I like true crime films. I work in the legal field, myself. I was surprised this film did almost nothing to show how the case was presented, although the Force/Mass testimony would have been very compelling to the jury; I'm sure what they saw and heard was much more thorough.
Being from 2008, this film was part of the struggle to pull the covers on this type of brutality and cover-up. We now have Minnesota v. Chauvin, which is a real turning point in our communities for all citizens who've been victimized by rouge cops like Derek who was reported several times by fellow cops and abused civilians before finally committing this unforgivable act. This verdict is a direct result of unreported footwork by the orange guy who implemented police reform as soon as the death of GF was announced.
The difference with the Thacker case is that, as the attorney claims, the FBI eventually pardoned the convicted cops. Well, I'm not a trial attorney but I can tell you that only the POTUS can Pardon a murderer; and a pardon in no way reverses the legal conclusion of the courts or expunges a judgment. The FBI is the one who investigates petitions for pardon. Once it has concluded the investigation, they submit it to the office of the President without prejudice.
The attorney, who wrote this film and has various blogs around the internet, claims his intent was to show FBI corruption but this film never touches on that except a footnote at the end. Researching his blogs identifies his main complaint as being that there was no grand jury and no trial supporting the pardon, and that they created false evidence, which the writer does not elaborate on.
None of this is required in a pardon.
The truth is, civilians don't have the clearance to know why the FBI do what they do. People call the FBI criminals all the time because they take laws that apply to civilians and apply them to this huge leg of Homeland Security. For all we know, the conviction prevented them from continuing to employ one or more of the cops as some kind of informants or agents. I seriously doubt it was just to get the best donuts when they visit Iowa, but in 1989 it very well could have simply been to show support to the police. It was a different time.
I feel the attorney is doing a disservice to his late client and the ground-breaking verdict he secured by making this now about some imagined FBI corruption. He should research how a pardon is processed and stop blaming the investigative branch that handled the paperwork.
