Scylla, here’s another link that will clear up your confusion on what going on with the case:
That doesn’t clear up anything Phil.
It says that investigators are looking whether Reye’s participation occured after the attack by the five.
My confusion is who is this Ryan chick who’s supposed to be a DA (when apparently the actual DA is Morgenthau) who’s writing briefs for the defense?
Roger Wareham and Michael Warren.
We now see that the attempt to connect the 5 with Reyes has failed miserably.
Scylla, I guess this is what you were referring to, when you said that one of the 5 youths and Reyes shared the same cellblock?
No.
I hadn’t read that left wingpinko, anti-establishment version of events preferring more centrist sources like “Klansman’s Weekly.”
You’re really confused about who Ryan is, and you’re actually under the impression that the document I keep referring to from the People of the State of New York is a “brief for the defense”?
OK. I’ll bite.
Ryan’s identity may be established by reading the first and second paragraphs of the linked document:
The fact that this document, far from being a brief from the defense, is an official determination from the District Attorney’s office can be ascertained by reading the final paragraphs of the document:
[quote]
118. Assessing the newly discovered evidence, as we are required to, solely in light of the proof introduced at the earlier trials, we conclude that there is a probability that the new evidence, had it been available to the juries, would have resulted in verdicts more favorable to the defendants, not only on the charges arising from the attack on the female jogger, but on the other charges as well.
119. The final determination of this motion must, of course, be made by the Court. Should the Court, as requested by the parties, vacate the convictions, the People will move the Court to dismiss the indictments. Under all the circumstances, no purpose would be served by a retrial on any of the charges contained in the indictment.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated, the People consent to the relief requested and recommend that the Court vacate the defendants’ convictions in their entirety.
[quote]
Notice that it is signed “Nancy E. Ryan, Assistant District Attorney, Chief of the Trial Division.”
Yes, we NOW know the confessions were “bogus” ( or at least somewhat so)- but my point was that AT THAT POINT IN TIME- the DA had no reason to disbeleive the confessions, thus no reason to search for massive physical evidence.
As to the other crimes- all you have to do is read what their own attorney said about his choice of defense tactics- he had good solid evidence that at the time of the rape, they could not have been raping her as they were in another part of the park, beating the crap out of some other poor schnook. He choose not to use that alibi, as he thought that would prejudice the jury- and it would have at least for me. That’s what their own Lawyer says.
The evidence as presented simply shows that another sicko did rape her. Doesn’t prove they did not assualt her. But like I said- casts some doubts on exactly what happened- so let them out- commute their sentance to “time served”. But these dudes are not poster boys for innocence.
Scylla you honestly believe that the 5 assaulted her before Reyes? assaulted, grabbed, attacked, attempted rape, robbed, etc etc etc.
So, since Reyes accurately described what she was wearing, the fact that she had a walkman on, where she was, what direction she came from etc, you apparently must believe then that the 5 attacked her, and afterwards, she simply continued her run? with her clothing and belongings intact, of course. and so cool, calm and collected that she put her walkman back on, which made it impossible for her to hear the guy sneaking up behind her about to hit her w/a big stick.
Sorry. I kept on asking you to explain how the 5 could attack her after Reyes, 'cause I found the ‘attacked her before Reyes’ position to be on the face, ludicrous to the extreme.
as to maybe he was with the other 5, well, again as has been pointed out, that’s been checked. Nope. no connection. and of course, Reyes never before or after worked with an accomplice.
Do you have a cite for any of this?
If you read the whole thread, it is there- that’s where I got it from, you know.
Massive amounts, no. Any amounts, you bet. Keep in mind that the confessions during that time look just as inaccurate and sketchy as they do today. Nothing has really changed in that department. The juries, given the sensationalism and gruesomeness of the crime, probably paid more attention to the fact that there were confessions rather than considering how well those confessions matched up with reality. I don’t know what they were thinking, actually, but I’m not calling them idiots.
So if they lied about the rape (which is, BTW, a more serious charge than “beating the crap out of some other poor schnook”), then doesn’t that basically turn their credibility into guano? I don’t understand how you can say “okay, they must have lied about the rape due to <insert speculation here>, but they still could have assaulted her like they admitted to, even though that claim is also unverified by evidence.” The only evidence of guilt you have are these confessions, which you have to assume are rendered with honesty. As soon as you accept that a major part of it is dishonest, it seems like the smart thing to do would be to throw out all of it. Especially since that’s all have you have to go by. It’s kind of like a rotten apple spoiling the barrel full.
