Why Didn't Alice Sebold Realize Her Mistake?
How a bestselling author accused the wrong man of rape

How hard was it to crack the case that exonerated the man accused of raping Lovely Bones author Alice Sebold in 1981 when she was a college freshman in Syracuse?
For Tim Mucciante, the producer who was making a film version of Lucky, Sebold's book about the rape, "the miscarriage of justice seemed obvious," he writes in The Guardian. Sebold had identified a different man in a police lineup than the one she'd first identified, and the district attorney prosecuted the wrong person. But the film's production team assured him the book had been fact-checked, so he should chill out.
Mucciante did not chill out. He bristled at the director's suggestion that they change the race of the rapist from black to white, to avoid perpetuating stereotypes. That willingness to fudge basic facts unsettled him further. "I began to sense that portions of the book that dealt with the arrest and subsequent trial of her attacker were not credible," he wrote in another op-ed on the same topic, this one in The Los Angeles Times.
He stopped being involved with the production but still felt compelled to dig into the case. So a month later, he hired a private eye. Within two days, they had uncovered the name of the real person who had served 16 years in prison for Sebold's rape: former Marine Anthony Broadwater, now 61. (In the book, he was given a pseudonym.) Then, when Mucciante and the investigator got hold of the actual files, they discovered that the case never should have proceeded in the first place.
Sebold originally noticed Broadwater on a Syracuse street five months after the attack and became convinced that he was the man who had raped her. Misidentifying him in the lineup should have stopped the case in its tracks, but it didn't. The only other evidence against Broadwater was microscopic hair analysis—a forensic technique so fallible that the FBI admitted it was junk science in 2015.
Broadwater served 16 years behind bars. When he got out, he married but never wanted kids. He didn't want them growing up with a dad labeled a rapist on the sex offender registry. He lives today in a humble home and has subsisted on odd jobs. It has been 40 years since Sebold's rape, and he has always maintained his innocence.
For this American tragedy, Mucciante does not blame the 18-year-old Sebold. Rather, he blames "an unethical and unscrupulous assistant district attorney." He blames the whole justice system.
But he also has questions "about the 39-year-old Sebold who wrote Lucky." Before writing the book, she had the opportunity to look at a photo of the police lineup again. Wouldn't being confronted with the fact that she identified a man—number five—who looks different from Broadwater—number four—send a chill of doubt up her spine? And at that point, Mucciante wonders, wouldn't she have thought to ask for the case to be reexamined?

For her part, Sebold recently published an apology, writing:
"I will remain sorry for the rest of my life that while pursuing justice through the legal system, my own misfortune resulted in Mr. Broadwater's unfair conviction for which he has served not only 16 years behind bars but in ways that further serve to wound and stigmatize, nearly a full life sentence."
Broadwater has accepted her apology. "It comes sincerely from her heart," he said. "She knowingly admits what happened."
Then again, he and Mucciante are now producing a documentary about the case. It's called—what else?—Unlucky.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
For Tim Mucciante, the producer who was making a film version of Lucky, Sebold's book about the rape, "the miscarriage of justice seemed obvious," he writes in The Guardian. Sebold had identified a different man in a police lineup than the one she'd first identified, and the district attorney prosecuted the wrong person. But the film's production team assured him the book had been fact-checked, so he should chill out.
This is why I'm having a hard time letting this one go. I've heard this described as an unfortunate mistake. She didn't lie, she just "misidentified" the man. It was all a mistake.
Yet according to everything I've read, there were inconsistencies in her personal account, and as the above pointed out, there were third parties who saw the problems with this case from outer space, so at what point can we hold her accountable for something she may be liable?
Presuming you're talking to me, I've never advocated that she be held 0.0% liable. Just that when an 18 yr. old rape victim is confused about who her attacker was and the prosecutor says, "I know you pointed to the other guy but, we're prosecuting this guy because he's the one who did it." she may not be entirely to blame for reaching the wrong conclusion.
Again, this isn't some Jackie Coakley story where she alleges she was smashed through a coffee table, didn't show up in the ER, and alleges she was raped months later. She was allegedly raped, showed up in the ER alleging she was raped, told the police who showed up she was raped, evidence was collected indicating she was raped... So, as I understand it, it's not really a question of whether she was raped but rather, of whether misidentified her attacker with intent. Which is seriously dubious.
The fact that libertarians want to focus on her rather than on the Prosecutor who literally lied to her and redirected her at Broadwater is rather... unusual.
I think the focus is on her because she literally made a career out of being raped. If you do that, you ought to be sure you picked the right perpetrator.
Beyond that, she might have been pressured into iding the wrong guy, but she still did.
