# Trump voters explain themselves **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 4, 2017, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307 "2017-01-04T13:50:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/263 "2017-01-12T15:48:58Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I asked for any new evidence, you threw out the armstrong report, as if that was new evidence that I was unaware of. If you had bothered to read your own cite, you would have found that it contained nothing of your claims of new evidence, and its conclusions even disagreed with your own. I never said the Armstrong Report contained “new” evidence. You asked what new evidence I had, which implied that the guilt could not be based on the old evidence, and I disputed that premise (post #209). I subsequently introduced the Armstrong Report as a summary of the evidence supporting guilt. > [@](#): > > Like I said, caught up in a canvass.(To be fair, I did in fact spell it last time as canvass, rather than canvas, so if that is the point you are making, then I apologize, you are right, I was momentarily ignorant on spelling.) It sounds like you ignorantly thought that a canvas was just cops looking around for people to arrest, when it actually is when they go around asking witnesses in the area. (Hey, you learned something!) You’re conveniently leaving out part of what you said. I’ll quote it for you, adding some helpful emphasis. You said: “_In this case, there was no witness to identify the attackers, no physical evidence linking them to the crime, and the only circumstantial evidence is that **they were near enough to the crime** that they were picked up in a canvass_” My response - that they were identified by witnesses as part of a group of attackers that night - was appropriately directed. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/264 "2017-01-12T15:52:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The report I cited points out that it was the wrong conclusion as the DNA results were known also then > > So the court ruling deserves less support as the evidence and testimonies showed later. The only logical connection between the confessions and the DNA is that to the extent that the DNA proves innocence, then the confessions had to have been false. But that’s not as to the confessions themselves. > [@](#): > > Bottom line, if you were correct then the previous verdict would not had been ever dismissed. As I said, the Reyes confession cast significant doubt on the earlier verdict. That’s not the same thing as saying it showed conclusively that it was incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/265 "2017-01-12T15:56:14Z")
> [@](#): > > As for cases of multiple, parentally supervised, false confessions, it’s harder to say. Family members were present for the questioning of three of the five, and they were there for the video recordings. When a teenager is asked about a rape in front of his mother, is he more or less likely to deny it? And when several admit to rape, sitting beside their mothers, sisters, grandmothers, fathers and stepfathers, what do we make of that? Conclude that the parents were also fearful, I have seen many videos were the police just ignore other relatives or case workers, even when they are trying to prevent the police from shooting a relative. > [@](#): > > On video, Raymond Santana was smug, boastful, and nonchalant by turns, vividly reenacting who did what during the rape. Antron McCray was with his mother for most of his interrogation, his stepfather for all of it. He signed a written confession after an hour and 45 minutes. Even defense counsel would have to acknowledge that there isn’t an abundance of comparable cases in the available literature. And in the end that testimony, like the others, was contradicted by the confession of the actual rapist. No, I already did see that opinion piece from the Daily Beast, not really worthy of consideration after what was found later. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/266 "2017-01-12T15:59:03Z")
This thread seems to have gone off the rails a bit. And yet I’m no closer to understanding why Trump voters tolerate behavior in Trump that they consider unforgivable in Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/267 "2017-01-12T16:00:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The only logical connection between the confessions and the DNA is that to the extent that the DNA proves innocence, then the confessions had to have been false. But that’s not as to the confessions themselves. Again that illogical position is only possible by ignoring the testimony of the actual rapist and the testimony of the accused before their “confessions”. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As I said, the Reyes confession cast significant doubt on the earlier verdict. That’s not the same thing as saying it showed conclusively that it was incorrect. [Checks the current status of the Central Park 5] Yep, still free. Yep, the authorities still agree that the earlier verdict was incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/268 "2017-01-12T16:04:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And in the end that testimony, like the others, was contradicted by the confession of the actual rapist. No, I already did see that opinion piece from the Daily Beast, not really worthy of consideration after what was found later. Reyes is not exactly the most credible witness himself, considering his history of violence , the fact that “a defense psychiatrist concluded that Reyes was not capable of telling the truth”, and that his own confession had errors as well. (Plus the testimony that he had been threatened by one of the defendants - a member of the Bloods gang.) ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/269 "2017-01-12T16:08:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [Checks the current status of the Central Park 5] > > Yep, still free. > > Yep, the authorities still agree that the earlier verdict was incorrect. Sounds like you’re unfamiliar with the concept of “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/270 "2017-01-12T16:08:48Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > This thread seems to have gone off the rails a bit. > > And yet I’m no closer to understanding why Trump voters tolerate behavior in Trump that they consider unforgivable in Clinton. As this example shows, the very reprehensible behavior of Trump regarding the Central Park 5 was/is a very good example of how Trump will behave as president. He will be a president that will continue to dig deeper when stuck on a hole. [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/why-trump-doubled-down-on-the-central-park-five.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/why-trump-doubled-down-on-the-central-park-five.html) > [@](#): > > Donald J. Trump rarely apologizes. When it comes to the case of the Central Park Five, he has never even come close. > > In 1989, after these black and Latino teenagers from Harlem were accused of assaulting and raping a white woman in Central Park, Mr. Trump spent $85,000 placing full-page ads in the four daily papers in New York City, calling for the return of the death penalty. > > “Muggers and murderers,” he wrote, “should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.” Though he didn’t refer to the teenagers by name, it was clear to anyone in the city that he was referring to them. > > Incredibly, 14 years after their sentences were vacated based on DNA evidence and the detailed and accurate confession of a serial rapist named Matias Reyes, Mr. Trump has doubled down. > > “They admitted they were guilty,” he said in a statement to CNN this month. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous.” > Continue reading the main story > > Mr. Trump is apparently ignorant of our country’s epidemic of wrongful convictions, which disproportionately affect minorities, and the prevalence of false confessions in those convictions. The reason why this already settled issue is still coming up is because of Trump and bigoted sources of information in the internet that keep repeating the opinion of people that will never admit that they were wrong. > [@](#): > > Online, the case against the Central Park Five has become a meme about liberal disregard for law and order, or as the conservative columnist Ann Coulter argued, “liberals are opposed to rape in the abstract, but when it comes to actual rapists, they’re all for them.” > > Why the continued belief in the guilt of the Central Park Five, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Race and racism surely play their role. So does the cognitive trap that psychologists call anchoring and what we call first impressions: Mr. Trump quickly jumped to conclusions about their guilt, as did many in New York City. > > And, as Mr. Trump pointed out, four of the five teenagers did confess to being at the scene of the rape. But false confessions are surprisingly common in criminal cases. In the hundreds of post-conviction DNA exonerations that the Innocence Project has studied, at least one in four of the wrongly convicted had given a confession. > > In the case of the Central Park attack, the confessions were the only real evidence. DNA testing, a nascent technology in 1989, was used to compare a single sample found on the victim with the profiles of not only the Central Park Five, but also of many of the other kids they had been with in the park. There were no matches. The victim, when she awoke from a coma, had no memory of the attack. > > That left only the statements from four of the teenagers: Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Korey Wise and Antron McCray. The fifth, Yusef Salaam, might have confessed, but his mother interrupted the interrogation before he signed anything. A detective was nonetheless allowed to testify that Mr. Salaam had admitted to participating, though he’d given no formal statement. > > From the relative comfort of the jury box or Trump Tower, it may be hard to imagine why anyone would admit to a crime he didn’t commit. The power imbalance in an interrogation room is extreme, especially when the suspects are young teenagers, afraid of the police and unfamiliar with the justice system or their rights. > > The teenagers faced hours of intense interrogations with no lawyers present and often with no parent or guardian, even though they were just 14, 15 and 16 years old. They were denied food, drink and sleep over many hours. And they were terrified. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/271 "2017-01-12T16:12:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I never said the Armstrong Report contained “new” evidence. You asked what new evidence I had, which implied that the guilt could not be based on the old evidence, and I disputed that premise (post #209). I subsequently introduced the Armstrong Report as a summary of the evidence supporting guilt. Yes, and this after I asked if you had any new evidence of their guilt. You did not say that you did not have new evidence, but that you had a report from a panel of lawyers that made conclusions that had no legal bearing, and also happened to disagree with your own assertions. In fact, you didn’t say anything like that at all, instead just pointing to the armstrong report as if it were an actual finding of a court, or new evidence or something. All it is is a summary of the “evidence” that was known at the time, all of which has been called into question by subsequent events. When I asked for new evidence, I was asking for anything that still stood up. So, to make it easy for you, I will answer my question for you, as your evasiveness could make it a dozen posts or more before you finally admit that no, there is no new evidence to support their guilt. > [@](#): > > You’re conveniently leaving out part of what you said. I’ll quote it for you, adding some helpful emphasis. You said: > > “_In this case, there was no witness to identify the attackers, no physical evidence linking them to the crime, and the only circumstantial evidence is that **they were near enough to the crime** that they were picked up in a canvass_” > > My response - that they were identified by witnesses as part of a group of attackers that night - was appropriately directed. Oh, I missed that part. I was not aware that they were identified as having been the rapists by other witnesses. Apologies on my ignorance. Errr, wait, no, on looking back on it, I see that they were only identified as having been in the area, (and up to some activities that should be sanctioned, to be sure) not participating in the rape. So, help me with my ignorance, who was the witness that ID’d the teens as the rapists? I am having alot of trouble finding that, but it must be, otherwise, you are once again, wrong; this time in your implication that there were witnesses to identify them as the rapists. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/272 "2017-01-12T16:12:57Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Reyes is not exactly the most credible witness himself, considering his history of violence , the fact that “a defense psychiatrist concluded that Reyes was not capable of telling the truth”, and that his own confession had errors as well. (Plus the testimony that he had been threatened by one of the defendants - a member of the Bloods gang.) His detailed description of the scene of the crime (that matched more what the police found) showed that you are wrong on that item also. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/273 "2017-01-12T17:44:12Z")
Do we actually _have_ a Thread Hi-Jack Hall of Fame? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/274 "2017-01-12T17:53:44Z")
**k9bfriender** , Unfortunately there seems to be no limit to the amount of BS you can attribute to me and insert into my words, and frankly it gets tedious. I am going to address your distortions for the last time. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > Yes, and this after I asked if you had any new evidence of their guilt. You did not say that you did not have new evidence, but that you had a report from a panel of lawyers that made conclusions that had no legal bearing, and also happened to disagree with your own assertions. > > In fact, you didn’t say anything like that at all, instead just pointing to the armstrong report as if it were an actual finding of a court, or new evidence or something. All it is is a summary of the “evidence” that was known at the time, all of which has been called into question by subsequent events. When I asked for new evidence, I was asking for anything that still stood up. > > So, to make it easy for you, I will answer my question for you, as your evasiveness could make it a dozen posts or more before you finally admit that no, there is no new evidence to support their guilt. Again. I never claimed there was new evidence. I did not introduce the Armstrong report under the guise of it’s being new evidence. I did not “finally admit” that there was no new evidence because that has never been my claim. I disputed the need for “new” evidence, because the “old” evidence has not been completely refuted, and still suffices to cast considerable doubt on claims that these defendants were innocent. This is shown in the Armstrong report. > [@](#): > > Oh, I missed that part. I was not aware that they were identified as having been the rapists by other witnesses. Apologies on my ignorance. > > Errr, wait, no, on looking back on it, I see that they were only identified as having been in the area, (and up to some activities that should be sanctioned, to be sure) not participating in the rape. > > So, help me with my ignorance, who was the witness that ID’d the teens as the rapists? I am having alot of trouble finding that, but it must be, otherwise, you are once again, wrong; this time in your implication that there were witnesses to identify them as the rapists. Not only did I not claim that there were witnesses who identified them as the rapists but I