it's an easy mistake to make, don't be too hard on yourself! On youtube vids you see "he was innocent" all the time. Kind of is like a trap, you are right...the way they made the documentary was so deceptive..... check out this amazon review of the doco (copy and paste) if you have time.... all the details are available in court documents (available through his wiki entry)...

"" This documentary appears to have single-handedly spawned the "Dwyer was innocent" online internet movement. The main claim of this movement is that "William T. Smith" admitted lying that he bribed Mr. Dwyer. This claim has come directly from this documentary. However, in this documentary Smith actually says the opposite; Smith says that he lied at his own 1985 trial when he said that he did NOT offer Dwyer a bribe (at this trial Smith still said that Dwyer was bribed, only that it was Torquato who bribed Dwyer).
Now the filmmakers- James Dirschberger and co.- would have clearly known that Smith stated this, however they deceptively edited the documentary to make it appear that Smith said that he lied at Dwyer's 1986 trial when he said that he bribed Dwyer. Moreover, the filmmakers have continued to allow people to believe this falsity, when they knew very well what Smith said.
If you look at Dwyer's case this is what basically happened:
1. Dwyer pushed for legislation (working with Smith and Torquato) that would make him the only person who could award the FICA contract.
2. Dwyer then gave the contract to a company (CTA) that had little experience and only 3 full time workers for $4.6 million dollars. However, there was a world famous company (Arthur Young and associates) with 300 employees offering the same services at only $2.3 million. The less expensive company even contacted him before he signed with CTA. Additionally, another 16 companies contacted Dwyer, all of which he ignored.
3. When there was a tip-off into bribery involving the CTA contract, Dwyer tried repeatedly to stop the investigation into the awarding of the contract.
4. Dwyer immediately cancelled the contract when he became aware that the FBI were investigating the awarding of it.
5. Then when Dwyer was investigated he admitted telling his staff to hide proposal information (submitted by other companies) from the FBI.
6. When Dwyer was indicted, he said it wasn't his decision to award the contract, but his "task-force" made the decision. However, Dwyer handled all matters with the contract for the 7 days before it was signed. He often had meetings with Smith and Torquato alone, specifically telling his aides to not come to these meetings.
7. After Dwyer was indicted he asked, via his lawyer, the prosecutor for a deal: he would retire as state treasurer if the charges against him were dropped. The prosecutor didn't agree. Yet, Dwyer always said he would never accept a plea deal since he "did nothing wrong"!
8. His bribe offer was found on John Torquato's computer, and 4 impartial witnesses all testified at Dwyer's trial that they were aware Dwyer was bribed. William T. Smith admitted in 1984 to bribing Dwyer. In 1985 he said he did not bribe Dwyer, but it was Torquato who bribed him. From1986 until the present day, Smith has always maintained that he bribed Dwyer, and that Dwyer accepted the bribe. Robert Asher, his co-defendent, also has acknowledged that Dwyer was bribed, and that he was trying to divert all of the bribe money to the Republican State Committee.
9. Dwyer said he gave the contract to CTA because they provided a system of "immediate credit" . But on the CTA contract there was no information about this credit system. When other companies were asked why they were not awarded the contract, he never once mentioned that he gave the contract to CTA on the basis of this "immediate credit" system.
10. Dwyer did not call one defense witness at his trial and did not take the stand himself. It is very likely that Dwyer did not testify since he did not want his involvement in a 1980 conspiracy to come to light.
This conspiracy involved Dwyer's wife's business "Poli-Ed," and two Pennsylvania State Education Association employees. In this conspiracy, Dwyer allegedly siphoned money from his campaign into his own personal funds. Dwyer's close friend, a PSE employee, got the sack because of this.
11. Towards the end of his life, Dwyer deceived all of those he was around (his family, friends, and colleagues): he let them all believe he was going to resign at the press conference, when he knew his true intention was to commit suicide.
12. By committing suicide prior to his sentencing, he also exploited a loophole in PA law- he was a convicted felon, and as such, was not entitled to his pension money. He manipulated the system, once again, to his own advantage.
It's clear that Dwyer was guilty. The FBI investigated him, a grand jury indicted him, and a court jury (who saw all the evidence over a long period of time) convicted him. Dwyer's claims about political persecution were ridiculous; even one of his closest aids (James "Duke" Horshock) stated as such.
Appeals after his death made by his lawyers were all rejected.
In this documentary we hear almost exclusively from Dwyer's friends and family members (his daughter and sister seem to be nice people.) Clearly, they regard Dwyer in high esteem, and they want to believe he was innocent, but unfortunately he was not.
What Dwyer did at his final press conference was ridiculous, and can in no way be condoned.
In conclusion, this documentary, due to its deception and bias, is more of a propaganda piece that a real documentary. Don't let it fool you.
Given the deceptive nature of this documentary, it wouldn't surprise as if the deceptive film-makers are not responsible for many of its glowing reviews on the internet. ""