• Blog Entries

    • By TK in ES Coverage
         0
      In today's Divisional Debacle, the Defense under Greg Manusky in the first half, gave up 207 yards of offense (105 rushing/102 passing) and two touchdowns.  That said, they did manage a single INT on which the Offense actually managed to score a touchdown off of. They allowed 12 of 16 passes to be completed . 
       
      In the second half it was 107 yards given up (58 rushing//49 passing) a field goal and a touchdown. They traded their first half pick for a second half sack. However, Dallas completed all five of their pass attempts. 
       
      Don't read that thinking "Well it seems like they tightened up some in the 2nd half."  They didn't. They simply had about half the plays in the second half. 30 plays in the First and 18 in the Second.
       
      So far in two Divisional matchups, the Defense has faltered in the Second half. They start out like a house of fire for the first few drives until their opponents gradually make adjustments. This Defensive coaching staff fails make any adjustments, whether in game or at the very least at Halftime. They've given up over 30 points per game for a total of 63 points given up in two games. While the Bears are up next, the Pats await and they've put up over 70 points in two games. Yeah. Ok. They did shut out the Dolphins today which is looking like the NFL version of ... ahem... shooting fish in a barrel. 
       
      The frustrating thing is Manusky is the DC that the Front Office actively looked to replace during the off season without firing him. When you know they're looking to replace you, most people would make a concentrated effort to show an improvement. Yet Manusky's Defense still keeps acting like it's starring in Groundhog Day.
       
      In his post game presser, when asked directly about if any coaching changes would be made, Gruden said "No, I think after two games – you’re talking about playing two very good offensive football teams and two of the best offensive lines in pro football we just played back-to-back. That’s no excuse whatsoever, but I don’t think we need to hit the panic button yet. We just have to continue to focus on what we can do better to win. Get Jonathan [Allen] in here, get a couple of our corners back in here and let’s go back and strap it up against Chicago [Bears] next week and see what happens.” 
       
      Here's another frustrating thing. The defensive communication was an issue last season as well. Wasn't this supposed to have been worked on during OTA's and Training Camp? It's understandable that the rookies would still be on a learning curve, but NFL vets like Collins and DRC you'd think they would have down by the start of the season. 
       
      Gruden said they're a very talented group on Defense but that they weren't reaching them. When questioned as to why the coaching staff that has been in place for several years, wasn't reaching them, he defended the comment as them being a young defense. “We have some moving parts now. Landon Collins is a veteran guy but this is his first year, [Montez] Sweat’s in his first year, [Cole] Holcomb, it’s his first year, [Jon] Bostic is in his first year. We’re playing Dominique [Rodgers-Cromartie] at corner and this is Jimmy Moreland’s first year, so it’s not like we are the most experienced group. We feel like were very talented, but we`re still fighting through somethings. There are a lot of things to look forward to, without a doubt, but we do have to play better and strap it up and get back to work."

       
       
       
Sign in to follow this  
BenningRoadSkin

"When They See Us" Miniseries on Netflix about Central Park 5

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

She is an evil sociopath. 

 

Cartoon level evil 

10 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

the series is not race baiting, its more of a race hammer which is the whole damn point. in the not so distant past, those 5 kids had their rights pissed on every step of the way because of preconceived notions

 

The funny thing is she won’t watch the series either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

She is an evil sociopath. 

 

Cartoon level evil 

 

Who?  I can't read the article linked without subscribing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Who?  I can't read the article linked without subscribing.

 

Linda Farstein

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Who?  I can't read the article linked without subscribing.

It’s a piece written by Fairstein (Felicity Hoffman character) “trying” to clear her name. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 11:13 AM, No Excuses said:

I am still not convinced that the five of them are totally innocent. There was a lot of other **** going down in Central Park that night and some of their testimony, including people who weren’t coerced suggested that they had a role. I could be wrong but I came away with the impression that they were at a minimum, involved in the looting and mugging that was taking place, and may have injured the jogger prior to her being raped by Rivera. The police and prosecutors being overzealous in getting a conviction about the rape charges certainly casts a lot of doubt though. 

  

...

