Trump voters explain themselves

[k9bfriender]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Can I select both options here?

Well, no. Because you claim your posts are clear. And you also just make implications, rather than actual accusations.

Those are two different things entirety.

Though, using the logic that you use to defend trump’s statements, I suppose you probably could find some sort of convoluted way to convince yourself that there is no disconnect between your statements and reality, but you would be unlikely to convince anyone else.

So, I will expand upon your post, as it is so clear and correct in its brevity that it contains no information.

You are accusing me of falling for the CSI effect, and you do so by linking to an 8 year old article that talks about how juries expect evidence to be better, “as seen on tv”, in fact.

Now, while it is true that you can’t have all of the physical evidence all of the time, it would behoove the prosecution to actually have some, or any at all, even. I am not asking for perfect evidence here, I am asking for any.

Do you really think that a prosecutor should just stand up in front of a jury, and extol them to convict a person with no physical evidence? If so, I don’t want to live in that world.

We are not even questioning the prosecution at the time, though that would be a whole different topic, we are questioning what we know now about the case. And what we know now certainly does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, and seems more likely to me, that they had nothing to do with it. As the best that commissions that were set up with the specific purpose of finding any type of physical evidence to tie them to the crime again after their confessions broke down and another person was implicated could come up with was that they thought it was likely that the teens were involved in the crime in some fashion, but even they do not feel that they were involved to the extent that they were convicted, I find their evidence lacking.

So even the armstrong report disagrees with trump.

Why do you keep defending the man?

The prosecution did not produce any physical evidence that tied the teens to the rape.

One of the interesting things about the age of the article is that in the meantime, our technology has actually gotten to the point where we can pretty much do what what juries were expecting us to be able to do years ago.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@k9bfriender

Well, no. Because you claim your posts are clear. And you also just make implications, rather than actual accusations.

Those are two different things entirety.

Clear to some people. Perhaps not to you, but that’s how it goes.

It was an implied accusation (that you were falling for the CSI Effect).

You are accusing me of falling for the CSI effect, and you do so by linking to an 8 year old article that talks about how juries expect evidence to be better, “as seen on tv”, in fact.

One of the interesting things about the age of the article is that in the meantime, our technology has actually gotten to the point where we can pretty much do what what juries were expecting us to be able to do years ago.

One of the interesting things about these posts is that you seem blithely unaware that the DNA work on this case was done long before the article was written.

Do you really think that a prosecutor should just stand up in front of a jury, and extol them to convict a person with no physical evidence?

Absolutely.

You could look it up.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

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.

Er…no. My question is based on the very statement that you’re objecting to. If you think the best that science can offer in this case is weak evidence, then that’s nevertheless what science offers in this case, so your objection is meritless.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Er…no. My question is based on the very statement that you’re objecting to. If you think the best that science can offer in this case is weak evidence, then that’s nevertheless what science offers in this case, so your objection is meritless.

Not so.

If the best science has to offer in this case is weak evidence, then it has little bearing on the case. In such cases it’s acceptable to put more weight on other sources of evidence which contradict the weak scientific evidence.

[k9bfriender]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Clear to some people. Perhaps not to you, but that’s how it goes.

It was an implied accusation (that you were falling for the CSI Effect).

Your implication was clear, but implications are by definition not clear language, but obfuscated intentionally.

If you wanted to be clear, you could have chosen words to that effect.

You also claimed that they were correct, and in this case, you are absolutely not.

One of the interesting things about these posts is that you seem blithely unaware that the DNA work on this case was done long before the article was written.

Nope. If you noticed, this paragraph was a seperate one than my point. Just pointing out that the article that you referenced was no longer relevant.

Though, you being the one to bring up that article in the first place makes me wonder if you knew when it was written when you did.

Absolutely.

You could look it up.

So, no witness, no evidence, no nothing. You just pick someone at random (not completely random, you find someone who you think is guilty) then, and accuse them in front of a jury, requiring them to prove the negative? I am not sure you understand the basic foundations of our legal system.

Usually there needs to be some sort of evidence. 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.

