Because she told the probation board that applying the maximum sentence to Broadwater would be great political fodder for them (described in her memoir). Why mention the political gain? That’s manipulative in that she encouraged the maximum sentence and the “political” aspect could be anything from advancing careers or appeasing public sentiment (aka racial bias towards black men) which are secondary to the case. If she wanted Justice she could have just stuck to Justice - not leverage politics. It mirrors her lack of integrity in lying in the memoir about Broadwater having a criminal history and sending a hit man to kill her friend which she wrote at 36, and had plenty of time to fat check. The lies made the rapist seem more dramatic and threatening, presumably to sell to the publisher. Further changes to reality in the Netflix script (that she was presumably ok with) from a black perpetrator to white paints her as a shrewd businesswoman willing to leverage her trauma into changing narratives as long as it “sold.” That’s on the back of Broadwater that she was making millions on and a writing career. Lastly her apology never takes accountability for her involvement and her lies about him in the memoir.

They can’t seem to reconcile that a rape victim can also be involved in perpetrating injustice against someone else, whether it be unintentionally through her own naïveté and trauma or if not intentionally, at least have other aspirations (publishing a memoir, getting it made into a Netflix movie) - be an unreliable narrator. It could be mostly passive or active but taken on a whole - she’s not a completely harmless.

Edit: She also wrote lies about Broadwater. She wrote that he had a criminal record which he didn’t and that he sent a hit man after her friend. This was when she was 36 writing about her experience at 18 so she had plenty of time to check.

Well, you're the second person to misread that so note to self: never use passive sentences in important posts related to rape and racism.

I understand where your initial bias is coming from and my intent isn't to speak ill of Alice Sebold. It's to provide someone else's critical and investigative research into these events, and draw conclusions from that. There are more nuanced takes on this in that she was a victim of rape, perhaps had a racial bias or was influenced by the racial bias of the justice system, was young and naive, but also had additions in her memoir that aren't as truthful in order to sell the memoir, for example. These are the discrepancies the producer, Mucciante noticed - which I'm sure will be explored more in the eventual movie he's making.

https://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article256385927.html

Behind a paywall, but he explains a statement by the DA at the time didn't "ring true", along with other discrepancies. Further, as someone else commented - a black actor felt this film could contribute to violence from white people against black men due to the subject matter so the script was changed to make the rapist white which the producer mentioned other producers and directors were OK with (claiming they dealt with Sebold for years and she'd be OK with these changes). None of this suggests that she is a racist, knew Broadwater was innocent and falsified her rape BUT it does suggest that she may have embellished certain aspects of her story for publishing standards (DA statements, potential other details from the justice system perhaps), and further on - was OK with altering huge details like race for film standards to Netflix. This at the worst paints her as business minded - packaging up her trauma for consumption regardless of the truth, but again, until Unlucky or someone else involved with the exoneration goes into depth the exact discrepancies - it's hard to exactly say whether she was racist, naive, deceptive, etc. but for me, a few things would have stood out after time such as the hair analysis method used to link Broadwater was discredited in 1996, and that there weren't otherwise any evidence linking him. Then again, as the victim she obviously wouldn't have been critical about the forensic aspects but it definitely doesn't leave a good impression that she was at least willing for Netflix to make a completely unrealistic version of the events.

Also, I have never posted anything related to "offering tarot readings" for money. I have commented on tarot interpretation requests on reddit for free, and have made posts around meeting up to read tarot - neither of which involve money. Bad reddit etiquette is making up slander based on someone's post history and then using them as attacks when you've got nothing substantial to counter with.

I'm oddly fixated because it's important to state how and why Broadwater was exonerated, as in, it wasn't the justice system itself and it hinged on one producer thinking critically and digging into it - which is a long shot, and not everyone is that fortunate to have someone else bat for them. Even if, the producer presumably had something to gain aka making another feature film about his experience.

I blocked you because of a previous person making antagonistic comments about me based on my post history (which have nothing to do with this topic). But I see you're more reasonable than her. Also, to clarify I never said I was a film producer but used passive english structuring "It was..." so that was potentially causing reading comprehension issues.