 

I will get around to watching this eventually but it isn’t exactly from an unbiased source. There is enough gray in this case from what I’ve read that I’m reluctant to crown them as victims of severe injustice. 

 

Watch it.  

 

There's pretty much zero gray.

 

There is some chance they were doing something not entirely legal that night.  But not in the same ballpark as rape.  And certainly nothing that merits prison. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember after my family first moved to Reston, VA, one weekend I was walking to the nearby elementary school with a friend (who was white)..as we got to the school we saw a few other kids our age standing near a window, an older lady standing there as well, and a cop. All were white, except me. So, we walked over to see what was up.

 

When we got there, we saw a window was broken. The lady (who I guess was a teacher there on the weekend) was talking to the cop and looked agitated. She glances at me, points, and says "That's him! He's the one who broke the window!"...my friend and I just looked at each other, confused...and looked then back at the lady. I immediately said "What?...We just got here!"...The cop looks at me for a moment, then something in his face seemed to indicate that he believed me. The lady who accused me looked at me for a bit as well, then softened her face and kept talking to the cop. My friend and I walked away, cop didn't stop me, no further accusations from the older woman.

 

That was a very, very, minuscule occurrence, barely important or significant in terms of what it involved, that has stuck with me for 40 years. Just being a kid and having someone look at me and assume I'm guilty, most likely based on nothing more than being black. That was probably enough to convince her I was the one she had seen. She saw a black kid break the window, sees a black kid again not too much later, and reaches that conclusion. Is it possible that another black kid looked really similar to me, wearing the same color clothes, same height, and with the same hair? HIGHLY unlikely, but sure, whatever. I've gone through the same thing over and over throughout my adult life--it's unavoidable if you're black in the U.S., gonna happen--but that first time just really stuck with me. Watching "When They See Us" was like what I experienced multiplied by a billion. Had to turn it off for awhile.

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

9 hours ago, Califan007 said:

I remember after my family first moved to Reston, VA, one weekend I was walking to the nearby elementary school with a friend (who was white)..as we got to the school we saw a few other kids our age standing near a window, an older lady standing there as well, and a cop. All were white, except me. So, we walked over to see what was up.

 

When we got there, we saw a window was broken. The lady (who I guess was a teacher there on the weekend) was talking to the cop and looked agitated. She glances at me, points, and says "That's him! He's the one who broke the window!"...my friend and I just looked at each other, confused...and looked then back at the lady. I immediately said "What?...We just got here!"...The cop looks at me for a moment, then something in his face seemed to indicate that he believed me. The lady who accused me looked at me for a bit as well, then softened her face and kept talking to the cop. My friend and I walked away, cop didn't stop me, no further accusations from the older woman.

 

That was a very, very, minuscule occurrence, barely important or significant in terms of what it involved, that has stuck with me for 40 years. Just being a kid and having someone look at me and assume I'm guilty, most likely based on nothing more than being black. That was probably enough to convince her I was the one she had seen. She saw a black kid break the window, sees a black kid again not too much later, and reaches that conclusion. Is it possible that another black kid looked really similar to me, wearing the same color clothes, same height, and with the same hair? HIGHLY unlikely, but sure, whatever. I've gone through the same thing over and over throughout my adult life--it's unavoidable if you're black in the U.S., gonna happen--but that first time just really stuck with me. Watching "When They See Us" was like what I experienced multiplied by a billion. Had to turn it off for awhile.

 

In general eye witness identifications are not very accurate and often wrong.  This is especially true when it pertains to people of other races (e.g. whites do a bad job of identifying blacks and vice versa).

 

I wouldn't take it personally or chalk it up only to race.  Just the nature of being human.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Two thoughts (that I suspect aren't going to be popular and along the lines of you are only seeing one side of the story really) after doing a little reading:

 

1.  The series makes it seem like this should have been a slam dunk.  Given that, I don't see why they couldn't find somebody to take it to court and win vs. waiting for the a mayor to decide to settle it for essentially political reasons.  They waited for 10 years to collect their money on what based on the miniseries would have seemed to be a slam dunk lawsuit, and the only because a politician caved to public opinion.

