Debbie Africa Denied Parole

Ona Move 

The Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Parole Board and Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, have gone all out to ensure that innocent Move Members stay in prison for the rest of their lives. Despite having employment and housing both established, an excellent prison conduct record, and letters of support from people all over the world, the PA Parole Board, under the orders of the Fraternal Order of Police, denied Debbie Africa parole for the sixth time.

View Debbie's denial below:

Mike's 2013 Parole Denial

The following document is what Mike received following his December 19th parole denial.  His next hearing is scheduled for in or after November, 2014.

It lists the reasons for denial as:

"Your refusal to accept responsibility for the offense(s) committed," and
"The negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney."

It appears that Mike maintaining his innocence is seen as an attempt to not accept responsibility, even while there is evidence that corroborates that the shot was fired from a location where it is well known he was nowhere near.  This phenomenon is referred to as "the innocent prisoner's dilemma" by law professor Daniel Medwed who asserts that it is unfair and unethical to require a prisoner who may have been wrongly convicted to provide false admission of guilt or remorse.

In regards to the negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney, this is outweighed by the fact that the officials at SCI Graterford, where Mike is held, have recommended him for parole.  These are the prison guards and personnel that he has contact with on a day-to-day basis as opposed to the prosecuting attorney who has had no contact with him at all in decades.  

Phil's 2013 Parole Denial

Above is a copy of the only rationale that has been provided to Phil for his last parole denial in August 2013.  It lists the reasons for the denial as:

"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed," and
"Your refusal to accept responsibility for the offense(s) committed."

As concerned citizens we need to know, what exactly is a prisoner who maintains his innocence supposed to say or do to not minimize or deny the nature and circumstances of the offense(s)?  This catch-22 phenomenon is referred to as "the innocent prisoner's dilemma" by law professor Daniel Medwed.  It is unfair and unethical to require a prisoner who may have been wrongly convicted to provide false admission of guilt or remorse.

We need this matter rectified before Phil's next parole hearing, scheduled to be held in June 2015.

Janet Africa Denied Parole - Given 3 Year Hit!

Today Janet was denied parole and given a three year hit, meaning she will not be eligible for parole for 3 years despite having a positive recommendation for parole from the prison where she is held.  The reasons for the denial listed on the notice (see below) were:

Janine's 2013 Parole Denial

Above is a copy of the only rationale that has been provided to Janine for her last parole denial in June 2013.  It lists the reasons for the denial as:

"Your failure to demonstrate motivation for success"
"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed," and
"Your negative interest in parole"

As concerned citizens, we ask what exactly is a prisoner who maintains his innocence supposed to say or do to not minimize or deny the nature and circumstances of the offense(s)?  This catch-22 phenomenon is referred to as "the innocent prisoner's dilemma" by law professor Daniel Medwed.  It is unfair and unethical to require a prisoner who may have been wrongly convicted to provide false admission of guilt or remorse.

We also need to know, what could they possibly be judging as lack of 'motivation for success' and 'negative interest in parole?'  The officials at SCI Cambridge Springs, where Janine is held, have recommended her for parole.  These are the prison guards and personnel that she has contact with on a day to day basis.  Wouldn't they be some of the best people, in addition to Janine's family and friends, to determine whether she is motivated to succeed and has a positive interest in parole?

We need this matter rectified before Janine's next parole hearing, scheduled to be held in May 2016.

Debbie's 2013 Parole Denial

Above is a copy of the only rationale that has been provided to Debbie for her last parole denial in June 2013.  It lists the reasons for the denial as:

"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed," and
"The negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney."

Please take a moment to write a letter in support of parole for Debbie prior to her next hearing scheduled for in or after May 2014.  Even though the letter is addressed to the Parole Board, send your letter to The Move Organization at P.O. Box 19709, Philadelphia, PA 19143 so they can be collected before they are passed on to the Board.  Please make sure your letter arrives by May 4th, and we will update the website asap with the outcome of her hearing.

Sample letter:

[Ideally, rephase this in your own words and send to the address above, but you can also download and print it so you can just write your name and address at the top and sign your name]

Board of Probation and Parole


Attn: Inmate Inquiry


1001 South Front Street, Suite 5300


Harrisburg, PA 17104

Regarding Parole Hearing for: Debbie Sims OO-6307

Debbie Sims has her next parole hearing scheduled for May of 2014.  As a concerned citizen interested in helping Debbie successfully transition into life outside prison, I am writing to ask that you please parole her at this hearing.  She has served over 35 years of a 30-100 year sentence for third-degree murder, even though the average sentence for that charge is 10-15 years.  She is still in prison years after her minimum sentence, despite having no major disciplinary problems in the last three decades.

The document provided to Ms. Sims for her last parole denial in June 2013 lists the reasons for the denial as:

"Your minimization/denial of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed," and
"The negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney."

I am concerned that Ms. Sims maintaining her innocence is seen as an attempt to minimize or deny the nature and circumstances of the offense(s), even while there is evidence that corroborates that the shot was fired from a location where it is well known she was nowhere near.  This phenomenon is referred to as "the innocent prisoner's dilemma" by law professor Daniel Medwed who asserts that it is unfair and unethical to require a prisoner who may have been wrongly convicted to provide false admission of guilt or remorse.

In regards to the negative recommendation made by the prosecuting attorney, I believe this is outweighed by the fact that the officials at SCI Cambridge Springs, where Ms. Sims is held, have recommended her for parole.  These are the prison guards and personnel that she has contact with on a day-to-day basis as opposed to the prosecuting attorney who has had no contact with her at all in decades. 

Debbie Sims has now spent most of her life in prison, and the recidivism rate for people released at her age is very low.  Please grant parole and allow her to be a part of, and contribute to, society as free citizen, a loving mother and grandmother. 

Sincerely,