justified that the LA police are SLIME and the California COURTS are FOOLS.
Answer me THIS:
OJ's GLOVES. WHY did they not FIT? I mean, he DID it right, he killed Nicole? Well, at least they took his Heisenburg Trophy or whatever the hell that was, but that is small consolation to the LA COPS who were trying to get payback on the black community of LA by taking out one of it's outstanding citizens.
The cops were proven to be corrupt by the video tape of Rodney King being beat. Well, does anyone think the damn LA police department is gonna take that kind of pasting.
Furman (whatever that cops name was... He has a history of BIGOTRY abd of abusing blacks) planted thew WRONG GLOVES. His evidence tampering was not compleat.
So, the LA Cops to another pasting when OJ walked free, coe Furman was a stupid idiot and planted Nicoles gloves instead of OJ's
So, I am sure if we all look at the so called "evidence" and if we read the transcript, we will see how much fuukin double talk the prosecution of this case actually fulfilled. IF WE COULD GET A PICTURE of the political climate in Southern California for THAT YEAR, the year they planeted this on that woman, we will probably see that there was a political reason for the arrest/conviction and assassination of Barbara Graham.
I seen this moovie a long time ago... I am watching it again right now. USUALLY, Hollywood don't take the effort to "ReWrite History" like this unless something REALLY Fooked had happened. And they did put a lot of effort into telling this side of the story. They got Robert Wise to direct it.
So, just for this story, I am gonna belioeve Hollywood's tale rather than what is "on record" cos the record lies.
The jury did their jobs well in 1953. The system worked. Three cold blooded killers paid the price.
NOPE. The system DOES NOT work, and how many innocent people are gassed, hung, and lethal injected?
Look, we KNOW that the system does nto work: I was watching the History Channel and they were showing a High Security pen in Lousiana. There was a guy in there, they kept showing, and finally they got him to say a couple of words: He had been unjustly imprisoned in there, cos they LOST his paperwork. For a TRAFFIC ticket!
So, please don't tell us how well the legal system woiks, IT DON'T. and when it does, like when the GLOVES DID NOT FIT, someone says that the system FAILED.
Well, the damn system is flawed from the start! So keep yer Republicising to yerself (burp) share
XweAponX - so all the police are slime, the courts are fools and the system doesn't work - what a brilliant analysis!!! Let's just throw open all the prison doors and turn everyone loose since you have this all figured out. Because you can point out one or two examples of bad cops that somehow makes them all bad??? That would be like me saying that because your arguement is so ludicrous and your grammar so bad, that everyone in whatever state you live in must therefore be fools. Get rid of the sweeping generalities - they completely destroy your arguement.
shareExcept in this case, the sweeping generalities are absolutely correct.
Listen to the music of the night!
XweAponX sez:
'IF WE COULD GET A PICTURE of the political climate in Southern California for THAT YEAR, the year they planeted this on that woman, we will probably see that there was a political reason for the arrest/conviction and assassination of Barbara Graham.'
Yeah, there was a political reason. Californians hate murder and murderers, so they elected POLITICIANS who enacted laws against murder and awarded a trip the gas chamber for people who ignore those laws.
There is a lot of material out there that didn't make it into the movie. I guess it would not have helped the movie's story, for instance, to show Barbara sitting around a table with the guys and planning this murder. Or why the two ringleaders asked her to participate in the murder in the first place. Nor would it have helped the movie to show where Barbara was really headed when she was being tailed on the bus by the female police officer. (Hint: it dang sure wasn't to go visit her son.) Speaking of son, the movie didn't bother to detail her other marriages and children that she abandoned previously. The movie didn't bother to mention some of the incriminating statements she made to a detective before her arrest and to other people while she was in prison.
All this in order to make a movie to play on people's emotions and get them to oppose the death penalty. Well it worked--for awhile. People bought that nonsense right and left, and the movie producer can take personal credit in the public sentiment which caused the DP to be outlawed a few years later.
But the gloves DID fit. He just balled his hands together so they wouldn't slip on. Anyone can do that. Had the court been able to order someone to come over and slide them down correctly on his hands, everyone wouldn't seen that.
shareNothing to add regarding guilty verdict of Graham. It may or may not have been justified. However, as a journalist, I caution everyone not to take dramatic screenplay adaptations of actual events too literally.
Susan Hayward was talented, beautiful and surely deserved her Academy Award. But remember, it was written and directed by two guys hired for a pretty good salary by a movie studio to sell tickets.
Observations and comments here are fascinating. All the best.
