My point (anticipating your puzzlement over my usage of terms like “investigative corroboration”) is that an assertion that the DA has based their position on “lopsided reporting” is moronic. And it is the People of the State of New York as proxied by the District Attorney who are second guessing these convictions --based on evidence unavailable at the time of the convictions.
xeno:
No. I can’t.
Coincidentally, I really don’t need to since I didn’t that the DAs source of info was the media.
This is another vile misattribution.
You say that my earlier post was the stupidest post of mine your ever saw me write
I can’t put my finger on yours. They all seem to blend together into one big mass of stupidity, missattributions and wastes of my effort.
Like this one.
after 13 years, he got the sequence wrong. He grabbed her, fought with her one place, she ran, he caught her again, got her clothes off and raped her and beat her senseless. That’s all accurate. He accurately described (in detail) what she was wearing, which the 5 could not do. He accurately described multiple crime scenes, which the others could not do.
he got more details correct after 13 years, then the 5 did right afterward, and without the helpful police potentially correcting their accounts.
Your claim is that REyes got to her first or second?
Since Reyes accurately notes where she was, and which direction she was coming from etc, (something the other 5 were not able to do), it seems clear that he was first.
He left her off the beaten track, unconscious, raped and nearly nude, bleeding etc.
if, as you claim, the others came along then and did their dasterdly deeds, please explain:
-
why there was no indication of multiple actors at the crime scenes.
-
how none of them got so much as a hair of hers, a drop of her blood on them or their clothing or shoes, despite ‘laying on top of her and dry humping’
-
how none of them could say how she was dressed.
-
none of them noted that her t-shirt was tied around her.
-
how there could be multiple additional attackers after Reyes, and none of them left blood, semen, hairs or any other evidence that they were there.
but first, explain please how the fuck they found her in the first place.
she was well off the beaten path. if they were maurading about looking for victims, why would they veer at all from the pathways?
Wring;
For the fourth or the fifth time, like it says in Biggirl’s original cite…
Actually, never mind. I’m not repeating myself again.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Scylla *
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.
You don’t know what they expected, you can’t even make a guess at what they expected. If the jogger hadn’t had amnesia, the outcome of the line ups would have been the same, no ID of the 5 youths in question, because they didn’t do the crime. People with intimate knowledge of the case have conceded this, which means, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
So what? It doesn’t mean anything, Reyes was a serial rapist who raped and battered many women, the jogger included, his semen was in the woman’s vagina, he raped her, he beat her, his credibility is very high in this regard because thats the kind of stuff he did, he beat women and raped them.
I’m posting this link to “The Innocence Project”, but not for you Scylla, you’re not really interested in looking at the reality of this case, actually I see your arguments as a joke more than anything serious. Perhaps you have a lot of time on your hand or fancy yourself able to argue about anything even if you don’t have any factual information to back up your claims and assertions. I guess you’re just arguing for argument sake, however if you’re not, take at look at this link, it makes for some very interesting reading.
Here you will read about similiar situations where people were convicted from confessions that they made only to later to have been found innocent because of DNA testing AND because of confessions by the persons actually responsible for the crimes and in some cases these people were not already in jail and had a lot to loose.
Scylla -
spare me. the cite by xeno is the court document, which I’d take as truth over and above newspaper/news accounts.
and back to your original mantra “a jury saw the evidence, a judge oversaw the trial, a prosecutor and defense attorney all were there, and this outcome happened”, the point now is "another judge, another prosecutor, another defense attorney have examined **all of the evidence from the first trial and addtional evidence that has since come to light ** and have come to a different conclusion.
Just to sum up and then I’m oughta here:
-
The original confessions were given at a time immediately after the crime when the confessors did not know that the jogger was amnesiac. They expected to be identified.
-
Richardson led the police to the crime scene.
-
Yusef, Richardson et al. admitted and were identified as attacking other joggers and passersbye on that evening.
-
Richardson said that a cut on his cheek was inflicted by the jogger while she fought to defend herself.
-
The jogger’s injuries were consistent with the attack described in the confessions.
-
They were duly convicted by a jury in a court of law which analyzed the validity of the confessions.
