The reality is that it was always thought to be a gang attack with multiple participants. You’re not going to find DNA from all participants from such an attack, even if you find it from one.
In the original confessions, one of the accused claimed the guy who did the actual rape was “a Puerto Rican kid with a hoodie”, a description which fit Matias Reyes.
I agree. I think it’s probable that these kids were involved but that Reyes was the only (or primary) rapist. Inconclusive to be sure, but not scientific evidence of innocence either.
Not so, the term you are missing is commingled. And the issue here is that no other was found. BTW the perpetrator (who left the DNA) was not really pointed at by any of the ones that were allegedly there.
Straw grasped identified.
The point here is that besides giving details about the crime scene, Matias AFAIK did not point at any other of the 5.
No good evidence then to declare them guilty, and again the confession of Reyes plus the DNA pointed to more evidence that the original testimonies should be dismissed. (And there it went the Puerto Rican with a hoodie)
Well, but that’s not what I said. There was DNA evidence. That DNA evidence did not match any of those accused. It did match another person who was not accused.
If you have no physical evidence that someone committed a crime, as well as evidence that someone else DID commit the crime, I would say that that is pretty good evidence that the first party is innocent.
Glad that you find that defending Trump is a noble cause, especially when it involves condemning minorities in the same breath.
Is this what you are doing now? You have stated that my posts were silly and ignorant, for only the reason that you disagree with them. You did not ask for clarification, you did not help to dispel any ignorance that you detected. You just ambiguously claimed that my posts were ignorant, making me have to prompt you into explaining why that was.
When you finally did, it comes out that you were entirely wrong on my post, and that you only thought “it did come across” as though it was ignorant, when the case was, you were pedantically trying to find the least reasonable way to interpret it.
But would you expect to find DNA from any of the participants? As not a single one of those accused and convicted had their DNA found at the scene, that’s a bit convenient.
You are basically saying that, as it is possible to commit a crime without necessarily leaving evidence, that means you need no evidence to accuse and convict someone.
Which was the part that most fit the description, the fact that it was a Puerto Rican, or the fact that he wore a hoodie?
Is there only one Puerto Rican in NY that wears a hoodie?
I think it is possible that they were involved, just as it was possible that you were involved, and that bozo the clown was involved, as there is exactly as much physical evidence linking them to the crime as there is linking you to the crime.
Probable is a bit stronger, but, fortunately, we don’t lock people up on probable, but instead, we only deprive people of their liberty upon a jury finding guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That logic and the evidence tell us that it is more likely that the 5 were innocent. They may had been involved in the random violence of the day, but not with the rape.
You are the one who jumped into the thread to defend trump and attack other posters as being ignorant because they had the audacity to believe that people with no physical evidence against them should not be accused of crimes of which they were exonerated.
I suppose your point is that people should be publicly accused of crimes of which they have been exonerated. I see that as a bad idea personally.
What point are you trying to make with your defense of Trump’s statements?
As above, I personally think it’s more likely than not that they were involved with the rape. But reasonable minds can differ on that. I’m not here to argue against someone saying that it’s more likely they were not involved with the rape. What I am saying is that the assertion that “The evidence of their innocence is as close to reliable as science has to offer us at this time” is bogus. Make a note of it because I don’t intend to keep repeating it again and again for people who prefer to pretend I’m saying something else.
Only if one guy being guilty precludes the other guy from also being involved. If that’s not the case - e.g. here - then it’s not.
You have the sequence wrong here. But regardless, my earlier position stands. Your claim is that a lack of DNA evidence that someone was involved with a crime (now clarified to include evidence that someone else was involved), is strong evidence that the guy was not involved. This claim, which you seem to be doubling down on, is sillier and more ignorant than Donald Trump’s position in this case.
You’re confusing “evidence” with “DNA evidence”. You need the former; not necessarily the latter.
The PR part. Truth is I have no idea if he was even wearing a hoodie. But the fact that the accused shared that the actual rapist was a PR guy, and this turned out to be true, counts for something. Is it conclusive? Far from it. But it counts for something.
See above. Again, not all evidence is “physical evidence”.
I did not argue against anyone making such an assertion.
My position is that my posts are clearly correct and speak for themselves. I am well aware that there is a certain type of poster who would forcefully reject that, as you’re doing here. But that’s not the type of poster I’m looking to interact with anyway.
You’re basically saying that your opinion of the “evidence” is better than a court of laws opinion. Therefore, Trump’s deplorable comments are morally OK.
