the evidence that they didn’t do it lies in the Reyes’ confession. He correctly described where she’d been running from, where she was found, where she was originally attacked, the specifics that there were 3 crime scenes, specific injuries she sustained, the clothing that she wore, how she was left, items she had with her, described how many keys she had with her when she was attacked (according to the link, this was info that they had to go back to the victim to check, so it wasn’t in any police report etc.)
physical evidence also links him to the crime.
and he says he acted alone.
evidence that the kids did it:
their confessions (according again to the link, this was the main evidence, everything else was linking them to crimes in the park that night, except for the hairs).
hairs found on one of the kids, which were identified at the trial as belonging to (Or ‘probably’ the joggers). Later, more sophisticated tests either said ‘inconclusive’ or “nope, not hers”.
no other physical evidence linked the kids to the jogger. they probably were invovled in other crimes that night, but not this one.
No. It doesn’t bother me babe. One sided, misrepresentative arguments bother me, and it bothers me when I sense an agenda.
And, there’s an agenda here. The agenda here is to believe Reyes, and clear these other guys, and ignore everything that doesn’t fit.
We’ll disbelieve the original culprits confessions, but now we’ll just arbitrarily believe Reyes’. It has discrepancies as well.
All these discrepancies are occuring because we are dealing with lying criminal scum who’s acquaintance with truth is purely coincidental. Yusef Salam led the police to the crime scene, you’ll recall.
Today’s revisionists now claim he didn’t.
We have a bullshit ramrod deal going on here.
Yet, that is exactly not her job. Her job is to represent the state in the prosecution of its cases, and to uphold it’s verdicts.
That’s what DA means.
If she wants to defend people there’s this other party called the defense.
The whole point is that you are supposed to have one person on each side advocating that particular side in an adversarial fashion in front of a judge and usually a jury.
As they argue their cases, the judges and the juries are supposed to consider their merits, and decide what is actually the truth.
Her job is to argue the State’s case. That is how we determine justice. We insist on having both sides so that we don’t overlook justice.
It’s like a football team. The quarterback of one team doesn’t decide to suddenly start playing for the opposing team.
Similarly the defense attorney isn’t supposed to suddenly supposed to stand up in the middle of the courtroom and say “you know what, I give up. My clients are guilty as hell and they deserve the maximum sentence.”
He is supposed to argue the case even if he doesn’t beleive in it. Justice and the accused demand it.
Similarly the Prosecution is supposed to prosecute.
They’re not supposed to work for the defense.
You’re not an unintelligent person here. Surely you see the problem.
Bullshit. You read the same document I did. Arguably Reyes’ description fits the facts better than the previous confessions, but your wrong. Salamm led the police to the scene of the attack and the wounds are consistent with both versions. Several other things as well since you read the same document.
It doesn’t matter though. The prosecution isn’t supposed to be showing the problems with its case. That’s the defense’s job.
The jury is supposed to decide the merits, not the prosecutor.
are you claiming, Scylla, that if the DA discovers evidence that the person prosecuted is innocent that their** obligation ** is to ignore that and proceed w/the prosecution, since that is ‘their sole job’? I would hope not. Sua!??! you practiced law in NY, is Scylla correct that the DA is NOT an officer of the court and honor/duty bound to bring/argue evidence that the conviction was wrongful when they feel that it was???
I am begining to doubt that we read the same document. The document that I read indicated that the places where she was attacked (off the beaten path) did not show signs of great numbers of people (as it would had there been 6 attackers) and of course the 5 indicated that the others (often plural) raped her, when there’s evidence only one did. (talk about selective believing of a confession).
inconsistenceis from Reyes statements were minor in nature (remember you were wrong about the one thing), and came after 13 years, vs. the major wrong statements from the 5, coming a day or so afterward.
well and I believe this statement is wrong, as well. The prosecutor decides if the case is worth prosecuting, then the judge decides if there’s enough to proceed, and then the jury decides the ‘facts’ of the case. In this case (as in some select others) they got the facts wrong.
And what would the motive behind this supposed “agenda” be? It’s interesting to see how Scylla has gone so far as to turn this into a conspiracy theory in order to justify keeping the convicts in jail. First it was the “there’s no proof they didn’t do it” argument. Now he’s saddling us with the “this is all part of a grand scheme to pander to those Evil Liberal Bastards That Threaten America’s Freedom”.
It is not “arbitrarily” believed if it is supported by evidence.
Your defintion of minor inconsistency seems to be one in a circumstance that favors the defendants. A major inconsistency seems to be one that favors the prosecution.
Oh. I forget. There is no prosecution. What we actually have is a DA defending convicted criminals and seeking to overturn a conviction and unsuccessful appeal based on a jailhouse confession.
In order to overturn the conviction you have to selectively decide which confessions you like.
Personally, I think the 5 made immediately after the incident which worked against the people making them outweight the single one made 13 years after the fact by this guy who has nothing to lose and potentially something to gain.
Personally, I’m upset to see the DA defending convicted criminals.