The confessions are the only evidence to go on, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that those confessions were forced and untrue. More evidence for that, in fact, than that the teens had anything to do with the rape.
In any case, at the end of the day, our legal system has said that these people are factually not-guilty, whatever either of our opinions are upon the matter (which happens to coincide with my opinion on the matter, so by that definition, your conclusions are wrong and ignorant). Also, whatever Trump’s opinion is on the matter is irrelevant to the factual findings of the law, and that is who you are staunchly defending.

[GIGObuster]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Absolutely.

You could look it up.

And that took place and it was found later that it was a miscarriage of justice in this case.

And this takes us back to the subject, Trump will ignore evidence that contradicts his gut feelings. Not a nice feature to have on a President.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@k9bfriender

Your implication was clear, but implications are by definition not clear language, but obfuscated intentionally.

If you wanted to be clear, you could have chosen words to that effect.

I’m at the point where I’m not wasting a lot time discussing things with you, so I’m being brief. But you acknowledge that the implication was clear. Good.

Nope. If you noticed, this paragraph was a seperate one than my point. Just pointing out that the article that you referenced was no longer relevant.

Though, you being the one to bring up that article in the first place makes me wonder if you knew when it was written when you did.

It was relevant to what I cited it for. Which was DNA work done in the 80s.

What’s irrelevant is your point about DNA having advanced past where it was in 2009.

So, no witness, no evidence, no nothing. You just pick someone at random (not completely random, you find someone who you think is guilty) then, and accuse them in front of a jury, requiring them to prove the negative? I am not sure you understand the basic foundations of our legal system.

You’re really having a hard time understanding things, aren’t you?

Usually there needs to be some sort of evidence. 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.

You’re exaggerating. Other witnesses identified them as having been part of the group attacking people in the park. Just not this particular attack. But not due to random proximity either. (Again, you’re clearly ignorant of the facts of this case.)

The confessions are the only evidence to go on, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that those confessions were forced and untrue.

Confessions are a pretty big deal. That’s not the same thing as no evidence. What’s the “plenty of evidence” that the confessions were forced? Do tell.

In any case, at the end of the day, our legal system has said that these people are factually not-guilty, whatever either of our opinions are upon the matter (which happens to coincide with my opinion on the matter, so by that definition, you’re conclusions are wrong and ignorant). Also, whatever Trump’s opinion is on the matter is irrelevant to the factual findings of the law, and that is who you are staunchly defending.

Your conclusions are wrong and ignorant of the facts.

The verdict needed to be thrown out because the Reyes confession exonerating them was a significant factor that may have changed the results of the earlier trial. By that time, they had served quite a bit of their sentences. There was never a legal finding that they were not guilty, let alone innocent.

[GIGObuster]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Confessions are a pretty big deal. That’s not the same thing as no evidence. What’s the “plenty of evidence” that the confessions were forced? Do tell.

Your conclusions are wrong and ignorant of the facts.

Not k9bfriender, but experts on the matter do tell:

http://thepsychreport.com/conversations/coerced-to-confess-the-psychology-of-false-confessions/

Years ago, my colleague (Larry Wrightsman) and I identified two types of false confessions that come from police interrogation. One we called coerced-compliant false confessions. These are cases, like the Central Park jogger case, where innocent people, who know they are innocent become so stressed, so broken down, and so confused as to what their best means of escape is that they confess fully knowing they’re innocent. In these cases they typically recant the confession almost immediately as soon as the pressure of the situation is lifted. The other type of confession is what we called coerced-internalized false confessions, and these are the cases where individuals actually come to believe in their own guilt as a function of the lies and their own suggestibility.

The Central Park jogger case involves clearly coerced-compliant false confessions. That was a case in which five kids, 14, 15, and 16 years old, each of them [was] lead to believe that he would get to go home if he confessed. Each one calculated–given that they had been there from 14-30 hours of interrogation under tremendous pressure–that it was in his own best interest to cooperate.

Interestingly none of them actually confessed to raping the jogger. Each one implicated the four others and each one stated that he himself played a minimal role. So collectively there were five confessions, but in fact each defendant pointed a finger at the others.

[HeweyLogan]

@elucidator

Suppose you are the guy in some foreign country who makes the decision. Russia, China, Iran, doesn’t matter, pick one. And a high tension situation between your country and the US emerges. The kind of situation where one fuck-up on either side and the results are counted in megadeath. Ans you’re looking for the first steps in the tip-toe dance of de-escalating.

Would you rather have Trump on the other end of the phone, or Hillary?