 

2.  It would have been nice if they would have addressed the findings of the Armstrong commission:

 

"The panel disputed Reyes's claim that he alone had raped the jogger.[2][65][66] It said there was "nothing but his uncorroborated word" that he acted alone.[65] Armstrong said the panel believed "the word of a serial rapist killer is not something to be heavily relied upon."[65] 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."[2][65] 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."[2][65]

 

As to the five defendants, the report said:

 

We believe the inconsistencies contained in the various statements were not such as to destroy their reliability. On the other hand, there was a general consistency that ran through the defendants' descriptions of the attack on the female jogger: she was knocked down on the road, dragged into the woods, hit and molested by several defendants, sexually abused by some while others held her arms and legs, and left semiconscious in a state of undress.[65][66]

 

"It seems impossible to say that they weren't there at all, because they knew too much," Armstrong said in an interview.[69]"

 

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

 

Eye witness testimony tends to be unreliable and not just with respect to victims.  Perpetrators also can get details wrong and mix up facts, especially if they are trying to tell a story that is partly true and false (some truth, but false in that it down plays their role).

 

How similar were the stories to what was actually found?  Did they have details in their confessions not given by the police?

 

(Though, I also understand that might be hard to address as the police did not video most of their time spent in questioning, which even at that time made no sense.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There was some consistency because they were fed the details by the police. In a couple of the instances the children were supposed to have committed crimes on one side of the park around hte same time the rape occurred. And again, they were all under the age of 16, with the exception of Korey Wise. Put yourself in their shoes and these cops do not give you food and tell you, "you can go home if you say what we want to hear." 

 

And I am really disgusted that a guy who was a serial rapist and a killer, which Reyes was, could not have acted alone since he acted alone on several other grotesque crimes.

 

The Armstrong Report was basically the police investigating themselves, which we know tends to end up well as we have seen recently with police killings and brutality.

 

And its damn ironic that you would say, "the court of law should have provided a settlement instead of political pressure," when the court of law found all the young children guilty of a crime there wasn't much evidence that they performed.

 

A lot of non-black and brown people seemed to find it hard to believe that the criminal justice system is biased and malicious towards black and brown and working class people. Mostly because those people lack empathy.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another thing that the series explored is how many people are convicted and even plead to crimes they did not commit because of the insurmountable weight of the criminal justice system on them.

 

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/07/innocent-people-who-plead-guilty/

 

I know this probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but our country needs to reform the criminal justice system. Change what we are actually trying to do with it and hopeful outcomes. Instead of this punitive profiteering machine, we have going now.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

In general eye witness identifications are not very accurate and often wrong.  This is especially true when it pertains to people of other races (e.g. whites do a bad job of identifying blacks and vice versa).

 

I wouldn't take it personally or chalk it up only to race.  Just the nature of being human.

 

Maybe you didn't pick up on the fact that her identification of me was immediate and instant.

 

She wasn't shown a bunch of photos of black kids and picked the wrong one. I wasn't in a line up with other black kids that looked somewhat similar to me. She didn't identify me weeks after the fact, when her memory would be less clear. She didn't stare at me for awhile and then later talk to the cop and say she thinks I might have been the one she saw breaking the window. She accused me--strongly, without hesitation and without a shred of doubt--the nanosecond she saw me. What did she see that made her believe so quickly and decisively that I was who she witnessed breaking a window? I guarantee you it wasn't the clothes I was wearing--I would have had to been wearing something very specific that stood out, like a bright red t-shirt with a logo on it or something. Wouldn't have been height, unless I was really tall or really short, and I wasn't. I was of average height, just like my friend and the other 3 kids that were there. She saw I was black, and didn't need to think about it.

 

I'm pretty sure it was the way I said "What?...We just got here!" that made her think. Maybe the tone of my voice was undeniable or something, don't know....and who knows if she would have started re-thinking her accusation if I had been shy or my voice had nervousness or fear in it. But there's no way in hell an adult should be so eager and certain to accuse a child of something that a mere glance at them is all that is necessary.

 

Quote

Armstrong said the panel believed "the word of a serial rapist killer is not something to be heavily relied upon."