Are defense attorneys allowed to “Switch teams” and turn around and admit that their clients are guilty if they feel like it?
Saying that my analogy is the “singularly most stupid thing” is a pretty strong assertion.
Hopefully you can back it up with some kind of argument, and it’s not just the usual prickish judgemental veiled insult rendered in form to pass muster in GD that you so commonly issue.
Scylla, I selected the “football team” remark as representative of your entire concept of the justice system. It is the post itself, taken as a whole, that I find so tremendously stupid as to be the most stupid thing I’ve read from you.
But it’s really not the rank stupidity of your position that bothers me so much. Ignorance of the role of the prosecutor when presented with exculpatory evidence is understandable (and, for those not irrationally wedded to the idea that the five teenaged thugs convicted are irretrievable “criminal scum” who must have done it, Reyes’ confession and direct connection to the physical evidence are quite clearly and unambiguously exculpatory), although it is a bit shocking coming from a presumably knowledgeable grownup. And the breath-takingly simpleminded football analogy should, I suppose, be considered charitably on the basis of your ignorance. Those things I can take in stride.
What’s got me so bummed out is the morally repugnant –and ethically bankrupt- idea you have that the public servants charged with bringing criminals to justice should zealously prosecute individuals whom they are reasonably convinced are innocent of the particular crime for which they have been charged or of which they have been convicted. Regardless of the “scum”-like nature of the defendants’ other crimes, we are not supposed, in this country, to incarcerate people for crimes they did not commit.
Ms. Ryan appears to be doing her job to exactly the degree required by the people (liberal, conservative or otherwise) of Manhattan. To excoriate her for pursuing justice is to miss entirely the point of having District Attorneys as representatives of the people.
And if that argument is too prickishly judgemental for you, I can certainly find a way to survive your scorn with my self respect intact.
Scylla, the agenda is to believe Reyes, because his semen was found in her vagina. Okay, here’s another scenario:
Reyes was actually the joggers secret lover, though a serial rapist, and that’s how his semen got in her vagina and on her sock. She was coming from his house when the 5 youths attacked her. There you Scylla, that makes more sense doesn’t it, a scenario that would fit in with what you believe and how you reason?
Scylla, what does Reyes stand to gain? He’s a convicted serial rapist and murderer. His DNA was found on the joggers sock and IN HER VAGINA. What could his agenda be? You’re arguing against the credibility of the DA office, which has more information about the case than you do and here’s the big one, that information must have been very, very convincing for them to issue a report recommending the convictions for all charges be set aside.
And, for the fourth or the fifth time. This is not news. The juries that convicted the five knew that the semen belonged to another person other than any of the five they were convicting.
**
This is a question that nobody seems to be asking. Like I said earlier, it could be leniency, special treatment, building credibility for a potential parole.
He certainly has nothing to lose by his confession, unlike those of the earlier five, which as SUA points out is a strong reason to give the others more weight.
Yeah, you would think so. But, when you read the report, or at least when I read it, I certainly see questions raised, but I see nothing that clears the earlier convictions.
The fact that there was an unidentified semen secreter is not news, you’re right. But a confession coming from the semen secreter is news. In order to take your stance, Scylla, it seems as if you have to do two illogical things:
You have to construe the original 5 confessions of rape to really mean “dry humping” and “fondling of breasts”. You do this not because any evidence suggests that that took place, not because the confessions indicate that that’s what went on, but because there is no evidence that the 5 participated in ejaculatory rape. Therefore, in your mind, since they had to have done something sexual to her, they must have only pseudo-raped her instead, contrary to what they admitted to. By reading things in the confessions that just aren’t there, you keep your ability to see their guilt. Fascinating.
2)Because of the DNA evidence, you can accept that Reyes raped the jogger like he said. Because he can describe the crime scene and the beating in a way that closely jibes with what happened, you can accept that he participated in the assault against her like he said. But because he contradicts the original 5 confessions when he says he acted alone, you reject that part of his confession as a lie. But you have no problem accepting the rest.
Isn’t it interesting that the “lie” is not contradicted by any physical evidence showing otherwise? On one hand, you accept the original 5 confessions as Truth after tweaking them with your own intepretations of what happened, and on the other hand, you arbitrarily pick and choose parts of Reyes’ confession to believe even when there’s no logical reason to do so.
No offense or anything, but I hope to God our justice system never works the way it would if you were running it, Scylla.
The fact that he so-called has “nothing to lose by confessing” is not a strong reason to reject his claim that he worked alone. Especially since evidence suggests that he–and not the 5 guys–are telling the truth.
Actually I think most of what all these people are saying are lies. The one thing that has been consistent is that they’ve been lying.
**
Yes it is. Reyes claims the jogger got up and tried to run away after he raped her. This is an impossibility.
Not at all. Exactly the opposite in fact. You have to arbitrarily choose to accept Reyes’ statements in toto to clear the original defendants.
Reyes’ statements are based on something that happened 13 years ago. They may be motivated by self-interest. They are not against his self interest as the original confessions were. Reye’s statements have not been exposed to the vetting of a trial by jury and an appeal to test their strength and credibility.
