Archive

Out filmmaker Deborah S. Esquenazi on telling the story of wrongfully imprisoned Latina lesbians

Southwest of Salem: The Story of the San Antonio Four is one of the most moving documentaries I’ve seen in a while. The film looks at the story of four lesbian friends, Elizabeth “Liz” Ramirez, Kristie Mayhugh, Cassandra “Cassie” Rivera and Anna Vasquez, who got caught up in the “satanic panic” that ran amuck in the American justice system in the ’80s and ’90s.

I recently chatted with the film’s out director, Deborah S. Esquenazi. She explained how she got involved with the women’s case, how coming out to them helped the filmmaking process, what the public can do for the women as they continue their legal battle and much, much more.

AfterEllen.com: How did you get tipped off to this story?

Deborah S. Esquenazi: So my journalism mentor, basically. My colleague and friend from New York when I started off as a reporter is a woman named Debbie Nathan. Debbie Nathan is well known for writing this incredible book called Satan’s Silence. It was sort of the primer on the cultural hysteria that we now call the satanic sexual abuse panic of the ’80s and ’90s that formed in the United States and traveled to other parts of the English-speaking world.

Deb Nathan said, “I have this case. It’s haunted me since I wrote the book and I think I’m going to advocate for it, and I’d love for you to take a look at it now that you’re back in Texas.” It was really hard for me to take it because I was still in the closet. But one of the things that Deb said to me, and because she was a really dear friend and my mentor, was like, “You should really take a look at this because this could be you” kind of thing.

I read the discovery, I read the trial transcripts, I read the medical evidence, and it was pretty startling. And then after I really got to know the discovery material, I spoke to the Innocence Project and around that time is when, a little bit later, I got access into the prisons, which was really hard to do because, try to get access into a Texas prison. But I met the women and they’re just remarkable. I really mean that. They are remarkable people.

AE: Along the journey, did you eventually become convinced that it made even more sense for you to help tell their story because you’re also gay?

DSE: Yeah, and let me clarify the reason why that tension existed. Part of taking this case that was really unnerving to me was the issue of child sex abuse. It’s a very sensitive topic and my first reaction was to say, “Oh my gosh, that is really sensitive and that is obviously an issue.” It’s not an issue in this case because we know kind of what happened and I read the discovery. But my resistance in taking it was the kind of fear that exists that people look at us as if we’re sexual predators, like lurking to harm children. Part of my coming out fear was how my family, who have children, would react. Now I’m a mother. Now I have a wife and I’m a mother to a two-year-old, and it kills me—it kills me that some people feel this way because we know, the evidence is so clear, that being gay or gay-identified has nothing to do with child sex abuse.

I came out to the women before I came out to my own mother. I would walk into this space and I would ask these women to be so vulnerable to me, and then suddenly I would leave and I’d be back in the closet. The shame of that was really at some points quite overwhelming. It did force me to confront my own internalized homophobia. And then one day I did come out and then I rebuilt my life that way. But it definitely empowered me and it made me feel much stronger.

AE: Do you think coming out to them changed the rest of the filmmaking experience?

DSE: Somebody at Tribeca when we opened the film, an audience member asked that of the women. They said, “Was it easier to let me into their lives because they knew I was gay?” It’s really interesting because I would’ve said, “I don’t think so.” But they did say, “Yes, of course.” Because they had been reviled by the media and to have somebody who—quote, unquote—is part of this juggernaut called the media, which I’m not, but you know what I mean. They felt like they could really open up and that there wasn’t that big of a risk because I was queer.

AE: What’s the support from the LGBT community been like for these women?

DSE: What we did is we took the raw footage when I was making the film, and this is after the recantation, and we would hold these raw screenings with just a bunch of queer folks throughout the state. Part of the reason why I think there started to be a kind of mainstream buzz—like The New York Times wrote a piece, Forbes magazine did something about the women’s case before they were released—I believe, fundamentally in my heart, that it was because of these grassroots screenings that even the mainstream press started to take a listen.

It was the ’90s, and not to mention—here’s the other thing: these women weren’t exactly tuned in. They were sort of in the closet, but they were mostly preoccupied with their defense.

AE: So tell me, how did the “satanic panic” specifically target homosexuals and those perceived to be homosexual?

DSE: A lot of it is kind of overwhelmingly gender-based. They did target men. But I would say that it’s not just about being queer. It’s about being a woman. It’s about being these clusters of women, which if you are a person with kind of an ill mind who doesn’t understand sexuality and identity and you’re wanting to create these sort of witch hunts, sexuality is a way to diminish the authenticity of these people.

AE: All four of the women are Latina. Did you come across anything in their case that was particularly problematic in relation to that fact?