-
13 years after the fact Reyes, a cellblockmate of one of these convicted criminals decides to come forward after the statute of limitations has passed, and claims that he acted alone in the attack.
you are incorrect about REyes being a “cell block mate”, they once, briefly were at the same location. not on the same block.
and see my additional comments. Another prosecutor, judge and defense attorney have reviewed **all ** of the evidence, not just what was available 13 years ago. why do you not see that this is material? all three of them are in agreement that he convictions should be set aside. all three. having reviewed all of the evidence, including all from the original trial, which you seem to find so persuasive.
Nice try Scylla, buh-bye! Chime in on something where you know what you’re talking about. 
-
The didn’t expect to be identified, and weren’t identified by any of the other victims that night.
-
I don’t know if this is true.
-
None of the 5 youths were identified by anyone.
-
Another reason why the confessions are worthless, if he sustained a cut by her, his dna would have been under her fingernails.
-
I don’t know if this is true.
-
They indeed were, but NOW the same DA’s office calling for the convictions to be vacated.
-
A red herring.
Your fingers seem to stay engaged elsewhere… (ears, mostly).
Here’s <a href=“http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0250/allah.php”>a good article from the Village Voice</a>, though I doubt it’ll change the minds of people unwilling to consider that the 5 teens didn’t do it, considering the source.
A couple of excerpts:
and
Sorry, screwed up that link. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0250/allah.php
Youwiththeface: I didn’t say there was physical evidence linking ALL 5 to the crime.
And you’re taking the next line out of context- ASSUMING A CONFESSION- then if there “wasn’t any strong evidence they didn’t” is fine. They were violent scum who had commited a series of violent crimes in that area & that time period. They then confessed. Now, since some confessions are bogus or coerced, a good investigator would then look for strong evidence they DID NOT commit the crime. No such evidence existed at that time. Thus, the confession can be accepted.
Okay, let’s go over this ONE more time.
-
There were no blood stains or hair from the victim found on the alleged perps clothes or homes. The prosecution knew this at the time.
-
There were no semen or pubic hairs found on the victim’s body indicating that they had raped her.
-
Prior to confessing, some of the individuals gave alibis that were not disproven.
-
Nothing in the crime scene indicated that 6 people were involved in the attack.
-
Major details in the confessions (like what the victim was attacked with) were blatantly wrong and sketchy.
Overall, the prosecution had a crappy case.
Like I stated earlier, there is no way you can prove an individual is innocent by the absence of incriminating evidence. You can only prove guilt by the presence of incriminating evidence. If someone has his heart set on it, they can make any person look guilty if they force him/her to provide evidence of their innocence.
It’s understandable why the guys were convicted, though. The case was high-profile and ugly; people wanted to find the bad guys and lock them up. But if they were put into the jail on the basis of rickety “evidence”, what is the fair thing to do?
DrDeth, you don’t know what they were. You don’t know the five youths, their family background, you know nothing about them other than what you’ve perhaps heard about the original case. Your view probably comes from the propaganda generated when it was thought that they were the perpetrators of the crime, we now know differently, well some of us at least.
So you were like on the jury?
Did you read the transcript?
Again, dudes- THEY CONFESSED. This makes moot that the physical evidence against them was weak. Why collect evidence when it is not needed? All you need when you have a confession is something which would indicate they weren’t simply making the whole thing up- and that was there. Yes, the prosecution WOULD have had a crappy case- but there was not need for a “case” per se- they had a confession- and no reason to doubt it.
Now, sure, it seems like they were not guilty of the actual rape itself. So, as I said before- we let them go for “time served”.
And, Phil- none of the accused is saying they did not commit other violent crimes that night- that’s a given. Just that they didn’t rape her.
I am not one of those argueing that they are guilty OF THE RAPE THEY WERE CONVICTED FOR. The evidence that the other guy did rape her is pretty solid. But it appears they may well have assualted her, and certainly commited other violent crimes that night.
They were violent scum. They just probably weren’t violent rapist scum.
dude, people have been known to confess to things they didn’t do.
happens quite frequently, actually (though many of them aren’t prosecuted). IN this case, they had a group of kids who’d apparently been robbing/assaulting other folks in the park the same night, and they pointed out that if they confessed, they’d have an easier time at sentencing etc.
and so they confessed. and got substantial numbers of stuff wrong about the crime. and had zero (as it turned out) physical evidence linking them to this crime.
so the fact that they confessed isn’t necessarily a ‘well that ends all conjecture’ kind of thing for anyone with experience in the system. false confessions happen.
really.
No, I was not on the jury. I assume you were?