explicitly said that there were not witnesses who identified them as the rapists. It’s hard to imagine how you could have missed it (in the unlikely event that you really did). What I said was that there were witnesses who identified them attacking other people in the same general area on that same day. The notion that people who were engaged in gang attacks on people in the same park on that same evening might also be guilty of this particular attack is considerably more than being “near enough to the crime”. Which is why I said you “exaggerated” when you depicted it that way. Your attempt to pretend that I claimed or implied that there were other witnesses to them raping this woman is on par with your approach in this thread. No doubt you will bounce back with more jive. But I don’t have all day for this, so I think I’m done with you. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > His detailed description of the scene of the crime (that matched more what the police found) showed that you are wrong on that item also. You are confused. There is no doubt that Reyes was guilty of the crime to which he confessed. That’s not in question. The question is about his absolving of the others, about which there is much more doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/275 "2017-01-12T18:07:27Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There is no doubt that Reyes was guilty of the crime to which he confessed. That’s not in question. The question is about his absolving of the others, about which there is much more doubt. It’s rather evident that you doubt it much more than those who have heard all the evidence and ruled on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/276 "2017-01-12T18:08:40Z")
You too seem unfamiliar with the concept of “beyond reasonable doubt”. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/277 "2017-01-12T18:11:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You too seem unfamiliar with the concept of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Well, I understand the difference between “_guilty_ beyond reasonable doubt” and “_innocent_ beyond reasonable doubt”. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/278 "2017-01-12T18:24:00Z")
Well I guess that’s a start. But you really need to understand what “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” means before trying to claim that the court vacating the convictions proves that the court (or legal system) believed were innocent. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/279 "2017-01-12T18:33:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Well I guess that’s a start. > > But you really need to understand what “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” means before trying to claim that the court vacating the convictions proves that the court (or legal system) believed were innocent. No, I don’t(although I do understand). I just need to understand that they were under no obligation to convince _you_ of jack shit. BTW, one shouldn’t bitch about others putting words in one’s mouth when one does the same to others. I never made the claim you attribute to me. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/280 "2017-01-12T18:34:58Z")
So explain the meaning of post #273 if that’s not your claim. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/281 "2017-01-12T18:38:34Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > So explain the meaning of post #273 if that’s not your claim. I don’t think that simple sentence requires a reinterpretation, so unless others find it difficult to understand, I’ll pass. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307/282 "2017-01-12T19:08:04Z")
That’s your prerogative, of course. But meanwhile, I stand by my interpretation of your remarks and don’t see a possible alternative. Your statement was that “_It’s rather evident that you doubt it [i.e. Reyes’ testimony absolving the others - F-P] much more than those who have heard all the evidence and ruled on the matter._” To the extent that “those who have heard all the evidence and ruled on the matter” were using “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” as their yardstick, then there’s nothing evident in their ruling other than that they thought there was a good chance that the earlier trial would have ruled that the sum of the evidence failed to meet that standard. This would be true even if there remained a lot of doubt as to the validity of the Reyes testimony. Therefore, the only way to conclude that those who ruled on the matter did not believe there was doubt as to the validity of the Reyes testimony - in contradiction to what I said - is to be ignorant of the “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” standard. Thus one might conclude that the vacating of the sentence would only be done if there was no doubt as to the validity of the testimony, and in contradiction to what I posted. I interpreted your remarks along these lines, and continue to believe this to be the correct interpretation. And FTR, while I’m sure you’re in general aware of the concept of “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”, I believe you got lost in the logic here and did not appreciate how this played out WRT this particular argument. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-voters-explain-themselves/776307.md?page=15)