They confessed to beating all holy hell out of ………..
-
csmonkey69 — 13 years ago(December 05, 2012 12:49 PM)
You are an idiot. 4 out of the 5 didn't give vivid detailed confessions. They also retracted their statements within weeks claiming that they had been intimidated, lied to, and coerced into making false confessions. The detectives had indeed used ruses to convince the suspects to confess.
No DNA evidence tied the suspects to the crime, so the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the confessions. In fact, analysis indicated that the DNA collected at the crime scene did not match any of the suspects and that the crime scene DNA had all come from a single, as yet unknown person.
This was an injustice and it was race based. This is one out of many examples of black people falsely being convicted of crimes. The real rapist confessed to the killing and rape and his DNA matched the "unknown DNA" at the crime scene. They were innocent you ass -
stanleybix-1 — 13 years ago(December 05, 2012 03:54 PM)
Name calling only shows your stupidity! They were intimidated?they were coerced? And their parents allowed that? They were angels, just out for a stroll in the park!? I hope you meet up with five just like them!! Then and only then will your bias end!!
-
digitaldiva — 13 years ago(December 05, 2012 07:04 PM)
Hi dcflag 09,
At the time, the police knew that the DNA belonged to one person alone and did not match any of the boys. The crime was so horrible that the DA pushed for a conviction based on the confessions alone. There was a rush to judgement because there had been a slew of attacks in the park by teen boys though nothing that reached the heights of this crime. In 2002, an imprisoned convicted rapist and murderer named Matias Reyes confessed. His DNA matched the samples taken from the victim and the crime scene and the convictions were vacated. -
drnossal — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 03:13 PM)
DNA testing was not routine in 1989 when this crime occurred. The DNA testing used to confirm Reyes as an attacker wasn't conducted until 2002. So it is simply not possible that the police knew "that DNA evidencedid not match any of the boys" and hence required a "rush to judgment".
Remember, just because DNA proves Reyes was present, it does NOT prove he was alone.
"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?" -
digitaldiva — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 04:36 PM)
drnossal, Sydney Schanberg's well-researched article in
The Village Voice
, simple revealed what the police already knew. The DNA collected at the crime scene in
1989
, matched none of the suspects and their confessions, coerced by the police, convicted them. There was also a rush to judgement led in part by Trump at the time. -
drnossal — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 12:31 PM)
Yeah, the VV, there's a bastion of unbiased journalism. How about the point of view of someone with a PhD in analytical chemistry who's been testing stuff for 20 years?
Those samples weren't tested until 2002, 13 years later. The only sample tested was a semen sample matched to Mathias Reyes, although I did see a report that ruled out a hair found on one of the other teens as a match for the victim.
Sample collection techniques for DNA testing in 1989 were mostly non-existent, because DNA testing techniques didn't come into common use until the early 90s. Sample collection protocols evolved over the next decade are are still being refined, look for example at the OJ Simpson fiasco and the amusing if it wasn't so sad Phantom of Heilbronn case. Take a look too at the record of the Houston Crime Lab back in the 1990s and what happened there. Not to claim the Central Park DNA is invalid, only that DNA is just evidence and like any evidence, it rarely tells the whole story all by itself.
I am frankly tired of repeating this. Just because your DNA wasn't found at the scene, it doesn't mean you were not there. DNA evidence is actually present and usable in a small fraction of cases. Prior to 1985, NO convictions were supported by DNA, does that mean they were all erroneous? To expect every conviction to be supported by DNA is absurd, especially in this instance where you are asking the police to collect and preserve evidence for a forensic analysis that didn't exist yet other than as an exotic lab and legal experiment.
DNA cannot exonerate on its own and cannot convict on its own. There was plenty of evidence other than DNA and the confessions to convict these teens. I've already detailed that and won't do it again.
Finally, did you even read Trump's statement that he made in 1989? It doesn't even mention the Central Park jogger or her attackers. Putting Trump at the head of a village mob armed with pitchforks is simply ignorance and misinformation on your part, colored by partisan politics.
"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?" -
digitaldiva — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 12:40 PM)
Hi drnossal, I obviously struck a nerve. First, I believe in DNA evidence, something that perhaps you don't. I also believe the confessions were coerced. Do I believe the boys may have been wilding? Yes, but that's not what they were convicted of.