[deleted]
In those days, it was common for wardens and others to get "confessions" out of the condemned. Maybe it soothed the wardens' conscience about executing an innocent person. The prisoners were offered commutation or even pardon in exchange for a deathrow confession. Such statements are given little weight by courts. Most people would confess to killing Lincoln to avoid the gas chamber. In addition, the fact that the warden sat on the statement for two years makes it highly suspect. The warden would be violating the law to hold this from the courts. Obstruction of justice among other crimes. The more likely explanation is that he or someone else manufactured the statement after the execution. Graham may have done the deed but the proof does not lie in a deathrow confession.
shareThe fact that we are STILL discussing this case after so many years PROVES that there is still doubt regarding her guilt regarding the scale of her participation in this crime. As to her so-called "confessions" mentioned here, all of that is merely hearsay at this late date and is proof of nothing, just as you stated, fiat0903.
shareFiat0903 says: "The warden would be violating the law to hold this from the courts. Obstruction of justice among other crimes."
BWA HA HA HA HA HA. I love these Sunday afternoon legal "experts". The court convicted her of murder, Einstein. So when she subsequently confessed this crime to the warden, he somehow becomes a criminal for not going back to the court and confirming what they found? How ridiculous can you get? Oh, and another thing--people on death row getting commuted or pardoned in exchange for confessing? That's almost as silly as your other statement. What TV shows are you watching?
Warden Teet's explanation for not immediately coming forward about the confession was quite plausible, indeed. First of all, he wasn't obligated to tell a single soul what she said, despite what you thought you learned on Perry Mason or your other TV shows. Secondly, he said that if her family and friends wanted to hold out the thought she was innocent, he didn't want to be the one to ruin that--it wasn't his job. Two separate people made the claim, later on, that Teets told them of the confession and mentioned the awful burden it had caused him to keep the confession secret for as long as he did.
You also said "the proof doesn't lie in a deathrow confession." Finally! You said something that makes sense. Absolutely correct--the proof had nothing to do with her confession. The proof was in the evidence presented to the jury during the trial. And I'm talking about the real trial here, not the idiotic representation of it as portrayed in this largely fictional account. Read the transcripts someday.
Yes, fictional account. And it wasn't just the trial. One of *many* examples: The movie has her being tailed while sneaking out to go visit her baby. You want to know what she was really doing? It sure wasn't to go visit any baby. The reason they even knew to follow her in the first place was because they were monitoring her drug suppliers. They intercepted a heroin purchase setup, waited for her to complete it, and then followed her back to the room where Perkins and Santo were. Baby, my eye.
"howboutsomemorebeansmrtaggart", I really love your posts. Thanks and keep up the good work.
"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."
PEople like you are the explanation why the USA is destroying other countries. After all, american soldiers in Iraq are the system working, aren't they?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
hoiwaboutsomemoree is full of it.
The warden's self serving revelation AFTER Graham was dead and not around to contradict him was his low level attempt to say "I was not responsible as a part of a machine that executed an innocent woman."
I appreciate the death penalty discussion here, but it seems like folks are pressing this case into forms that fit their pre-existing positions. Here for instance, it is quite reasonable to give some weight to Warden Teets alleged statement, but shouldn't we mention some context info for that?
1. For example, shouldn't we mention here that this alleged confession came up years after Warden Teets had died, based on hearsay report from someone else who said that Teets had told him this?
2. Shouldn't we mention that Teets' boss, the Director of Corrections, says that there is an unbreakable rule that confessions are reported and documented, and is highly doubtful that Teets, whom he admired and thought was not a rule-breaker, would fail to report it to him?
3. Shouldn't we mention that there is no actual documentation anywhere that this confession happened, and that there is a lot of documentation for Barbara denying her guilt to the day she died?
4. Shouldn't we mention that the investigations in prosecutorial misconduct looked into the evidence for this confession, and couldn't substantiate it?
Like some of you, I have read some research reports and pieces of the transcript, but I was not there and don't have the full picture. I am satisfied that there was prosecutorial misconduct, which is not really in question anymore, both in terms of withholding evidence and courtroom behavior. I'm also not very convinced that the guy given immunity for accusing Barbara was innocent, while he (who had a violent history while she did not) watched innocently. On the other hand, the evidence that she was present at the murder (even if she did not participate in it) is equivocal, and I could see how reasonable people could come to different conclusions. From my perspective, a fair trial could have awarded her a jail sentence, but not the death penalty.
This is an attempt by Hollywood to rewrite history to suit themselves, much as Oliver Stone and Michael Moore do today
Oliver Stone really took liberties with history with "Alexander"- Which could have been a good moovie, at least cast-wise. Michael Moore, is that the fathead that did bowling for concubines and farenheight 9-11? Screw him!
But regarding this film, it is a very good film. Having suffered my own very minor (in relation to what this broad went through) problems with "The Legal System" I tend to think that this poor woman was made a patsy, and the legal system was just giving in to the public demand for blood to be spilled. In these days, we can watch any film that has heads chopped off and get our fix of executions.
They used Entrapment and other usual cop trix to get this media blitz of a "hangin" to happen. The Judge was a-hangin judge, and the public was slovering for any execution they could get. The jury could not wait to hand in a guilty verdict.