 

That part right there is incredibly laughable, and lacks any evidence of logic. Not to mention, if the case had been cold with no arrest or suspects, if a "serial rapist killer" whose dna was found on the victim ended up admitting to the crime, you're damn skippy his word would have been heavily relied upon.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, im pretty sure the series referenced that bunk report too. When Fairstein and Lederer were to have lunch in the restaurant in early 2002. Fairstein referenced the report and Lederer said, “cops investigating themselves” and rolled her eyes.

 

IDK, I’m pretty heated at this “they were guilty of something that night” post from earlier and the “series should have given us more from the Armstrong Report” as if we needed balance and this case was sort of disputable.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i haven't seen the show... but 'm going to make a general statement.... i don;t like wild bandwagoning...   

 

the rah-rah rush to prosecute and convict is terrible.. and gets us into a lot of trouble as people trample rights in the rush to "justice".       However,  the rah-rah rush to absolutely buy 100% into every conspiracy theory involving the police/justice system gives me some shivers as well.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

However,  the rah-rah rush to absolutely buy 100% into every conspiracy theory involving the police/justice system gives me some shivers as well.

who did that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

i haven't seen the show... but 'm going to make a general statement.... i don;t like wild bandwagoning...   

 

the rah-rah rush to prosecute and convict is terrible.. and gets us into a lot of trouble as people trample rights in the rush to "justice".       However,  the rah-rah rush to absolutely buy 100% into every conspiracy theory involving the police/justice system gives me some shivers as well.

 

 

one of those is not remotely as important as the other

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

who did that?

 

you are right ..my  statement was too forceful...   

 

Instead, let me say i think lots of people (here and elsewhere) err on the side of giving too much credence to statements/stories/theories that cast the criminal justice system in a negative light, in much the same way that the "thin-blue-line" crowd resists holding the criminal justice system to task for ANYTHING.  

 

healthy scepticism serves us all well.  It just has to be more broadly applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

Instead, let me say i think lots of people (here and elsewhere) err on the side of giving too much credence to statements/stories/theories that cast the criminal justice system in a negative light, in much the same way that the "thin-blue-line" crowd resists holding the criminal justice system to task for ANYTHING.  

So now you have moved from "stop believing conspiracies" when no one did that to this line of thinking, while not actually watching the series or the documentary done by Ken Burns and his daughter.

 

Please watch those first.

Edited by BenningRoadSkin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

you are right ..my  statement was too forceful...   

 

Instead, let me say i think lots of people (here and elsewhere) err on the side of giving too much credence to statements/stories/theories that cast the criminal justice system in a negative light, in much the same way that the "thin-blue-line" crowd resists holding the criminal justice system to task for ANYTHING.  

 

healthy scepticism serves us all well.  It just has to be more broadly applied.

 

I think you should watch the series and the Ken Burns documentary as recommended--I've seen both, watching the doc years ago--before worrying if anyone is giving too much credence to anything. For the record, when the story about the Central Park 5 first made the news I believed it and believed they "must" have done something...I remember all the sensational news articles about "wilding" and how black youths in the city should be feared because of it. Those stories were everywhere in newspapers and magazines. 

 

When you remember living through the event and how everything was presented to you, and then see documentaries and reenactments about what apparently was really going on at the time and learn facts that you never knew before, it's sobering. And as a black male who regularly experiences being automatically suspect regardless of whether or not you've done anything, these portrayals and documentaries have a ****-ton of realism to them. They are absolutely believable. There are always multiple perspectives to be understood and I'm not one to just buy into Linda Farstein being so obtuse-yet-headstrong in her racial profiling and unshakable belief that the kids they brought in are guilty regardless of their denials and the lack of evidence. But if even 25% of the stuff she's portrayed as doing and saying is based in fact, she's severely ****ed in the head.

Edited by Califan007
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

The Armstrong Report was basically the police investigating themselves, which we know tends to end up well as we have seen recently with police killings and brutality.

 

If you read the link, the Armstrong report had one guy associated with the cops, another guy that as part of another committee had found the NYC cops were generally and largely corrupt as part of another investigation in the 1970s (Armstrong), and a NYU Law Professor.

