# Central Park jogger case-- Two questions. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2002, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230 "2002-10-21T14:16:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/41 "2002-12-09T02:11:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuyguy \* > Wring, I’m not saying they should go to jail for being “bad guys.” They should go to jail for the crimes they committed against the non-rape victims. The problem here is that, we know that these five admitted to raping a woman and beating her, which they clearly didn’t do. You would think that the other things that they confessed to would be in question as well, but those things aren’t, and the reason for that is because people want to believe they did something, so they don’t feel totally bad for the 5 having done time. Also, they can continue to view them as animals, savages, i.e. less than human, typical racist shit, if you ask me. > [@](#): > > Now tell me, why should the police not have closed the book on the case after the conviction??? I mean really, what investigator or police department goes out looking for culprits after the case has been tried and the accused has been convicted??? Maybe because there were a string of rapes in the neighborhood, that had a similiar MO, and that rapist, Reyes, was still on the loose? [Another confession story](http://www.nyclu.org/nypd_vt_oped092702.html) > [@](#): > > Though there has not yet been a systematic review of confessions in New York, even prior to the Central Park Jogger case, several highly-publicized cases involved allegedly coerced confessions that proved false. For instance, earlier this year the government told a federal judge in Manhattan that an Egyptian man named Abdallah Higazy had confessed to owning a ground-to-air radio that allegedly was found in his room in the ruins of a hotel abutting upon the World Trade Center. Targeted as a terrorist who facilitated the attacks of September 11th, the Higazy insisted that his “confession” was coerced, but he was released only after a pilot came forward to claim the radio and after a hotel security guard admitted that he had lied about the radio being in Higazy’s room. The government has yet to explain how it obtained the “confession,” though Higazy says he made statements only after he and his family were repeatedly threatened during an hours-long interrogation outside the presence of his lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![stuyguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@stuyguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stuyguy)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/42 "2002-12-09T03:11:53Z")
Look I’ve stated my position, which I believe is a reasoned one, so I won’t go on saying the same things over and over. FWIW, other posters are taking a much harder line than I am and things are getting polarized into the they-were-framed and they-were-guilty-of-everything camps. Frankly I don’t feel comfortable in either, because I think they’re both too knee-jerky. (Hey, but that’s what makes Great Debates great, right?!?! [Grinny.]) That said, EasyPhil wrote: * * * ## “You would think that the other things that they confessed to would be in question as well, but those things aren’t, and the reason for that is because people want to believe they did something, so they don’t feel totally bad for the 5 having done time. Also, they can continue to view them as animals, savages, i.e. less than human, typical racist shit, if you ask me.” Phil, meaning absolutely no disrespect, if you really believe this comment I would suggest you dig deeper into the facts of this case. (And those pieces in the NY Times – not exactly a right-wing mouthpiece, if you know what I mean [grinny here] – are 2 good places to start.) There are a lot of very liberal and open-minded people who, once they’ve heard the evidence that supports the non-rape assault charges, can’t help but conclude that the kids participated in the wilding. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/43 "2002-12-09T03:26:09Z")
by **wring** > [@](#): > > I don’t necessarily call it “police misconduct”, since I believe that aggressive questioning not inherently a ‘bad thing’, certainly doesn’t rise to the level of police misconduct. From what I’ve learned about the case, it seems that a little more than “aggressive questioning” was involved. If we are working under the premise that the confessions were false and yet all 5 of them describe similar details (some of which have been found to be factually wrong, BTW), then the question remains: Just where did these confessions come from? Did all of the guys just happen to fabricate very similar stories while under interrogation, only coincidentally making the same mistakes (like describing stop signs that weren’t there)? Or could it be that they were all fed the same story by the police and that is why the confessions are so similar to each other? If it’s the latter scenario, then I maintain there was police misconduct involved in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/44 "2002-12-09T03:48:19Z")
