The Truth of Self-Representation

The thread on a related post is getting too interesting not to make it a main post and invite some new comments.  The issue is the truth of confessions -- especially those that have been filmed by interrogators (either as required by law or in an effort to be prudent).  How do we judge the truth of these filmed confessions? Is self-representation inherently problematic, as one commenter (visitor Corey Rayburn to this blog) suggested?  Does the  performative impulse in people inevitably emerge when placed in front of a camera to "tell their story"?  If so, how does this performance alter how we assess the voluntary, truthfulness or accuracy of the statement?  (None of these questions address the many other issues involved in judging the filmed confession, such as how the film frame affects the interpretation of the coercive atmosphere in the interrogation room.)

I am in the process of trying to collect films of confessions for a longer project.  As part of that project, I just  watched the film "Confession of Bernard Goetz," a fascinating documentary with footage of Goetz's confession, the juror's reactions and commentary from lawyers of the men Goetz shot. What struck me was how performed was Goetz's recounting of the shooting to the NH US Attorneys. He was so obviously and self-consciously telling a story about himself that he wanted to be the truth about him and the state of New York City life. (Does this self-consciousness counsel against the "truth" of the matter or in favor?) And an interesting outcome (although painful to this viewer) was that the jury both believed him -- he was reasonably frightened such that shooting the four men was self-defense -- and didn't believe him -- they disregarded as embellishment or delusion that he returned to shoot for a second time one of the men saying "You look alright. Here's another." Had the jury believed this last statement, his self-defense claim would have been significantly weakened. But by allowing that the confession was both "honest" and "deluded," they could acquit him.

What does this say about the "truth" of self-representation on film, one of those places in law (confession evidence) where film is considered paramount and indisputable form of evidence?  And do we consider the jury's assessment in this case particularly sophisticated in that they recognized that self-representation can be both true and not true, but this "mixed genre" did not taint their  judgment?  Would this be because trials and testimony are always performances, forms of "fiction" -- compiled and put together narratives for the jury to judge?  Or, is the jury's consideration of the "mixed genre" (a "autobiofilm based on a true story"?) problematic because the result in this case -- the acquittal of Bernard Goetz on all murder-related charges -- smacks of injustice and racism? 

(For a wonderfully insightful and impressively interdisciplinary book on the nature of confessions, although not specifically about the subgenre of filmed confessions, see Troubling Confessions: Speaking Guilt in Law and Literature, by co-blogger Peter Brooks.)

Comments

[Dean C. Rowan]

Let me take a stab at these questions. I think they have not invited response in part because they are difficult, and one arguably anomalous case--Goetz--doesn't necessarily help us generalize about the “‘truth’ of self-representation.” But my earlier comment about the impossibility of acting on film relates, if perhaps only slightly, to this line of inquiry. To me, film actors do little more than mug for the camera: Bogart, Bacall, Hepburn (both of 'em), Nicholson, Hoffman, Olivier, Barrymore (all of 'em), et al. One can't help but mug for the camera; it's what cameras--weird machines--invite. Hence the "mug shot," often depicting a seemingly affectless expression, yet one from which we read all sorts of imagined and extreme intentions and ill doings. (It’s hard for me to say whether this perception of mugging, then, originates with the subject depicted, the viewer’s reception, or the mechanism of the camera itself.) And when we regard film actors at work, we tend to do precisely what Prof. Silbey suggests the jury in Goetz did, namely, we both believe--rather, we suspend disbelief and feel as if we're observing some depicted character--and we don't believe--we acknowledge the actor at work. Brando as Don Corleone, for example, is Brando at least as much as he's the Godfather. This circumstance is not, I think, merely a function of the ambiguity of celebrity film acting, not merely a consequence of film being marketed both as fictional drama and as access to the stars themselves. It is a consequence of what goes on whenever a camera records any image: the sources of intention are manifold, complicating the “truth” of the representation. The legal system’s reliance on photography and filmed confessions tends perhaps not to address this circumstance head-on, but then there’s always the defense’s exploitation of it with the Rodney King footage.

[Ralph Willis]

"Had the jury believed this last statement, his self-defense claim would have been significantly weakened.... the acquittal of Bernard Goetz on all murder-related charges -- smacks of injustice and racism?"
Ignorant speculation, should the jury have believed Goetz's confession of shooting Cabey twice.... or the medical evidence that Cabey was shot once? Your speculation: gullible or racist jury?

[Ralph Willis]

Suggestion: Why be ignorant about a subject you speculate about? You should read the Wikipedia article on the Goetz case or the juror's book "Subway Gunman." Also check on the Duke lacrosse player "rape" case. Interesting stuff.

[hotels turkei]

But Soft,access device card may phone present concentrate eventually extra reaction those rest household respect quiet century afternoon town because risk care example essential government southern who present attend officer item money blow whilst relatively introduction show theatre theory read side flow difficult lawyer behaviour bus frequently church development leave consequence income mark audience limit private examination around also sun other prospect player influence walk student support branch on shape what grow leading somebody window pleasure poor narrow comment content turn draw eye colour national action hold similar steal history enterprise

[ed hardy caps]

one day i went shopping outside,and in an ed hardy store,I found some kinds of ed hardy i love most they are Your website is really good Thank you for the information

[Coach Outlet]

Chief Justice Robert's decision for the unanimous Court in in the law school/military recruiting

[pandora bracelets]

Keep a bag packed with things you need for each vacation. You won't forget them plus it saves you time