I think it's important to understand when looking at MOVE's history that there were people "caught up in a drama bigger than themselves or conscious decisions". Obviously children brought into these confrontations as "human shields" of sorts had very little input or say so. Even for adult members there was Obviously a great deal of compulsion and coercion to go along with these kinds of scenarios or face different types of threats and so on. I feel like the MOVE 9 and Debbie and Mike in particular merit some of this nuance. Obviously 9 people couldn't shoot one single officer, and it was a complete travesty of justice that this verdict went through on that basis, lacking the ability to identify the actual shooter. The position of the Judge that they be "tried as a family" because "they say they are a family" is also a very bad legal precedent because it potentially implicated culpability in such incidents to others simply based on blood relation.
Also, that if Debbie, Mike or any Move 9 member are going to assert claims about their case that insinuates wrongful conviction or prosecutorial misconduct or a conspiracy to frame MOVE people to ask them “okay, you were there in the house - who had guns and who shot at the police?”
Debbie claims not to have shot a gun that day so why did she not include that in her defense during the trial so that she would not go to prison snd leave her children behind? She could answer that question for everyone. After 6 years studying MOVE I can confidently state that Debbie and all the MOVE 9 were following orders from Vincent so the travesty of injustice lies with him. But still they protect that fact in order to protect the myth of MOVE and in doing that victims are pushed out of the picture and silenced.
Layers or PR strategy that they tried but it did not get them the traction they wanted so the transparency was a one-off? Because if that is their position then why do they not promote that story written by a long time MOVE supporting Guardian writer (who also wrote the forward for Mike's "50 Years On A Move" for sale booklet)? There is more significance in what current MOVE members do not say publicly than what they do say which is absolutely NOTHING about John Gilbride, Ted Williamson, Whit Smith, Shaeida Holloway or the victims of abuse inside of MOVE by MOVE that include their own blood family members. And why do the current members of MOVE get more consideration and benefit of the doubt than the victims who spoke out with no agenda for fame or fortune?
What Mike and Debbie say in that article is much more than Ramona Africa, Mumia, or others have in terms of acknowledging patterns of abuse, including their own culpability. I admit I am confused that they seem to remain supportive of Mike Jr's questionable fundraising and other efforts that seem to whitewash MOVE's legacy. When you first met them did they seem sincere and genuine to you as a journalist?
I can tell you that I met Debbie and Mike very briefly in 2019 which was very early into my research and 18 months before the former children of MOVE, including their own daughter and granddaughters reached out to me about abuse. My questions to them were very basic and in line with the narrative they continue to put out. As you know I have gone very deep into documents, doctrine and sources that span 5 decades - some are victims and others are first hand witnesses. I have made repeated attempts to Debbie, Mike and Mike to comment on the podcast and to express my continued interest to speak with them on or off the record. I see them as individuals who could offer valuable information and insight especially when it comes to the questions I have about the children prior to 1985 and then of course about Vincent. To date, they have not responded. I want to tell the most comprehensive story on MOVE based on credible sources and information - the mythology can be part of that cannot be framed as anything but mythology that had specific intent to deceive and conceal - so if they are interested in that approach then I hope they will reach out.
I feel that it will be more difficult to engage former MOVE members like Mike Sr and Debbie the more their personal character is impugned based on incomplete knowledge. It's important to understand that it has been publicly acknowledged that MOVE leadership did not aggressively publicly campaign to free the MOVE 9. The attitudes of Ria and Bert around the return home of Mike Sr, Debbie and others did not indicate warmth, celebration or welcome. I don't see Mike or Debbie as having covered any of this up. In the CBC audio documentary/podcast on MOVE Mike Jr is asked if he has discussed his efforts to assume leadership of MOVE with his father. He answers that he has not and doesn't want to. This makes sense to me given Mike Sr's comments in the Guardian article about having wanted to take his family out of the group even before the 1978 confrontation. It's also important to understand that even for individuals who were directly there during the confrontation, in the context of the almost certain chaos and confusion of that situation that doesn't necessarily mean they had direct knowledge of who shot Officer Ramp--as opposed to it being a bullet fired from the Police that accidentally ricocheted as has been claimed. (Or that the guns that MOVE members had there were inoperable...another claim). I am very willing to believe that MOVE members did fire guns there, as they had in other instances, but obviously in the context of an armed standoff, where they were also being shot at...This gets more complicated. Not that there is no culpability, but it makes it more complex than a simple case of unprovoked murder--Asking Debbie to identify the actual shooter, who that "fight or flight" instance might have been partly doing so with the intent to protect and ward off the cops who were also likely shooting at her and others, potentially involves contradictions. I do think it's significant that in the Guardian article they appear with Mike Jr and not Whit, and don't really directly include her--even though Debbie acknowledges pressuring her into underage marriages and says clearly that it was wrong. It's also confusing for me to see Mike and Debbie publicly appear with and support efforts by Mike to "reclaim" the house on Osage Ave.
100% agree with you on coercion of adults and children. With regard to legal precedent - 9 MOVE members entered their decisions on how they as defendants wanted to their case to be tried. The court appointed backup counsel repeatedly advised them to separate out because YES, 12 people cannot shoot one fatal bullet. All 9 Move members refused counsel - every court appearance they rejected counsel and tried to get them off the case (just like Mumia in 1982). Also, as you can read from the charges, more than one bullet is involved - 8 gunshot victims with some of them hit in more than one place. I did not get into those specifics in this post today because I plan on doing that in an August 8 post. The focus of this post is examining what Debbie Davis claims and what is factual and complete situation with regard to victims and her incarceration.