"The Prosecutor committed a no-shit crime but she shouldn't even have been writing about wearing a short skirt in that neighborhood."
How is what Sebold wrote any less atrocious than almost anything Atwood wrote? Because Sebold was raped? Because she, not even in her writing, falsely implicated one man rather than all of them?
I don't think I have to establish myself as an ardent, if not the ardent, #believeallwomen detractors around here. The fact that so many fellow travelers are so sloppy in their distinctions makes me wary in the "there is no agenda" sense. Impugning Sebold who actually was raped works against impugning the Coakleys and Blasey-Fords who weren't. If there's a criticism to be had, it's against her readers and customers for clamoring over each other suckle at the teat of such an enormous boob.
Single Mom Makes $89,844/Yr in Her Spare Time on The Computer Without Selling Anything.KJH you can bring from $5000-$8000 of extra income every month. working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger.
The potential with this is endless….. WorkJoin1
She has made millions from the rape. Broadwater was cast into poverty.
Maybe she should give Broadwater a few million? After all, she benefited undeservedly and Broadwater suffered undersevedly. It would not "make things right" but it would at least allow Broadwater a decent retirement.
she should sign over future profits from the book and any movies to this poor slob.
The fact that libertarians want to focus on her rather than on the Prosecutor who literally lied to her and redirected her at Broadwater is rather... unusual.
It's a strange belief that only one person can do something wrong.
Especially when the person wrongfully accused the victim to the police 5 months later and then wrongfully identified the victim under oath in court. I've hated prosecutors since I first watched Perry Mason syndicated reruns when I was in Kindergarten in the late 1960s but Ms. Sebold was the one who accused Mr. Broadwater, took that accusation to the police, and after failing to identify him in a lineup testified that he was the rapist. Fuck the DA but he wasn't the lying white bitch who sent an innocent man to the slammer for 16 years and the sex offender registry for life and then made a highly remunerative career off of it.
I don't understand why she couldn't understand that she was raped by Justice Kavanaugh.
I am making a good salary from home $1200-$2500/week , which is amazing, under a year back I was jobless in a horrible ADt economy. I thank God oy every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to and pay it forward and share it with And Everyone, Here For MORE INFO PLEASE Just check this SITE....... Click Here<b
If she 'misidentified' and was uncertain yet made an identification as if she were certain, then she is accountable. And, perhaps this wasn't lying in the classic sense, but it seems like quibbling over the type of dishonest shitty behavior she engaged in in order to destroy Broadwater's life for a good long time. Surrendering her financial gains and jail time seems like a good start toward restitution.
Clusterfucky
Never talk to police.
“He blames the whole justice system.” What a cop out. The system works fine when people care ethical.
All 12 jurors were wrong. Was evidence withheld from them? Or, were they all unusually stupid?
The jurors went by Sebold's testimony, where she knowingly wrongfully identified her attacker, and they went by the testimony of a scientific expert who was considered credible at the time. The jurors made the right decision.
Fault lies with Sebold, who lied under oath, and the DA, for allowing Sebold to lie under oath.
"Fault lies with Sebold, who lied under oath, and the DA, for allowing Sebold to lie under oath."
Correct; the DA ought to be held liable besides her.
“He blames the whole justice system.” What a cop out.
I see what you did there.
Okay, now demonstrate that anyone involved in the operation of the system genuinely cares.
If the system is reliant on the perfect ethics of every participant, it is by definition an impossibly flawed system since no human is perfect.
>>Sebold had identified a different man in a police lineup than the one she'd first identified
what the fucking fuck, lady?
>>noticed Broadwater on a Syracuse street five months after the attack and became convinced that he was the man who had raped her
horsewhip the D.A. for prosecuting this man.
"horsewhip the D.A. for prosecuting this man."
To lenient. Tar & lit matches.
"I understand that a man forcibly took advantage of you. In order to make it up to you and serve justice, I'm going to take advantage of you *and* him to advance my career."
Do we have to do the tar and lit matches all at once or can it be spread out over 16 yrs.?
Why let her off the hook?
Because we don't punish people for accidentally misidentifying their attacker. Especially when the Prosecutor lies and tells them they've got the right guy.
And we don't punish authors because their fan base eats their garbage to fulfill their rape fantasies.
She didn't "accidentally" misidentify the attacker. She knew she couldn't identify her attacker for certain, yet still chose to testify against him. That isn't an accident. At best, it is profound carelessness; more likely, it is anger and hatred, possibly with a dash of actual racism.
At best, it is profound carelessness; more likely, it is anger and hatred, possibly with a dash of actual racism.
What's the statute of limitations on carelessness? Anger? Racism? What should the statute of limitations be?
Now, what's the statute of limitations for a prosecutor directing a witness/victim? What should it be?