DSE: I actually want to step back because the issue of race I think is, of course, part of it. It is definitely an intersectional thing. It’s race and identity and language and money and economics and privilege and all these things kind of in one. But I think more than race, because San Antonio is an overwhelmingly Latino town, is the issue of religion. In Liz Ramirez’s trial specifically, the jury foreman was a minister. There is a very strong Catholic contingency because this is a very Latino town. There’s also a very Evangelical contingency and a very Baptist one because it’s also an army town. I almost feel like race is collapsed into all the other elements. To me, sexuality is the primary one.

AE: This is both an incredibly emotional story as well as one heavy with legalities. You can’t really lose either without taking away from the reality of the situation. But as a filmmaker, how did you go about balancing the two?

DSE: We edited for 18 months, which is actually quite a long time for a film, for a documentary. Standard is six to nine months or something. But one of the things that people have asked is, “Why didn’t you talk to the prosecution? Why didn’t you talk to the DA?” And my answer to that is, one, even though I did try—I did try for research. I did try to talk to them and nobody wanted to talk. I don’t blame them. A lot of them are judges now and for conflict of interest they just didn’t want to talk about the case because it is back in court. But the reality is I always wanted to tell the story from the point of view of the four women because they were the ones who were the most disempowered. The DA already got their chance. The DA is the one who brought forth the allegations. They’re the ones who pursued this. So to me it was always going to be the point of view of four railroaded young women who were just living their lives. And I feel like because they are so profound, these women, and because they’re so extraordinary, I knew that they could carry the film.

AE: Let’s talk about the recantation. I don’t know if “leaked” is the right word, but you leaked Stephanie’s video confession to the press. Was there ever a moment’s hesitation in doing that?

DSE: Definitely hesitation. I’m not sure if leaked is the right word. I feel like that’s something Snowden does. I toiled a lot. I toiled a lot between being the filmmaker and being the woman who loved these women and felt morally implicated and now like having something that could help create a buzz about their case again. Totally I toiled. And then when I made the decision, I made it. I called up one of the local press people, television station, and I gave them the audio. I allowed several journalists to come into my editing room and to actually take the transcript and transcribe the recantation.

One of the things that ultimately was the driving factor for me is I didn’t know if I would have the money to finish the film. And so I was really nervous that I had this thing that could maybe help a little bit and what would I do—”How could I live with myself if I can’t finish the film, or if it takes me five extra years to finish the film?”

AE: I think some people would be surprised by some of the individuals who actually did agree to be interviewed. What was the process like to get the girls’ father, Javier, and grandmother, Serafina, to agree to interviews?

DSE: Yeah, that was very startling for me too. I think they in their hearts, whatever they believe, they believe. And I know I’m being vague, but I mean like I don’t know what Javier thinks. Even after two hours of recording him, I still couldn’t understand what he really thinks.

AE: You can maybe make that argument for Serafina, but Javier’s such an important piece of this. And I think your idea on this is pretty clear in terms of whose side of the story you believe, so when it comes to Javier, you can’t really think that, unless he’s gotten to the point where he’s delusional, you can’t really think that he believes that this is what happened when really what’s kind of being put forward is that he’s the ringleader behind this, right?

DSE: I mean, yeah. Like I don’t know what else to say, other than I agree with you. Yes. I agree with you.

Whatever he says on camera, the opposite is true in what we saw in his testimony. That should be enough to present the possibility that he is a much more cunning individual. Whether or not he is truly, truly cunning, I don’t know. I think other people in the film say that he is cunning. Do I think that? Well, it’s certainly very curious that the testimony he gave for two hours to my cameras and the testimony he gave to detectives in ’93 are certainly different.

AE: His decision to agree to be on camera, do you think there’s some narcissism involved there?

DSE: Yeah. Oh god. Oh my god, right? I mean, of course. And I totally think it’s like the way he looks on camera, right? Like the way he’s talking to the camera. All of it is so interesting to me. But I’m looking at it as a filmmaker.

We can look at all the pieces and put them together. It is clear that one of the driving forces was Javier, and the other one is the false testimony by a medical examiner, right? So it’s all very curious to me and I do think the way he acts on camera is with a sense of machista.

AE: The one thing we can say about Serafina is she seemed less set on saying everything she said in the past was 100 percent true. She seemed to be more open to considering other possibilities. And part of her coming across as more of a sympathetic character might be the fact that now she’s an elderly woman. How did you perceive her?

DSE: I think you’re spot on. First of all, I do think you are reading those individuals kind of exactly the way I was reading them, and the way that we read them in the cutting room as we then re-watched the footage.