Kinda like poor ole OJ. The damn gloves did not fit, I watched that on Court TV. The fookin GLOVES did not fit, not even close. Know what I did? I had a pair of close fitting gloves and I sopped em in all kinds of fluids for a few days, then I let em dry out.
When I picked em up, they stretched right out and I got em on. I even tried this little experiment again, wearing laytex gloves underneath, and I could STILL get dem gloves on.
But then a fooging "Civil" trial finds him "kinda guilty"
Well that is that... if that poor woman would have had GOOD legal representation she would maybe still be alive today and a great grandmother.
Some people just do not get breaks. To everyone that says "Ah, she admitted doing it to the warden" FAUGH! BS- I'll stake any money if there was a way to absolutley find out the truth of this whole thing... Then we would find out she didn't do it.
share
Damn, you're all messed up.
shareI'll have what XweApon's having....
But the legal system is fooked..
if you have money and can hire investigators and experts or know your way around, you might have a shot. If not, start prayin'...
As for Ms. Graham's spontaneous "confession" to the Warden, all I can say is -- yeah right. In his (wet) dreams.
katiewon says:
'As for Ms. Graham's spontaneous "confession" to the Warden, all I can say is -- yeah right. In his (wet) dreams.'
Who said anything about a spontaneous confession? But she confessed, alright. If I have to choose between the word of a prison warden and a 2-bit lying, murdering, prostitute, I'll take the warden's word on it, thanks. After all, he had nothing to gain by revealing the confession. If there were anything to gain, he would have made a statement to the press right afterwards, but he chose to wait, and he only told it to a few people.
You just can't stand the fact that the movie was a deliberate attempt by the screenwriter to lie through his teeth in order to make a statement against the death penalty. There were so many places in that movie that were nothing at all like what actually happened.
Just to clarify, he didn't "choose to wait." He never came forward. The alleged confession came out based on 1-2 people who said that he told them. Teets had since died himself, and could not deny or confirm this. Since that time, there is good evidence that the confession never happened.
I'm curious about what parts of the movie are "nothing at all like what actually happened." I know it painted her more sympathetically than many think she deserves, and I realize that most of these docudramas create conversations that did not occur or slant the argument, but what did they get wrong?
XweAponX said:
'To everyone that says "Ah, she admitted doing it to the warden" FAUGH! BS'
Warden Teets made this claim. If you want to call him a liar, that's up to you. He is dead, and cannot defend himself now, but go ahead and call him a liar. If you knew anything about him, you'd know he would have been the last person in the entire story to make up anything about Barbara Graham. The thing about that movie is that people just refuse to believe the difference between the woman as protrayed by Susan Hayward and the actions of the real woman as recorded by eyewitnesses. And I'm not even talking about the murder here.
[To yeaux]
Says who? There is no question that much of the evidence that the State used against her was tainted and would not be allowed in a court of law today. It's very doubtful a jury today would convict her, sans the tainted evidence. I don't know whether she was guilty or not, but most consider the evidence against her scant at best.
"Nothing in this world is more surprising than the attack without mercy!"--Little Big Man
Interesting. Since you are claiming that "much of the evidence that the State used against her was tainted and would not be allowed in a court of law today", can you please describe what was tainted? Again, please do not reference this ridiculous movie. There was a load of evidence against her that didn't show up in the movie. She made a number of incriminating statements, some to an LA detective that Santos, Perkins, and she visited not long before they were caught.
She certainly would have been convicted by a California jury today. There is a good chance that she would not have received the death penalty, though. Reason: Of the two eyewitnesses who saw her beating the old woman with a firearm, one of them was murdered after he went to the police, and the other turned state's evidence to avoid the gas chamber. In order to sentence someone to death, you can't rely solely on testimony from a fellow criminal who makes a deal with the state for his testimony. You have to have corroborating evidence. There was plenty of it, but I'm thinking a jury today would want to see some prints on a weapon or some DNA from something Barbara was wearing.
Perkins and Santos could have testified that Barbara wasn't with them. They chose not to do that, because they were extremely angry about the fact that she got them caught (she was spotted on a city bus going to score some heroin.)
I was refering specifically to the incriminating comments she made to a couple of "plants" (police officers) the DA's office put in jail with her. These statements would not have been allowed as evidence today on the grounds that she was enticed into making these statements, i.e., she was entrapped into incriminating herself. The rules against entappment had not yet been formulated, and so these comments became prima facie evidence against her at trial. She herself tried to explain those statements as acts of desperation (in one instance, she offered to bribe one of the plants to testify that she had been with her at the time of the murder), i.e., "Have you ever been desperate? Do you know what it means not to know what to do?"
Again, I have no idea whether she was actully guilty or not, but without that testimony, the trial might have gone differently.
Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.
Just curious, but what is your connection to this case?
"Always look on the bright side of life. Do do. Do do do do do do."