easyphil: Oh, I don’t doubt he raped her. I also don’t think much of the “new” DNA evidence which says that only his semen is on the jogger. The other 5 were convicted in spite of DNA evidence which you guys are claiming clears them. The juries knew there wasn’t a match > [@](#): > > “Semen Tested in Jogger Case Was Not That of Defendants” (New York Times); “Semen, Suspects No Match, Says DNA Expert in Jog Case” (Newsday); “DNA Expert: No Semen Links To Defendants” (Associated Press); and “Expert Says Semen on Jogger Is Not Teens’” (The Record). So this is not exactly a startling revelation. The police always knew there was another party out there that left semen. Now they found him. It doesn’t change anything concerning the other convicted felons. Considering the fact that Salam’s underwear were filled with semen, mud and grass stains, I really don’t find the idea that he only dry humped the victim after beating her into a coma to particularly mitigating. What doesn’t seem to be in doubt is that these five were there, and they participated in beating and sexually assaulting the jogger. I hope they burn in hell. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/45 "2002-12-09T05:02:09Z")
from the link: > [@](#): > > “These teens who were convicted initially attacked the jogger, beat her, boasted they raped her but merely got on top of her and fondled her breasts before leaving her for dead in a pool of blood. Then Reyes comes along and actually rapes the jogger,” the detective said. This strikes me as odd statement. Is the detective here speculating about what happened or stating an actual fact? If he’s theorizing, then he needs to say so. If he’s speaking from the platform of fact, then I wonder how he knows this all of a sudden? by **Scylla** > [@](#): > > The police always knew there was another party out there that left semen. _Now they found him._ > > It doesn’t change anything concerning the other convicted felons. You say “now they found him” as if all these years the police were combing the streets looking for this mystery sixth man. That’s a bunch of hooey. If the only evidence linking the five to the crimes were these “smoking-gun” confessions, then what is the prosecution’s explanation for the absence of semen linking the 5 guys to the victim? Did they admit to raping the woman or not? I’m not talking about dry-humping anybody. If the details of the confession specify rape for all 5 defendants, making no mention of condoms and the like (which would explain the absence of DNA evidence on the victim’s person _and not in somebody’s dirty drawers_), then why is it unreasonable to expect physical evidence to show that they indeed do the crime? And I’m curious (because I actually don’t know): Did the victim’s blood or hair ever turn up on the clothes of the 5 guys? If the answer is yes, then that would serve as persuasive evidence linking them to the event. Much more than a confession ever could. ---
**Author:** ![lurkernomore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@lurkernomore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lurkernomore)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/46 "2002-12-09T12:58:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by you with the face \* > \*\* > And I’m curious (because I actually don’t know): Did the victim’s blood or hair ever turn up on the clothes of the 5 guys? If the answer is yes, then that would serve as persuasive evidence linking them to the event. Much more than a confession ever could. \*\* There was hair found on one or two of the guys that was thought to be the victim’s. More sophisticated DNA analysis than was available at the time now shows it was not hers. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/47 "2002-12-09T17:19:44Z")
Whoa! Talk about disorientation. One of the problems about the confession, other than the semen, was that the boys said that they did things that just did not happen. They said the used scissors when no scissors were used. They said they beat her with a bat when there was no evidence of a bat used. It seems clear to the DA that the boys made up that confession, hence the recommendation for evacuation. It was also clear, way back then, that the hair that was found _was not_ the jogger’s. The detectives knew this _during the trial_ but withheld this information. According to Robert Morganthau **there is no evidence to tie the boys to this crime except the confessions, which were clearly false.** Where is all this “they _must_ have done _something_” nonsense coming from? ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/48 "2002-12-09T17:31:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stuyguy \* > \*\*Phil, meaning absolutely no disrespect, if you really believe this comment I would suggest you dig deeper into the facts of this case. (And those pieces in the NY Times – not exactly a right-wing mouthpiece, if you know what I mean [grinny here] – are 2 good places to start.) There are a lot of very liberal and open-minded people who, once they’ve heard the evidence that supports the non-rape assault charges, can’t help but conclude that the kids participated in the wilding. \*\* I’ve looked at the facts. The five were in a line up and weren’t ID’d by anyone. The only thing we have are the confessions, and we know they are less than factual, in fact, we know that things they said weren’t true. They admitted to the most serious thing they were charged with, why is it such a stretch that they also admitted to the other crimes for the same reason? If we took these confessions to trial today, with the information we have now, they would walk without question, moreover the DA wouldn’t even take a case like this to trial. The NY Times writers are speculating that they must have done something, even though other than the confessions which we know are false, there isn’t anything to clearly say these 5 did anything. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/49 "2002-12-09T17:56:25Z")