Well, I am not sure what science has to offer you to refute the DNA evidence, but I am going to stick with empirical evidence, rather than speculation.
This is true. But it is also true that it is a pretty sill assertion that since a person could be involved because it is possible that a person is involved, that that person must have been involved.
Can you prove that you were not there that night, raping and beating that woman? If not, then you are just as guilty as they are. I assume you can probably prove you were not in NY that night, unless you live there, so I am not necessarily accusing you, but I am, I suppose accusing every single person who was in NY on that night, as they all have pretty much the same evidence against them.
If believing in innocent until proven guilty is silly and ignorant, then sign me up. You are the one defending trump for his accusations. No matter how many times you insult me, I will continue to believe that it is not the case that one must prove that they did not commit a crime, and instead, there should be evidence that they actually did.
They had no physical evidence, the only evidence they had was the confessions. When they ran with they only piece of actually physical evidence they had, they found that it did not match.
So, if I basically kidnap you, lie to you about what your friends are saying about you, lie to you about what kind of evidence we have on you, and you finally sign a confession implicating others more than yourself to avoid life in prison or worse, would you consider that confession to be fair evidence against you? Would you consider that confession to be fair evidence, even when it comes out that your confession contradicts everyone else’s story? Would you still consider it to be fair evidence, even when contradicted by physical evidence?
I imagine that people of Puerto Rican descent are pretty common in new york. Does it count for something? Maybe. As one more piece of evidence against someone who already has compelling physical evidence against them, sure.
Putting it out there as a condemnation towards those who have no physical evidence linking to the crime, not so much.
No, not all evidence is physical, but all the physical evidence did not link them to the crime, in fact, it linked a different person to the crime.
The only evidence against them is their confessions, which, I have no reason to believe carried any element of truth to them.
I have asked you what reason you have to doubt their innocence, and your only reply is that they didn’t prove that they didn’t do it. That the physical evidence doesn’t rule them out.
Now, as that pretty much means that no one can be ruled out, I find this assertion to be problematic at best.
The DNA evidence that points to another culprit, coupled with the lack of DNA evidence from the folks who were accused, coupled with very little to support their guilt beyond circumstantial evidence and confessions, is indeed the closest science can get us to evidence of their innocence, short of something like the accused having been dead for a few months before the attack.
What more do you think forensic science can offer us as evidence of their innocence, in theory? Yes, I know I put the word “forensic” in there, and it wasn’t in the original. I think it was implied, but if your beef is that there are other sciences such as geology or something that could show they were innocent, it’d be interesting to hear your case.
Reasonable minds can conclude that the testimony of the confessed rapist: that matched the scene of the crime and did not implicate the 5, plus the DNA evidence, overrides the contradictory “confessions” of the 5 obtained with no lawyer present. They should be dismissed. As they eventually were.
Remember, just about the only thing keeping your train of thought on track was that one of those now dismissed confessions talked about a Puerto Rican with a hoodie.
There’s no law of nature that science has to be able to provide evidence of anyone’s innocence, so your question is logically flawed.
If the absence of DNA evidence is weak evidence of innocence - as it is, in this case - then the fact that “science” can’t do any more to prove their innocence is logically moot.
[DNA evidence can be used to prove innocence if there’s strong reason to believe that it should have been present had the accused been guilty, and DNA evidence pointing to someone else can be used to prove innocence if there’s strong reason to believe only one person was involved. But absent that, no.]
Ehhh, don’t feel too bad, that’s the sort of thing that happens when you defend trump. You find yourself in a corner, trying to defend the indefensible. Once you are against reason, logic, and fact, it is hard to maintain a defense.
This has nothing to do with your debating ability, only on your choice of subjects.
DNA gets sloughed off all the time. If there was no evidence of their DNA anywhere on her or at the scene, then they must have been ridiculously careful while they held her and beat her and everything else. Not a single bit of hair, skin, blood, saliva or semen was transferred from their bodies’ to hers during this struggle.
The fact that not a single one of them’s DNA showed up in any part of the investigation leads you (ETA:not necessarily you, but a reasonable, rational person) to wonder if they were ever there at all.
(Or is this another one of your “my posts are clearly correct and speak for themselves” posts)
Or are you accusing me of something there?
With what little is in that post and the convoluted way you are attempting to twist logic in order to defend trump’s statements, I could convict a whole city.