I think it's important to understand when looking at MOVE's history that there were people "caught up in a drama bigger than themselves or conscious decisions". Obviously children brought into these confrontations as "human shields" of sorts had very little input or say so. Even for adult members there was Obviously a great deal of compulsion and coercion to go along with these kinds of scenarios or face different types of threats and so on. I feel like the MOVE 9 and Debbie and Mike in particular merit some of this nuance. Obviously 9 people couldn't shoot one single officer, and it was a complete travesty of justice that this verdict went through on that basis, lacking the ability to identify the actual shooter. The position of the Judge that they be "tried as a family" because "they say they are a family" is also a very bad legal precedent because it potentially implicated culpability in such incidents to others simply based on blood relation.
Also, that if Debbie, Mike or any Move 9 member are going to assert claims about their case that insinuates wrongful conviction or prosecutorial misconduct or a conspiracy to frame MOVE people to ask them “okay, you were there in the house - who had guns and who shot at the police?”
Debbie claims not to have shot a gun that day so why did she not include that in her defense during the trial so that she would not go to prison snd leave her children behind? She could answer that question for everyone. After 6 years studying MOVE I can confidently state that Debbie and all the MOVE 9 were following orders from Vincent so the travesty of injustice lies with him. But still they protect that fact in order to protect the myth of MOVE and in doing that victims are pushed out of the picture and silenced.
This Guardian article suggests that their attitudes towards their involvement in MOVE and accountability around their own actions has much more layers to it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/25/mike-debbie-davis-disenchanted-move-members-quit
Layers or PR strategy that they tried but it did not get them the traction they wanted so the transparency was a one-off? Because if that is their position then why do they not promote that story written by a long time MOVE supporting Guardian writer (who also wrote the forward for Mike's "50 Years On A Move" for sale booklet)? There is more significance in what current MOVE members do not say publicly than what they do say which is absolutely NOTHING about John Gilbride, Ted Williamson, Whit Smith, Shaeida Holloway or the victims of abuse inside of MOVE by MOVE that include their own blood family members. And why do the current members of MOVE get more consideration and benefit of the doubt than the victims who spoke out with no agenda for fame or fortune?
What Mike and Debbie say in that article is much more than Ramona Africa, Mumia, or others have in terms of acknowledging patterns of abuse, including their own culpability. I admit I am confused that they seem to remain supportive of Mike Jr's questionable fundraising and other efforts that seem to whitewash MOVE's legacy. When you first met them did they seem sincere and genuine to you as a journalist?
I can tell you that I met Debbie and Mike very briefly in 2019 which was very early into my research and 18 months before the former children of MOVE, including their own daughter and granddaughters reached out to me about abuse. My questions to them were very basic and in line with the narrative they continue to put out. As you know I have gone very deep into documents, doctrine and sources that span 5 decades - some are victims and others are first hand witnesses. I have made repeated attempts to Debbie, Mike and Mike to comment on the podcast and to express my continued interest to speak with them on or off the record. I see them as individuals who could offer valuable information and insight especially when it comes to the questions I have about the children prior to 1985 and then of course about Vincent. To date, they have not responded. I want to tell the most comprehensive story on MOVE based on credible sources and information - the mythology can be part of that cannot be framed as anything but mythology that had specific intent to deceive and conceal - so if they are interested in that approach then I hope they will reach out.
I feel that it will be more difficult to engage former MOVE members like Mike Sr and Debbie the more their personal character is impugned based on incomplete knowledge. It's important to understand that it has been publicly acknowledged that MOVE leadership did not aggressively publicly campaign to free the MOVE 9. The attitudes of Ria and Bert around the return home of Mike Sr, Debbie and others did not indicate warmth, celebration or welcome. I don't see Mike or Debbie as having covered any of this up. In the CBC audio documentary/podcast on MOVE Mike Jr is asked if he has discussed his efforts to assume leadership of MOVE with his father. He answers that he has not and doesn't want to. This makes sense to me given Mike Sr's comments in the Guardian article about having wanted to take his family out of the group even before the 1978 confrontation. It's also important to understand that even for individuals who were directly there during the confrontation, in the context of the almost certain chaos and confusion of that situation that doesn't necessarily mean they had direct knowledge of who shot Officer Ramp--as opposed to it being a bullet fired from the Police that accidentally ricocheted as has been claimed. (Or that the guns that MOVE members had there were inoperable...another claim). I am very willing to believe that MOVE members did fire guns there, as they had in other instances, but obviously in the context of an armed standoff, where they were also being shot at...This gets more complicated. Not that there is no culpability, but it makes it more complex than a simple case of unprovoked murder--Asking Debbie to identify the actual shooter, who that "fight or flight" instance might have been partly doing so with the intent to protect and ward off the cops who were also likely shooting at her and others, potentially involves contradictions. I do think it's significant that in the Guardian article they appear with Mike Jr and not Whit, and don't really directly include her--even though Debbie acknowledges pressuring her into underage marriages and says clearly that it was wrong. It's also confusing for me to see Mike and Debbie publicly appear with and support efforts by Mike to "reclaim" the house on Osage Ave.
100% agree with you on coercion of adults and children. With regard to legal precedent - 9 MOVE members entered their decisions on how they as defendants wanted to their case to be tried. The court appointed backup counsel repeatedly advised them to separate out because YES, 12 people cannot shoot one fatal bullet. All 9 Move members refused counsel - every court appearance they rejected counsel and tried to get them off the case (just like Mumia in 1982). Also, as you can read from the charges, more than one bullet is involved - 8 gunshot victims with some of them hit in more than one place. I did not get into those specifics in this post today because I plan on doing that in an August 8 post. The focus of this post is examining what Debbie Davis claims and what is factual and complete situation with regard to victims and her incarceration.