Because of these things it is my opinion that Reye’s statements are for the moment inferior to the original confessions, and do not serve to credibly contradict them to a degree necessary to overturn the original convictions.
The new physical evidence identifies Reyes as the rapist who’s semen was found in the jogger.
That’s all.
The fact that it is his semen does not give greater credence to his statements. Again, as Biggirl’s original cite seems to point out, the most credible scenario as that Yusef and the Boys beat and assaulted the jogger, and probably molested her to a degree as they admitted to beating and attacking several other people that night
After they left her bleeding and semiconscious, perhaps trying to get out of the park, Reyes, this paragon of truthfullness comes along beats and rapes her.
This scenario fits the physical evidence extremely well, as there appears to be three sights in the park at which the jogger was assaulted. It explains the confusion in the original confessions as to who did the raping, and it fits Reyes story well. It is also the only scenario as far as I can see that fits the evidence in terms of the three sights.
I’m not sure how you know this is an impossibility.That’s a mighty strong word to use. And even if it is factually incorrect, I don’t see how it throws all his other claims into major question. The confession was made a decade and some change after the crime and you expect him to get all the facts perfectly straight? The original 5 confessions were riddled with inconsistencies only a few days after the crime, but you place more faith in those on the basis that they hurt the confessors more. Like I pointed out earlier, however, that’s is an unreliable way of judging veracity. If the confessors were stupid in thinking that by confessing to these things, they’d actually be better off than NOT confessing, then what does that do to your reasoning?
Another reason why Sua’s point about confessions is not applicable to this situation is entirely because things are NOT equal between the 5 men and Reyes. In the days following the jogger’s murder, the police was under a lot of pressure to solve the crime in a hurry. The pressure they were under could have been easily transferred to the 5 guys during interrogation, thus increasing the chances of false confessions cropping up. Flash forward to Reyes, who will be stewing in prison for the rest of his life already because he is a convicted serial killer. The police didn’t even know he’s linked to the jogger, so why would he be under pressure to give a false confession? In the absence of people breathing down his neck, threatening him with prison (he’s already in prison so what good would that threat be?), why he would go out of his way to lie?
Like I said earlier, it would only be “arbitrarily” if the amount of evidence linking Reyes to the crime was equal in magnitude to the evidence linking the 5 guys. But things are not equal between them; when weighed against each other, Reyes’ description of how things went is more accurate than what the 5 guys said. It also doesn’t hurt that his semen was found on the body.
Fortunately our justice system purports to work under the premise that convictions are rendered on the basis of “beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt”. It is not up to Reyes to prove that the 5 guys are innocent (as repeatedly pointed out by me and others, that’s impossible to do anyway); rather, it was up to the prosecution to prove that they were guilty. People are now looking back on the case and seeing that the prosecution did a poor job of proving the guilt of the 5 men charged. So it makes perfect sense that the sentences should be overturned because of that.
As does our legal system. The confession is against interest. Also realize that at the time of the original confessions it was not known that the jogger would be amnesiac. Those making the confessions expected to be identified by the jogger.
Reyes does not. Coincidentally, in addition to the fact that Reyes faces no penalties for his confession it is interesting to note that he shares a cellblock with one of the defendants.
Not at all. People are second guessing the findings of a trial by jury and the appeal based on 60 Minutes and some lopsided reporting in the NYT.
Scylla I identified the pages in that link to check out the specifics. the scenario from Reyes was that he hit her from behind while on the path (site #1), dragged her up to site #2, (which conformed w/the specifics from the crime scene, which by the way also demonstrated, IIRC, that there wasn’t a mob there), she was able to break away from him at that point and ran off, but he got her again, (site#3), completed the attack and left her unconscious.
Please demonstrate how it was ‘impossible’ for her to break away from him. (yes, it was impossible at the end of the attack, but that wasn’t what he claimed happened - you claimed this earlier in the thread and earlier I told you you had it wrong and gave you teh page to look at again. please re-check it)
Reyes claims that the jogger broke away and ran after he raped her. He caught her and then pummelled her some more.
As the DA’s own cite shows, this was not possible unless he raped her at the second sight with her clothes on, and then arbitrarily removed them after he caught her at the third.
It’s also impossible as he claims she was naked when he was chasing her to the third sight.
The third sight is the sight where he clothes were removed and she was raped.
Including the Manhattan District Attorney’s office? Gosh, one would have thought they’d have based their Affirmation in Response to the Motion to Vacate on the investigative corroboration of Reyes’ statements they listed in that very Affirmation. I don’t recall either 60 Minutes or the NY Times listed in the document. All I can find is the statement that:
"This affirmation is based upon information and belief, the sources of said information and belief being transcripts of prior proceedings held in connection with the above-captioned indictment; files, records, briefs, notes, and videotapes maintained by the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the New York City Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the City and State Departments of Corrections; interviews with police, civilian, and expert witnesses; and conversations with Assistant District Attorneys." (pg 1 of 58)
Can you point me to the page number listing those media sources?