When They See Us, "Central Park Five" miniseries

[Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker]

I haven’t seen the new doc, and I could be misrembering, but. . .

Despite the miscarriage of justice in the charge of “The Central Park Jogger,” I thought that these five–as well as a number of others not accused of the CPJ assault–had participated in . . . “assaulting” other people in the park that night (the ‘wilding’ thing). Am I mistaken on that?

If that’s the case–and, again, I haven’t seen it–if they’re showing how the prosecutors railroaded them on the CPJ case, that’s one thing. But if they’re trying to make them out to be choirboys, that would seem a little off.

[ZipperJJ]

They did show the large group of teens in the park, and some other assaults. I don’t think they showed any of the 5 participating in any of the assaults but they did show them being present. The series promoted that the one boy’s injuries were the result of running from the police.

[Poysyn]

@Omniscient

Or she’s got a huge financial stake in making herself look good and has a track record of lying.

The TV show may be fictionalized, but it’s also fact checked and most of the information is in the public record. If an objective source can point out any false portrayals in the show we can have that discussion.

I guess I would say that, despite her screams to the contrary, she did not launch a lawsuit for libel, even though she has certainly lost money with this movie - that to me is quite telling.

[lisiate]

Why has she lost money? Decent people might shun her but so what. Libel suits take time to file anyway.

[Poysyn]

@Poysyn

I guess I would say that, despite her screams to the contrary, she did not launch a lawsuit for libel, even though she has certainly lost money with this movie - that to me is quite telling.

I missed the edit window, I have to remember not to try and make too much sense when I have a headache.

I guess I would say that, despite her screaming about** misrepresentation and lies, **she did not launch a lawsuit for libel, even though she has certainly lost money with this movie - that to me is quite telling

[Acsenray]

@lisiate

Why has she lost money? Decent people might shun her but so what. Libel suits take time to file anyway.

Her publisher has dropped her, and so has her management company. Since her stint as a public prosecutor, she’s made a career as a crime fiction author.

[don_t_ask]

@Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker

I haven’t seen the new doc, and I could be misrembering, but. . .

Despite the miscarriage of justice in the charge of “The Central Park Jogger,” I thought that these five–as well as a number of others not accused of the CPJ assault–had participated in . . . “assaulting” other people in the park that night (the ‘wilding’ thing). Am I mistaken on that?

If that’s the case–and, again, I haven’t seen it–if they’re showing how the prosecutors railroaded them on the CPJ case, that’s one thing. But if they’re trying to make them out to be choirboys, that would seem a little off.

They were convicted of other assaults but, as in the case of the rape, there was no evidence against them other than their “confessions.” None of the victims identified any of the defendants. These convictions were vacated at the same time as the rape convictions for the same reasons.

There is a good article at https://www.thenation.com/article/linda-fairstein-central-park-five/ with a link to the 58-page motion to vacate the convictions.

[don_t_ask]

I should have added that the motion does contain the statement that:

In sum, there was no significant evidence at trial establishing the defendants’ involvement in the other crimes of which they stand convicted that would not have been substantially and fatally weakened by the newly discovered evidence in this matter. In the original investigation, a number of individuals identified one or more of the defendants Richardson, McCray, Santana, and Salaam in connection with the attack on John Loughlin, and statements also placed Wise at the scene of earlier incidents. In interviews in 2002,** both Richardson and Santana candidly acknowledged involvement in criminal incidents that occurred on April 19**, while steadfastly asserting their innocence of rape. But none of this additional evidence was before the trial juries. Accordingly, it cannot be considered in evaluating the newly discovered evidence claim.

So, although they shouldn’t have been convicted at the time, at least two were guilty of some crimes.