The case of Vincent Simmons is interesting to say the least; there is also clearly dishonesty on both sides. Simmons was given a massive sentence in 1977 for the aggravated rape of two underage girls, twin sisters. He claimed an alibi which the district attorney - who was still in the same job when this film was made - said had been busted. The crime was reported two weeks later, so although there were three witnesses/victims, one is entitled to ask if it really happened. The two girls are also, well, there is something odd about them which almost certainly has nothing to do with whatever did or did not happen that night. One of them claimed to have been violated in three orifices, something that is always suspicious. The problem is that their lack of credibility is matched by his. Campaigners present Simmons as an innocuous, mild-mannered individual, but he got religion only after he was convicted, prior to that he was if not a lowlife then certainly a recidivist. His supporters give the impression there was no physical evidence, in fact there was evidence that one of the girls had been violated, or at the very least had had sex. It remains to be seen if he was responsible. Much is made of the contradictory evidence of the girls and their cousin, but in a case of any complexity there will always be some contradictory evidence for reasons that are well understood by psychologists, by legal scholars and indeed by ordinary people.
Leaving all that aside, should he be released now? Certainly far more odious characters have been released after serving less time on both sides of the Atlantic, including Canadian serial rapist Paul Callow who was sentenced to a mere twenty years.
Leaving all that aside, should he be released now? Certainly far more odious characters have been released after serving less time on both sides of the Atlantic, including Canadian serial rapist Paul Callow who was sentenced to a mere twenty years.