Serafina—we sat there. We were at a Denny’s, actually. And the woman who was interrogating her is a fabulous woman named Mary Burdette, who’s now deceased. She actually died a few months ago and I was so, so upset about that because we were very close when we started to work together reinvestigating this case. You know, I really allowed Mary to drive that inquiry with Serafina and I just stood back, until I couldn’t stand back anymore and I did lose my patience with Serafina, which is not on camera. I did ask her straight up, I said, “Are you lying? You have to be lying, and how dare you do this to four women.”

She really was kind of appalled that I had this opinion. And I think the reason is precisely the thing that you were echoing to me, which is I think she thinks that something really did happen, whereas I don’t know that Javier really believes that. Let’s just say that your assessment of it is very, very much similar to mine. And I do regret losing my patience with Serafina, but if I hadn’t done that, I would never really know. Like I would never really know whether or not she was the actual ringleader because the way that Javier presented it over and over on camera in his recorded conversation is, “My mother, my mother, my mother.” And then I met the mother. And my perception of the mother is not what he had presented. I don’t think she’s quite as implicating in all of this. Now she did, she did testify against the women and her testimony was incredibly—like it was part of the reason why the women were indicted. So on the one hand, it’s disturbing. Then on the other, I am more sympathetic.

AE: The four women weren’t able to come to Toronto for the Hot Docs film festival as promoted. Can you get into the reasons for why?

DSE: Yes, they were supposed to appear in Toronto at Hot Docs because we were selected as one of the five Big Ideas, which is an amazing opportunity. Like an amazing opportunity not just as a filmmaker, but for the women’s case. And unfortunately, even though they were cleared by the state of Texas, which is a process we have to go through every time they want to leave the city—they’re not allowed to travel beyond 75 miles of their homes. So every time we send them off to a screening, or they go do something to promote their case, the Innocence Project of Texas has to clear them through the state, through the courthouses. So in the case of Canada, even though we were able to clear them to leave the country, Canada wouldn’t have let them in. And part of that was an assessment being made by several lawyers. Innocence Project lawyers but also customs lawyers and other lawyers who looked at their case and said, “You know what? They’re too in limbo here and it’s very likely that customs won’t let them through.” So we had to make a decision finally with a combo of Hot Docs and with the Innocence Project and my team to instead do what we did, which was a simulcast screening. That was kind of like a last minute push to publicize why their exoneration is so important because it does help vacate their alleged crimes.

It was pretty bad. The women were really excited to come and we were, of course, very excited and Hot Docs had done everything they could. So much so, by the way, so generous in fact that they were going to pay for the legal fees, which would’ve estimated around $4,000.

AE: What kind of feedback have the four women given you about the film?

DSE: We had a private screening for them on April 14. I could not have been more nervous. Nothing on this planet made me more nervous than that moment. We had this private room and did a screening and there were moments I could barely stand to sit in there. But when it was done, it was so emotional and so loving. It just overwhelms me to think about how happy they are, and that makes me feel so good because they really do own their story and I’m just kind of an extension of their voices. But they love it.

AE: Their story still isn’t over. What’s next?

DSE: It went to a hearing, an evidentiary hearing, and that hearing is where this judge, named Pat Priest, assessed and was able to hear the evidence and he came back and said, “Yes, there are questions, but there’s not enough to assert actual innocence.” Which is basically what is the term for exoneration. It automatically goes up to the higher court and those courts are made up of a body of nine judges. Those nine judges, in what we call the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, will make the final decision. And that decision is a critical one because exoneration is really what we’re looking for and what the women are looking for. They have this horrific record. They have so much trouble applying for jobs. Their lives are on hold.

AE: What can the public do for them?

DSE: We actually on our website, SouthwestOfSalem.com, we have an “Act Now” button. And we have a script and we have a sort of plan that we are doing right now and that is creating a critical mass of voices to pressure the DA’s office. After the courts make a decision, the district attorney of San Antonio will decide whether or not to retry the case. We want to make sure the district attorney of San Antonio does not press new charges, does not send it back to the courts for a trial. That would be horrifying. So we want to make sure that people are putting in calls, they’re tweeting about it, journalists like yourself who are writing about it—that’s huge because every time you write about it, we get to redistribute that and it stays in the news. And we know the power of the media. We know the critical mass that we could be creating in the media, so for us that is a big thing.

We’re also going to be doing an outreach campaign and a southern tour where we are taking the women—once we can clear them, of course. We’re going to take them through the south, through the U.S., to highlight their case and other women exonerees.

Southwest of Salem: The Story of the San Antonio Four plays in Toronto at the Inside Out LGBT Film Festival on May 28. Visit the movie’s website for news on future screenings.

Lesbian Apparel and Accessories Gay All Day sweatshirt -- AE exclusive

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button