← Back to context

Comment by DaveExeter

4 years ago

> The court -- rightly -- sets a very high bar to conviction, and police and prosecutors often won't even attempt it unless the evidence is overwhelming.

Huh? Have you ever heard of the Central Park Five? Google "Central Park Five" and you'll have a more enlightened view!

The Central Park five voluntarily confessed and were almost certainly guilty. The only issue was that there was a sixth perpetrator who had raped the victim after and wasn’t caught at the time.

  • If you did a little research you will find they got paid $41,000,000 by the City of New York!

    You think the City just handed over tens of millions of dollars because settling would be cheaper then going to trial?

    • The criteria for such a civil suit is whether the defendants' civil rights were violated, not whether the defendants are guilty.

      And cities often settle lawsuits regardless of guilt to avoid the costs of going to trial as well as the risks of public backlash. Notably in this specific case, the decision to settle was a political decision after DeBlasio was elected mayor.

      1 reply →

  • "Almost certainly guilty," huh? Citations please? Are you talking about a DIFFERENT "Central Park Five" than the ones who were exonerated? Or are you just ironically quoting Trump? Do you agree with him that hate is what we need if we're gonna get something done?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case

    >From the outset the case was a topic of national interest, with the commentary on social issues evolving as the details emerged. Initially, the case led to public discourse about New York City's perceived lawlessness, criminal behavior by youths, and violence toward women. After the exonerations, it became a high-profile example of racial profiling, discrimination, and inequality in the media and legal system. All five defendants subsequently sued the City of New York for malicious prosecution, racial discrimination and emotional distress; the City settled the suit in 2014 for $41 million.

    https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-central-park-five/convictio...

    >On December 19, 2002, Justice Charles J. Tejada of the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a motion to vacate the thirteen-year-old convections in the infamous case. He did so based on new evidence: a shocking confession from a serial rapist, Matias Reyes, and a positive DNA match to back it up. A year later, the men filed civil lawsuits against the City of New York, and the police officers and prosecutors who had worked toward their conviction. In 2014, they settled that civil case for $41 million dollars. Despite their exoneration, the police and prosecutors involved in the case maintain that they were guilty of the crime.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-48609693

    >Five black and Hispanic boys, aged between 14 and 16, would be found guilty and jailed for the crime.

    >They became known as the Central Park Five.

    >But they never committed the crime.

    [...]

    >The role of Donald Trump

    >New York in the 80s and 90s was much more dangerous than it is today.

    >Race relations were strained - especially when it came to the police.

    >Meanwhile, Donald Trump - then a New York property mogul - seemed convinced the teens were guilty.

    >He spent a reported $85,000 (around £138,000 today) on four full-page adverts in New York newspapers titled: "Bring Back The Death Penalty, Bring Back Our Police!".

    >He wrote: "I want to hate these murderers and I always will. I am not looking to psychoanalyse or understand them, I am looking to punish them."

    >In an interview with CNN at the time, he said: "Maybe hate is what we need if we're gonna get something done."

    • Good that you linked the Wikipedia article. It has a good description of the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case#Armst...

      "In its January 2003 Armstrong Report, the panel "did not dispute the legal necessity of setting aside the convictions of the five defendants based on the new DNA evidence that Mr. Reyes had raped the jogger."[103] But it disputed acceptance of Reyes's claim that he alone had raped the jogger.[103][104] It said there was "nothing but his uncorroborated word" that he acted alone.[103] Armstrong said the panel believed "the word of a serial rapist killer is not something to be heavily relied upon."[103]

      The report concluded that the five men whose convictions had been vacated had "most likely" participated in the beating and rape of the jogger and that the "most likely scenario" was that "both the defendants and Reyes assaulted her, perhaps successively."[103] The report said Reyes had most likely "either joined in the attack as it was ending or waited until the defendants had moved on to their next victims before descending upon her himself, raping her and inflicting upon her the brutal injuries that almost caused her death."[103]"

      2 replies →