Just so you know I’m not making this up. [http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nywhy063034438dec06,0,3708081.story?coll=ny-nynews-print](http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/newyork/ny-nywhy063034438dec06,0,3708081.story?coll=ny-nynews-print) Here is part of what assistant DA Nancy Ryan had to say: > [@](#): > > Ryan said the confessions had “troubling discrepancies,” were factually incorrect and differed from one another on the specific details of “virtually every major element” of the attack on the jogger. While those statements were consistent in a few ways, they were all not corroborated by other independent physical evidence. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/50 "2002-12-09T18:08:10Z")
Why I believe there wasn’t specific misconduct by the police: In most “false confessions” cases that I’ve read about, the scenario goes like this: (very simplified) Suspect “ok, ok, I stabbed her with a pair of scissors” Cop (who knows facts of the case) “ok, so you hurt her, are you sure it was a pair of scissors and not some other sharp object?” Suspect “maybe it was something else” Cop “well, unless you had something like a knife with you, it would have had to be something that was available in a park with trees all around” Suspect “like a stick?” Cop “Ok, so you stabbed her with a stick, go on”. They believe that they have the person responsible, they urge him to confess to make the case go better for him, but know the facts of the case, and nudge the suspect towards details that would match or at least not contradict the evidence. For classic examples, see (once again) the Henry Lee Lucas interrogations. **Scylla** now that you see the quote from the district attorney, are you still so certain that they did it? There **is** no physical evidence linking the victim to the suspects (again - how likely would that be that of these 5 kids, **none** of them had so much as one of her hairs or a drop of blood on their clothes, nor was there so much as a drop of blood, a bit of semen, a hair of theirs on her); **and** the confessions themselves were not only not accurate as far as what the actual crime was, nor were they internally consistent with the others confessions. If you’re relying on the juries having found them guilty, the juries relied on: 1. the confessions and 2. forensics which now don’t add up (the hairs found on her **weren’t** theirs) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/51 "2002-12-09T18:22:48Z")
Yeah Wring, I’m still pretty sure they did it. A couple of out of context soundbites really don’t impress me much, nor does the fact that that article harps again about the DNA evidence, which has absolutely nothing to do with the convictions. Fortunately we don’t try cases in the media, and I guess if the defense attorneys actually had a leg to stand on they’d keep their arguments in the courtroom rather on the pages of newspapers. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/52 "2002-12-09T18:30:56Z")
I still curious - why are you so certain? The person who’s confessed **and** was linked through DNA worked alone. There certainly was copious amounts of blood, hair, fluids, physical evidence **none of which** linked the victim to the 5 who were convicted. No witnesses. their confessions were inaccurate **and** inconsistent w/each other. what’s left for you to consider as evidence? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/53 "2002-12-09T18:32:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EasyPhil \* > You’re willing to accept the confessions of the five, but not the confession of Reyes, how interesting. Not to take sides, because I don’t know anything about the facts, but that is a reasonable position. Someone earlier said that the statute of limitations has passed. If that is correct, then Reyes will suffer no adverse consequences from confessing. The boys, OTOH, can and did suffer adverse consequences from confessing. A statement that will harm you is considered more likely to be truthful (it’s called a “statement against penal interest”) then a statement that won’t harm you. The rationale is, if a person is going to lie, they are more likely to lie in a way that helps them. Sua ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/54 "2002-12-09T18:36:25Z")
> [@](#): > > …I guess if the defense attorneys actually had a leg to stand on they’d keep their arguments in the courtroom rather on the pages of newspapers. Does the fact that the Manhattan D.A. has [officially agreed](http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/crim/nywiseetal120502aff.pdf) with the defense’s motion to vacate not constitute ‘a leg to stand on’? ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/55 "2002-12-09T18:42:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*Yeah Wring, I’m still pretty sure they did it. A couple of out of context soundbites really don’t impress me much, nor does the fact that that article harps again about the DNA evidence, which has absolutely nothing to do with the convictions. > > \*\* A couple of out of context soundbites? How about a 6 month investigation, a 58 page report and the words of both the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney? The boys stories **did not match** : not to each other and not to the physical evidence. The DNA evidence had nothing to do with the convictions because if this evidence was presented in the first place there would not have been a trial. I think Scylla is still scarred by his run-in at the amusment park last summer. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/56 "2002-12-09T18:44:20Z")