Yes, I read Trump's statement and the ad he took out in 1989. It was part of the village mob mentality at the time.
Let's agree to disagree. The case has been litigated and nothing I write or you write back will change my mind or yours. -
drnossal — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 10:41 AM)
Look, you've been fairly civil and I don't mean to be harsh, but I have to say you are entitled to your beliefs, but not your facts.
You state that the police knew in 1989 that the DNA belonged to a single attacker. That is simply incorrect.
You state that the confessions were coerced. Whether the accused were guilty or innocent, that is opinion, not fact.
You state the defendants were convicted solely on the evidence of the confessions. This is easily verified as untrue.
You state that Trump led the lynch mob against the defendants when Trump never even addressed the case directly or indirectly, but simply spoke out in general against NYC crime. That isn't just misguided opinion, it is contrary to easily verified facts and ultimately irrelevant to the case. Trump wasn't the judge or the jury or the police and had nothing to do with the convictions or appeals.
Final comment, when Reyes was being tried for murder, his defense hired a psychologist to evaluate him. That was Dr. N. G. Berrill who described Reyes as "a wounded child, a defective human being, not psychotic, but someone whose impulse control was poor. He's manipulative. I wouldn't put money on anything he says."
Reyes never said a word about the jogger case until he met Korey Wise in prison. Reyes was already serving life without parole and had nothing to lose by admitting his responsibility and claiming to have acted alone. Through his testimony, the other five were freed. Read again what his own psychologist said and think about the fact that the other five were released from prison and awarded millions in damages, all solely on the word of Matthias Reyes, convicted rapist and murderer.
"You didn't come into this life just to sit around on a dugout bench, did ya?" -
digitaldiva — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 11:01 AM)
Hi drnossal,
I assume when you wrote you were someone with a PhD in analytical chemistry who's been testing stuff for 20 years, the stuff you tested wasn't DNA, most especially DNA from the attack. Please reread my comments. I never "stated" Trump lead a lynch mob, but he did address the case at the time and in a rush to judgement, called for capital punishment.
You and I will never agree on this, so let's stop this discussion now. I normally don't engage in political discussions on the IMDB, an entertainment site that has become highly charged politically. My original post was from 2012 and I've watched as some board become literal hot beds. I prefer to be polite and request once again that we agree to disagree. This is my last post on the subject. -
jimmybags57 — 13 years ago(December 05, 2012 07:06 PM)
stanleybix obviously you are not familiar with the history of the NYPD. When they need to pin a crime on someone they will get a confession one way or another. At least that's how they used to be, especially in the 80's. Hopefully they've gotten better today.
-
-
EmElleCee — 12 years ago(April 18, 2013 05:36 AM)
Their confessions were inconsistent with her bruisings and they didn't even know where the crime occured. The documentary mentioned they were in a different location than where the actual criminal was when he beat and raped her. They mentioned an 18 inch wide trail from where Matias Reyes, the man whose DNA was found at the scene, which the jogger was dragged on. I assumed they believed if five guys dragged her at once the trail would've been wider. That made sense. They were under stress from the extensive interrogation. The prosecutors just needed faces to put to the crime so thry could get paid and go home. They were selfish people.
-
WeLoveYouWayMore — 12 years ago(April 18, 2013 04:36 PM)
Exactly, the OP is forgetting these were 14 year old chidren, what an idiot.
This is documented how the police coerce people into giving false confessions b promising to let them go. Now i would never confess to something i diddn't do unless uner great psychological duress but when you're 14 yo child and the cops are lying to you and intimidating you, you might say anything.
The OP's a racist fool dirtbag. -
twilliams76 — 12 years ago(April 27, 2013 08:52 PM)
not to mention that NONE of the "confessions" could hold water when stacked on top of each other. Not one of them described the "events" in the same manner. Not one of their stories could be held up side-by-side with another because the details were all different (he hit her, he watched, he held her hands while the other stories all said something different).
The one juror brought this up none of the "confessions" described the same event and couldn't have been true. He only decided to say they were guilty after his fellow jurors became upset and tired of his opposition. Hmmm he did exactly what the boys did with the cops.
I'm thinking some people failed to watch and/or pay attention and/or grasp what it was he/she was watching.