I block people because they can't read and it's not worth losing my sleep to engage but now I'm at a better time point to reply I will.

So you block people who have doubts that you were a producer on a film project about this case AND THEN sneakily EDIT YOUR COMMENTS in an attempt to sound logical and witty after others have already replied to you? Cool.

I never said I was a producer on a film project? My original post begins..."It was actually a producer..." Explain how that translates to I said I'm a film producer on a film project? Please elaborate the grammar, syntax and english words in that combination which indicates I myself am a film producer on a film project.

That being said, your comment history is full of differing stories about your past and at no point do you ever even remotely hint at being in the film business. In fact, the majority of your comment and post history seems to be related to offering tarot readings for money. Seems legit.

AGAIN, I never said I WAS IN THE FILM BUSINESS. If you have trouble with comprehending english, maybe it's because I used passive english such as "It was..." vs. "A film producer..." My bad, I should have listened to my english teachers.

Here are several links about what happened with the film producer, whose name was too long for me to type on mobile so I summarized and assumed people would look up themselves, but I guess people can't read and/or look up information.

https://ew.com/movies/lucky-movie-producer-alice-sebold-rape-case-wrongful-conviction-documentary/

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/alice-sebold-lucky-film-1235119766/

https://www.salon.com/2021/12/02/alice-sebold-lucky-anthony-broadwater-unlucky/

https://people.com/crime/anthony-broadwater-false-rape-conviction-alice-sebold/

If you need more 'official' links, the producer's name is TIMOTHY MUCCIANTE and his official IMDB is here:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11877329/

Unlucky is still in production and if you don't believe these links, or IMDB I encourage you to maybe contact his office for confirmation.

Edited for accuracy, in case you accuse me. Editing doesn't alter reality, or the existence of the above information.

Yes correct. I added that on to another comment.

And lucky was about to be made into a Netflix movie which got cancelled when the original producer did his own research and hired a private investigator to look into the case. That’s how broadwater got exonerated.

The producer is now making a movie called unlucky about how that process went.

“The new film will be titled Unlucky, and is being produced by Timothy Mucciante — who, during his previous tenure as an executive producer on a film adaptation of Lucky, found inconsistencies in Sebold's account that eventually led to Broadwater's exoneration.

In the op-ed, Mucciante detailed that one of the things that made him start to question the case was Sebold's own account of comments made to her by an assistant district attorney after she initially identified a man other than Broadwater in the police lineup (later, in the trial, she did identify Broadwater as her rapist, which together with a now-discredited junk science known as "microscopic hair analysis" secured his conviction). He said that a script rewrite that changed the race of Sebold's assailant in the film to a white man (Broadwater is Black) also led to keeping his ‘unease with aspects of the book fresh in mind.’”

So basically she changed her account from identifying broadwater and was potentially ok with the script changing the assailant to a white man. If it was for a sale to Netflix then it’s at the least, still disingenuous and shady. At the worst it’s selling her trauma to wrongfully accuse a man for decades and trying to do it until Mucciante caught on. This is all publicly available information. I’m not the source - it’s available everywhere.

Don’t trust me - this is publicly available information. It’s called look it up yourself. If you don’t know how to do that then get off the internet. Also, obviously all bad people have a t-shirt that says “I’m a bad person.” That’s how the world works.

You can look for this information publicly. It’s not from me but from reality. How about look for information first? I’m obviously not omniscient but it’s called why did he get exonerated? Go from there.

It was actually a producer working on making her memoir Lucky into a Netflix project that researched into the discrepancies between a first draft of the script vs the book that helped get broadwater exonerated. She was at the least, still ok with getting her memoir into a new product at Netflix and it was sheer luck someone else cared enough to fight for the wrongly accused and incarcerated.

Because of the nature of the discrepancies, some have said she made up lies in her memoir to capitalize on the event and smear broadwater further had the book gone on to become the film Netflix intended. I haven’t read it but I think it’s important to point out she was willing to have this film produced and broadwater as the perpetrator in recent years. Aka she was willing to have this traumatic event brought up again and potentially make money from it and re-introduce it to audiences who don’t know about it. That says enough about her character.