 

Armstrong had already riled up the NYC police force in the 1970s by finding there was widespread corruption in the NYC police force and had shown he had no problem with finding them responsible for not just a flawed process, but actual crimes (which I suspect is why he was selected to head this committee).

 

Not exactly cops investigating cops.

 

To simply dismiss it as cops investigating cops is essentially an unsupported slander of Armstrong (and the NYU Professor).

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Maybe you didn't pick up on the fact that her identification of me was immediate and instant.

 

That's how most eye witness identifications work.  Even when shown a panel of people most people make up their mind instantaneously one way or another.  (i.e. it is absolutely this person, the person is not there, etc.)

 

The television idea of somebody carefully viewing a set of pictures or people in a lineup and concluding that's the person isn't generally accurate.

 

(In reality, most decisions (even ones like that) are made before we are consciously aware of it. And again, this is true for essentially all people.  Though being aware of it helps, but the science on eye witness identification isn't broadly known and was really just starting 20 years ago.)

Edited by PeterMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Califan007 said:

That part right there is incredibly laughable, and lacks any evidence of logic. Not to mention, if the case had been cold with no arrest or suspects, if a "serial rapist killer" whose dna was found on the victim ended up admitting to the crime, you're damn skippy his word would have been heavily relied upon.

 

Nobody doubts that he assaulted her.  The question is whether he start it and/or do it alone.

 

Yes, in a cold case scenario, his word with the DNA evidence is enough for a prosecution (and conviction), but I don't think anybody would also say that it is very good evidence that they way he tells the story is actually the way it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a powerful story that needed to be told and features some wonderful performances...

 

... but I thought it got repetitive and indulgent after the first episode. Found myself looking at my phone a lot. The same beat was hit over and over. I finished it moved, but also disappointed.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

i haven't seen the show... but 'm going to make a general statement.... i don;t like wild bandwagoning...   

 

the rah-rah rush to prosecute and convict is terrible.. and gets us into a lot of trouble as people trample rights in the rush to "justice".       However,  the rah-rah rush to absolutely buy 100% into every conspiracy theory involving the police/justice system gives me some shivers as well.

  

 

This isn't JFK assassination conspiracy level stuff. 

 

Police and prosecutors jobs are to find criminals and get convictions.  Particularly in a highly publicized case there is tremendous pressure to find and punish the culprits. 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Nobody doubts that he assaulted her.  The question is whether he start it and/or do it alone.

 

Yes, in a cold case scenario, his word with the DNA evidence is enough for a prosecution (and conviction), but I don't think anybody would also say that it is very good evidence that they way he tells the story is actually the way it happened.

 

But apparently contradictory confessions alone were good enough to convict 5 teenagers? 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

That's how most eye witness identifications work.  Even when shown a panel of people most people make up their mind instantaneously one way or another.  (i.e. it is absolutely this person, the person is not there, etc.)

 

The television idea of somebody carefully viewing a set of pictures or people in a lineup and concluding that's the person isn't generally accurate.

 

(In reality, most decisions (even ones like that) are made before we are consciously aware of it. And again, this is true for essentially all people.  Though being aware of it helps, but the science on eye witness identification isn't broadly known and was really just starting 20 years ago.)

 

You're missing the point. I'm not saying misidentifications don't occur. I'm saying there's a reason this woman misidentified me.

 

And it's not because of the passage of time, poorly organized line-ups or looking at a bunch of photos of possible black suspects and picking me out. Because none of that occurred, and all of that absolutely plays a huge role in the misidentifying of subjects. Legal reforms have been implemented in numerous states to reduce the roll that poorly conducted line-ups and photo identification plays in these eyewitness mistakes, which is significant. But those issues that play a large role in misidentifications taking place overall were not part of this woman misidentifying me. Which is what I said earlier. It had nothing to do with how the police standard operating procedure handled things, her misidentifying me only had to do with how she saw me. Nothing else. And since the majority of misidentifications occur between different races, that definitely points to using race as a main and overriding factor in ID'ing someone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.