Comment by ummonk
4 years ago
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]"
That quote about "nothing but his uncorroborated word" regarding Reyes acting alone isn't the established truth, despite Armstrong Report saying it, wikipedia listed it just to demonstrate the opinion that Armstrong Report held.
Check these two quotes from the same wikipedia page[0]:
>In addition, his [Reyes's] DNA matched the DNA evidence at the scene, confirming that he was the sole source of the semen found in and on the victim "to a factor of one in 6,000,000,000 people".
>DNA analysis of the strands of hair found on the clothing of two of the defendants, conducted with advanced technology not available at the time of their trial, established that the hair did not belong to the victim, despite what the prosecution had testified to at trial
The second one circumstantially supports that the defendants weren't involved, but the first one pretty much proves that the defendants weren't at the scene. Unless you want to claim that the defendants fully sanitized the victim after they assaulted her, leaving no traces of their DNA on or inside of her. I haven't heard that being claimed anywhere on the wikipedia page though.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case#Assai...
Are you aware the Armstrong Report that you cite was written by the government?
In any case, prosecutors were well aware the defendants were innocent. Once they saw the crime scene it was apparent that there was just one assailant.
However, they had a big problem. How could they find the actual rapist? They had five innocent defendants in custody and it would embarrassing to everyone to just let them out. So, prosecutors framed them for the rape.