Wring: I don’t consider the evidence. Juries do. Like I said earlier, and like I quoted, the DNA evidence is nothing new. None of the attackers were linked by DNA. Nor do I put much stock in **reported** inconsistencies in the confessions. I trust the defense attorney’s to do their job and exploit the inconsistencies at the time of trial if they are really there. I trust the judge to throw out coerced confessions. I trust juries to evaluate the evidence and make a decision. What I don’t trust is some guy in a jail who ten years after the fact decides to come clean because he found religion at the coincidental time that the statute of limitations has expired so that it costs him nothing. What I don’t trust is reproters trying to sell newspapers by presenting two word quotes from media hungry DA’s and presenting misleading arguments based on DNA evidence that it totally and completely not germaine to the actual convictions. This cynicism is reinforced by the fact the current battle isn’t being fought in a courtroom where it belongs, but in the media where it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/57 "2002-12-09T18:51:31Z")
however, the juries involved ‘trusted’ confessions that weren’t consistent either with the facts or with each other, trusted evidence which we now see is wrong. Still think so? when, then, do you accept that mistakes were made? there was a case from Michigan where a guy confessed to rape/murder (he was on medication at the time of his interrogation and confession), and DNA has subsequently proved that **he didn’t do it**. He’s been freed from prison, and exonerated. the jury in question evaluated the evidence, the police in question had investigated etc, the judge in question allowed the confession in. but he didn’t do it. do you **ever** accept that wrongful convictions occur? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/58 "2002-12-09T18:56:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Not to take sides, because I don’t know anything about the facts, but [not finding Reyes to be credible] is a reasonable position. Someone earlier said that the statute of limitations has passed. If that is correct, then Reyes will suffer no adverse consequences from confessing. But that still doesn’t explain why he would go through the trouble of making a false confession (that somehow, by way of a miracle, nicely supports the physical evidence). It certainly doesn’t _help_ him to make such an admission, so I fail to see why he would make the whole thing up. And also, maybe it _is_ because of the fact that the statute of limitations has expired that Reyes came foward. With the worry of being prosecuted gone, he felt free to come clean to the world. > [@](#): > > A statement that will harm you is considered more likely to be truthful (it’s called a “statement against penal interest”) then a statement that won’t harm you. The rationale is, if a person is going to lie, they are more likely to lie in a way that helps them. Well on the face of things it doesn’t appear as if the guy’s were using this rationale at all, if you look at what they confessed to and what they received in return for those confessions. But maybe they did think they were better off by lying. As stupid and misguided as it sounds, maybe they thought by confessing to the whole kit and kaboodle that somehow they’d be spared prison. “Make it easy on yourself”. How many times have we heard that line trotted out in police dramas? Keep in mind that the defendants’ perspective on the justice system was not one that probably involves a whole lot of idealism and trust. When trying to figure out why they would have given false confessions, that reality must be taken into consideration. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/59 "2002-12-09T19:03:02Z")
and by the way, you’re incorrect re: fought in the media vs. the courtroom. It **is** indeed also being fought in the courtroom, except **both** the defense and the prosecutor have asked for the convictions to be overturned. this is a highly unusual event. It is now going before the judge. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230/60 "2002-12-09T19:04:36Z")
**you with the face,** As I explicitly said, I’m not taking sides. I was making a point of logic and law. And as to both, a statement that harms you is inherently more credible than a statement that doesn’t harm you. I recognize that in this instance the DNA evidence corroborates Reyes statement, thus boosting his credibility over the boys. My point is that, if there had been no DNA (or other) evidence, both in logic and in law, the boys’ confusion would have trumped. Sua [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/central-park-jogger-case-two-questions/133230.md?page=4)