Trump.

[QuickSilver]

@HeweyLogan

Trump.

BOOM!

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@GIGObuster

Not k9bfriender, but experts on the matter do tell:

http://thepsychreport.com/conversations/coerced-to-confess-the-psychology-of-false-confessions/

The article doesn’t present any evidence that the confessions were coerced. The article assumes that the confessions must have been coerced because it assumes that the defendants were innocent. Proceeding from that premise, the focus of the article is on explaining how such false confessions might have come about.

[GIGObuster]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The article doesn’t present any evidence that the confessions were coerced. The article assumes that the confessions must have been coerced because it assumes that the defendants were innocent. Proceeding from that premise, the focus of the article is on explaining how such false confessions might have come about.

Nope, you are willfully ignoring the bit about the many hours the accused were interrogated with no lawyers present.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Being interrogated many hours without lawyers is not coercion.

[Lobohan]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Being interrogated many hours without lawyers is not coercion.

Not necessarily. However, it can be.

[GIGObuster]

SK: It’s virtually impossible for judges and juries to see past confessions whether they’re true or false. You’re absolutely right about the Central Park jogger case. Most people don’t realize, as a matter of history, that these five kids were coerced into confession in the spring of 1989 within 72 hours of the crime. That summer, before they went to trial, the DNA results came back from the FBI lab. There were three sets of semen samples picked up from the victim and the crime scene. All three samples were linked to a single person, and that person was not any of the five. The prosecutors knew that at the time and had to make a decision. The decision they made was, despite the DNA, they could still get [convictions] on the theory that just because we didn’t get all of them, doesn’t mean we didn’t get some of them.

When you stop to think about that theory, it implied that each of the five boys was for some reason protecting some unknown, unnamed sixth individual. Despite all the pressure the boys were under, implicating themselves, implicating their friends, somehow all of them protected somebody else. So that fact, that the DNA was available, contradicted their confession. Since the now-known-by-DNA rapist did not appear in any of their stories, it means that their confessions were false as a factual matter.

That was known to the judge when he ruled the confessions voluntary at a pretrial hearing. It was known to the two juries that later convicted the boys. But as the jurors later said afterwards, ‘they confessed.’ And if you think the odds of a single false confession are unlikely, what are the odds of five false confessions in a single case. Nobody could fathom the possibility that five boys gave false confessions.

Besides the facts logically telling us that the confessions were not valid, logic also tell us that the threats from the police, the long hours of interrogation and the gross inexperience of the teens conspired to get us the injustice we got.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Lobohan

Not necessarily. However, it can be.

Even if so, that’s not evidence that the confessions were coerced in this particular case.

And it’s perhaps worth noting that while the article says the interrogations last so-and-so many hours, it does not claim that the confessions were extracted only at the end of that many hours. It’s my understanding that interrogators continue to probe as to details and other defendants etc. after the initial confession, and don’t just shut down once they have the confession.

[Note the article does mention that the notion that the confessions were coerced was raised at their trial and the judge ruled that they were not. The poster who made the claim that the confessions were coerced is the same guy who made a big deal about what (he thought) “our legal system has said”. So he has presumably withdrawn his position on this matter by now. :)]

[GIGObuster]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Even if so, that’s not evidence that the confessions were coerced in this particular case.

And it’s perhaps worth noting that while the article says the interrogations last so-and-so many hours, it does not claim that the confessions were extracted only at the end of that many hours. It’s my understanding that interrogators continue to probe as to details and other defendants etc. after the initial confession and don’t just shut down once they have the confession.

[Note the article does mention that the notion that the confessions were coerced was raised at their trial and the judge ruled that they were not. The poster who made the claim that the confessions were coerced is the same guy who made a big deal about what (he thought) “our legal system has said”. So he has presumably withdrawn his position on this matter by now. :)]

Piffle, logic also tell us that since the evidence did back them up on the most important issue, that then their testimony telling us that they were coerced has more validity now. And the courts and the authorities did agree also.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/when-mass-hysteria-convicted-5-teenagers.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

Never mind the absence of physical evidence, or the timeline analysis suggesting that the group was probably elsewhere in the park when the attack on the jogger took place. Or confessions described in the district attorney’s investigation as differing “from one another on the specific details of virtually every major aspect of the crime — who initiated the attack, who knocked the victim down, who undressed her, who struck her, who held her, who raped her, what weapons were used in the course of the assault and when in the sequence of events the attack took place.”