Why should either of them be left off the hook?
She already got paid, so I doubt it really matters anymore.
Might want to do something about the willful or accidental retardation of law enforcement though. Anyone can say anything, but only law enforcement can put you in prison without evidence.
The cops don’t care if you’re guilty or not. They just need a body for a cell.
They should name the movie about his story:
#metoo
^a case b4 its time^
#metoo; The Story of a Carpenter
Singularly most unfortunately named hashtag ever.
Typical white knighting: it's never the woman's fault.
Sebold knew she didn't identify the man in the lineup. Nevertheless, she chose to identify him in court and give false testimony. Whether she was persuaded to do so or not, it was ultimately her free choice, and that makes it her responsibility, legally and morally. And she should be held accountable.
Morally, she is 'on the hook' to make him whole again. The apology is not some kind of penance.
She shpuld be put to death.
No, but she should be found guilty of perjury, be punished, and forced to pay restitution.
If she should be put to death for mindlessly using to government to bully am innocent male, what's to be done with the mindlessly mystical hordes striving to use the government to bully innocent females?
Democrats?
Hopefully some education, but I don't support wholesale genocide like Progressives do.
Impressed Skenazy is covering other beats in addition to everything she does with Free Range Kids. Good job.
So many problems with the criminal justice system are raised by this case. Among them include the inaccuracy of eye-witnesses and their testimony, the problems with forensic sciences and prosecutorial misconduct.
Whatever one may say about the rape victim and her part in this travesty of justice, the best way to address these and countless other problems in the justice system is first to recognize the problems, then address them in thoughtful manner. I attempt to accomplish this with the reforms spelled out here: https://libertyseekingrebel.blogspot.com/2021/11/criminal-justice-reform.html?m=1
That wasn't an apology. The 'justice system' didn't identify some random guy on the street. The 'justice system' didn't make it impossible for her to even recognize the same poor random guy she'd just 'identified' in a police lineup. The 'justice system' didn't swear in court that she was 100% sure that this guy was the one who raped her. Yes, the justice system should have stopped her and thrown the case out of court, but she was the prime-mover in destroying a man's life. Period.
Incorrect. The Justice System (no quotes) rounded up 5 guys. She pointed to one. The Justice System (no quotes) picked another guy to prosecute.
As much as I loathe the fact that Sebold claims to be unaware of Blackstone's Ratio, the justice system holds the charge of observing/enforcing it.
Sorry, but Slocum is right here. The Justice System didn't round up 5 random guys. It included one -- Mr. Broadwater -- in the lineup solely because Ms. Sebold saw him on the street and told the police, incorrectly, that was the man that raped her. There's a lot of misconduct to go around in this story, but the indisputable fact is that Mr. Broadwater only got dragged into this case in the first place because of Ms. Sebold's false identification on the street, and she absolutely does not apologize for her role in that.
The dim bulb at least had the honesty to admit she'd been wrong. There is a whole scientist impersonator industry lying about nuclear electricity, then (yes, the same ones) lying about global warminism, climate sharknados and cold fusion that keep on lying in the face of all objective proof. These perjurers (abetted by looter politicians) cause the premature deaths of millions of people, yet attract crowds as mindless and multitudinous as televangelist faith-healers.
Off your meds?
This rang a bell with me - I thought I had heard it before. The Interwebs tell me I was right. Ronald Cotton spent 10 years in prison for a rape he didn't do. The victim told the jury 'that's the man who raped me - I looked into his eyes.' It wasn't him. There was a Frontline documentary about it. The police ran her through a bogus photo lineup, and once she saw the favored picture of Cotton, he got locked into her memory.
In the years since, they seem to have become friends. He's a generous dude. And oh yeah - white woman, black man.
Notice a theme in this case that is prevalent in recent cases like the Rittenhouse case. The desire for the prosecution to "win" versus the prosecution seeking the truth.
Prosecutor motivation should be to fund the truth. If that exonerates the accused so be it. Like the Duke Lacrosse case. A lot of damage was done on that case but the charges were dropped.
Rittenhouse should have never been tried. This case should have been left unsolved presuming that the victims was indeed raped.
Victim and DA share the blame here,
Rittenhouse should have never been tried. This case should have been left unsolved presuming that the victims was indeed raped.
Victim and DA share the blame here,
Again, victim's aren't wrong to expect justice from the justice system. Hard as it may be, it's the justice system's job to say "No justice will be served today."
Punishing Sebold doesn't fix the system.
"an unethical and unscrupulous assistant district attorney."
and there it is in a nut shell - many a fool will tell you that's it's ok to talk to the police "if you have nothing to hide." That is far from your only concern!