The only thing that “proves” they assaulted her was a confession saying that they did it. The same “proof” was used to “prove” they raped her as well. Now you can accept that the “proof” of the rape was wrong, but you still maintain that the “proof” of the assault is unafected and still perfectly good. Why? And do you apply that reasoning to rotten apples? 
No one here is claiming that they have angel wings and halos, but that has nothing to do with whether or not they were guilty in this case.
one essential concept - the SOD defense “Some other dude”. However, at the time of the original trial, the defense knew that evidence put these guys in the park, hasseling/hitting people. it stretched (at the time) the bounds of credulity that at the exact moment in time that these idiots were beating and doing shit, that there would be a serial rapist in the same area at the same time.
the defense attorneys knew it, and most assuradly the defendants knew it, too. They knew they’d been in the park, knew that they hadn’t even met up with this woman, knew that they had committed crimes against others at the same time and in the same place, and decided that the best that they could do is attempt to lay the blame on each other, claiming the others did most of the damage. It must have seemed like the only hope to avoid a hellacious sentence.
but as bad luck would have it, there was a serial rapist in the park at the same time.
what folks want us now to believe is that it’s credible to believe that both groups would independently find and assault the same victim.
But, one group had to find her first - Scylla believes that it was the large group, despite the facts that none of them knew what she was wearing, where she’d been when she was attacked, knew there was multiple crime scenes, were accurate about her injuries or how they were obtained, which direction she was running in etc. If their confessions are to be believed, several of them raped and beat her, left her, then she got up, got dressed again(she was found nearly nude, her clothing scattered about, but Reyes accurately described her clothing- unless of course, the 5 allowed her to remain clothed while raping her), put her walkman back on and continued her run from the point at which she’d been attacked. then had the bad luck to run into Reyes.
If however, you believe that Reyes got to her first, and he attacked her on the path, dragged her up the hill, started to rape her/raped her, she broke away from him, he felled her again, beat her unconscious, then left her nearly naked, bleeding and unconscious way off the beaten path; then this group of guys who were roaming the park looking to get into trouble and hassle people, would have had to leave the paths where the people were and traipse around happening to find where she was secreted then dry hump her nearly naked, bleeding body, while some how avoiding leaving any fluids or hairs on her, nor picking up any blood, fluids or hairs on themselves, then left the scene, all without making it clear that there was additional assailants at the scene.
You know, I really don’t think that some dudes here understand I agree with them- for the “big picture”. I agree that the NEW evidence now presented casts “reasonable doubt” on their conviction, thus they should be freed.
What I do not agree with is that there was some sort of Prosecutorial misconduct, or that the jury had no business convicting these guys in the first place. In ANY less-than-simple case like this there are always contradictions & such. The fact that their confessions did not completely match to the facts is normal- they very rarely do. Nor do we have all the evidence as presented to the jury- we have selected small bits & pieces.
Nor do I agree that the new evidence means that they were “innocent”- just that it introduces “reasonable doubt”. We’d have to have all of the evidence presented to us to try & determine their actual guilt- on any of a number of crimes, including those that they were not charged with- likely due to their confessions to the rape. (And maybe this is one reason why they confessed- they were enough real crimes they commited they were up shit creek no matter which way they turned). However, we don’t have to retry this, nor does the State- “reasonable doubt” has been introduced, thus they get to go free.
OK - I don’t recall suggesting that there was prosecutorial misconduct at the first trial (perhaps some over zealous police tactics, but given the high profile nature of the incident and the other incidents that night, I can understand why they’d not have thought “gee, I wonder if there were any other bad guys roaming around that night”); nor do I blame the original jury. I do suggest that it stretches the bounds of credulity to suggest that both the group and Reyes located and assaulted this same woman that night.
So, of that particular crime, I believe the group to have been innocent. Guilty of other crimes that night, more than likely.
(and while confessions don’t always ‘match’ the evidence, it’s much more likely that the one that closely matches but given 13 years later is more likely to be true than the ones given soon afterward, missing in large detail quite a bit. especially when you’re talking several perpatrators - they’d be likely to remember correctly events, but intentionally misidentify actors “it was Jamie that raped her, not me” for example, but be able to recollect clearly what type of weapon was used, whoever weilded it; what the victim was wearing etc.)