“People are now beginning to reflect and acknowledge that they may not have received the complete story originally. They are realizing the absence of context and nuance in the information they initially received. This has led to increased criticism and scrutiny of the news they consume. People are now more inclined to analyze and contextualize the stories they encounter, waiting for the full and authentic narrative to emerge before sharing it,” she explained in an interview with Fox News Digital.
As cable news emerged as a dominant medium in the 1990s, she witnessed this firsthand while serving as the lead prosecutor in Simpson’s trial. Today, with the rise of social media and the potential for any random post to go viral, the public has access to a multitude of perspectives. This abundance of information enables individuals to form their own opinions, as evidenced recently in the trial of Daniel Penny in New York City, according to Clark.
“Initially, there was a public outcry in support of the victim, a homeless man, condemning the incident as a racist act perpetrated by an ex-Marine with excessive force,” she explained to Fox News Digital. “However, it later came to light that individuals who were present at the scene and took photographs were actually reporting to the police in real-time, expressing their fear and belief that there was a legitimate cause for concern.”
Clark noted that modern technology empowers ordinary citizens to share information and offer a broader context of events. She emphasized the positive impact of devices like iPhones and Androids in capturing real-time snapshots and providing a more comprehensive understanding of situations.
Reflecting on the past, Clark highlighted the differences in information dissemination during Barbara Graham’s trial in the 1950s compared to today’s digital age. She underscored the significant role of newspapers back then, serving as the primary source of information for the public.
The media frenzy surrounding the Simpson trial in the 1990s, famously dubbed “the trial of the century,” captivated audiences across the nation. Simpson’s televised trial, featuring a star-studded defense team known as the “Dream Team,” unfolded over several months and became a cultural phenomenon, thanks to extensive cable news coverage. Despite the high-profile nature of the case and the compelling defense presented by renowned attorneys like Johnnie Cochran and Alan Dershowitz, Simpson was ultimately acquitted of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Clark drew parallels between the Simpson trial and Barbara Graham’s case, emphasizing the influence of media coverage on public perception. While acknowledging the shift towards digital news consumption, she highlighted the pivotal role that newspapers played in shaping public opinion during Graham’s trial in the absence of internet access.
Looking to the future, Clark emphasized the importance of critical thinking and the need to seek out comprehensive information to form well-rounded perspectives in today’s media landscape.”
Clark explores the details of a tragic failed robbery masterminded by a criminal in his book “Trial By Ambush.” The story revolves around the shocking murder of Mabel Monahan, a former vaudeville performer, in her Burbank residence. Despite inspiring an award-winning movie titled “I Want to Live!” starring Susan Hayward, the case faded from public memory long ago. Defense attorney Johnnie Cochran and prosecutor Marcia Clark review gruesome crime scene photos during the O.J. Simpson trial on February 9, 1995.
In the scheme, Graham was tasked with distracting Monahan while her partners planned to steal over $100,000 in cash they believed Monahan’s ex-son-in-law, Tutor Scherer, had stashed in the house. Graham, a lifelong hustler, was charged, convicted, and sentenced to death for the murder. However, Clark doubts Graham’s involvement in Monahan’s death, highlighting the withheld evidence, biased media coverage, witness inconsistencies, and an entrapment tactic used during the investigation and trial. Despite Graham’s criminal past, Clark believes she did not personally harm Monahan.
The case involving Monahan’s murder and robbery, along with another murder, led to the convictions of Jack Santo and Emmett Perkins. Clark expresses concerns about the legality of the investigative tactics employed in the case, noting that such actions would not be permissible under current laws. She points out the violation of due process in withholding crucial information from the defense and mentions that modern legal standards have changed regarding felony murder cases.
Reflecting on the case’s details, Clark believes that Graham was present at the crime scene as an accomplice but was not the actual killer. She implicates other individuals, including John True, as well as Perkins and Santo, in Monahan’s murder. Clark highlights the unethical practices of law enforcement at the time and emphasizes the need for adherence to legal standards in criminal investigations and trials.
“Barbara was excecuted. True got immunity in exchange for testifying against the others.” Interestingly, after she was convicted, one of the reporters who had been convinced of her guilt and of her killing Mabel Monahan, went to interview her a number of times and then went and spoke to John True a few times and came to realize that Barbara could not have killed her,” Clark said. “Barbara did not do the pistol whipping. John True likely did.”