The old interrogation footage of the frightened teenagers who confessed, shown in “The Central Park Five,” stands in sharp contrast to the “wolves” that were put forward to us in 1989. We see a baby-faced 14-year-old Raymond Santana mumbling out a confession, which he now says he made up in an attempt to satisfy the police, who he claimed promised to let him go home if only he provided a story. We see the special-education student, Kharey Wise, who was 16 but whose mental abilities were younger than his years. He is overwhelmed when shown a picture of the victim’s injuries and almost swooning with gratitude when someone hands him a can of soda.

By the time the videotaped confessions were taken, the defendants, their lawyers say, had endured lengthy interrogations and been subjected to coercive and deceptive interrogation techniques, including force and trickery, sleep deprivation and isolation from their families. The complaint further asserts that the boys were told that they could go home if they provided statements placing themselves at the scene and incriminating others.

[k9bfriender]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I’m at the point where I’m not wasting a lot time discussing things with you, so I’m being brief. But you acknowledge that the implication was clear. Good.

It was relevant to what I cited it for. Which was DNA work done in the 80s.

What’s irrelevant is your point about DNA having advanced past where it was in 2009.

You’re really having a hard time understanding things, aren’t you?

Quite the contrary. I have no difficulty at all. I apologize if I am not as clear to you as I would like to be, but I am making an effort to be clear, and avoid ambiguities, implications, or the other tools of debate that serve to distract and obfuscate.

Your posts are very ambiguous, and trying to interpret your posts in the most generous fashion is taxing, both because it is obvious that the most generous interpretation is not your intended one, and as you certainly do not return the favor.

Every time you have leveled one of your implications that I was the one who was ignorant, it turned out, once your implication was made clear, that you were entirely wrong, both about my understanding, and about your own.

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.

You’re exaggerating. Other witnesses identified them as having been part of the group attacking people in the park. Just not this particular attack. But not due to random proximity either. (Again, you’re clearly ignorant of the facts of this case.)

It would behoove you to learn of what you speak before accusing others of ignorance.

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!)

Confessions are a pretty big deal. That’s not the same thing as no evidence. What’s the “plenty of evidence” that the confessions were forced? Do tell.

Gigo linked to a better explanation than I feel like typing out, but if you have any objections to that, please let me know. I would be happy to address them, as I agree with it, and am willing to defend it on its merits.

Your conclusions are wrong and ignorant of the facts.

The verdict needed to be thrown out because the Reyes confession exonerating them was a significant factor that may have changed the results of the earlier trial. By that time, they had served quite a bit of their sentences. There was never a legal finding that they were not guilty, let alone innocent.

It seems as though I am ignorant of something then. I always assumed that if someone was not found guilty by a court, then that means that they are legally not guilty, and as innocence is presumed until guilt is determined, then someone who has not been found guilty by a court of law would be innocent. Is it different because the court threw out a verdict, does this make a new class of person somewhere between guilty and innocent?

I could google around a bit to try to find out the legal system as you describe, but if you could explain it to me, to fight my ignorance, what exactly are they, from a legal perspective?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@GIGObuster

Piffle, logic also tell us that since the evidence did back them up on the most important issue, that then their testimony telling us that they were coerced has more validity now. And the courts and the authorities did agree also.

I don’t know what this is about - I’ve already noted that the court ruled that the confessions were not coerced.

Worth reading this article in The Daily Beast, for a lot of reasons, including some discussions of the confessions.

The judge was dismissive of claims of coercion because the defendants, once reunited after their confessions, laughed and joked, comparing versions of the stories they told. They sang songs—including, infamously, Wild Thing—and catcalled at a female detective.

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? 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.

[GIGObuster]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t know what this is about - I’ve already noted that the court ruled that the confessions were not coerced.

The report I cited points out that it was the wrong conclusion as the DNA results were known also then

That was known to the judge when he ruled the confessions voluntary at a pretrial hearing.

So the court ruling deserves less support as the evidence and testimonies showed later.

Bottom line, if you were correct then the previous verdict would not had been ever dismissed. It is like if you are demanding that we should unboil an egg.