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

[Califan007 The Constipated]

2 hours 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.

 

It's interesting that the serial rapist killer's words shouldn't be believed or taken too handily as fact, but it's not said why. Is it simply because he raped and murdered? Because if so, that's incredibly flawed logic.

 

From the article you just linked to, the arresting officer tried giving reasons why the guy who has raped and killed and whose dna was found on the victim would lie about doing it alone. Here's what he said:

 

"Reynolds believes the already-imprisoned Reyes worked in concert with the other teens to attack Meili, and lied about acting alone to get a better cell assignment. The NYPD veteran also wonders if Reyes wanted to do a favor for the Central Park 5, or perhaps caved in to threats."

 

So the serial rapist killer lied in order to get a better jail cell...or, he lied to do the boys a "favor"..or, perhaps maybe he was threatened...

 

Okay lol...

 

Who is giving him the better jail cell? The boys' lawyer? Their families? The warden? You would think the people in charge of what cell he's in would have far more motivation to want him to implicate the 5 boys, not to exonerate them...because doing so puts a black eye on the entire NY justice system. And nobody outside of the justice system would have the authority or power to assign him a better jail cell, whatever that constitutes.

 

And what would have been the "favor" he's doing for the boys, and why?...Not sure that's ever explained.

 

And who threatened him? Another prisoner? If he's able to lie to get himself a better jail cell, couldn't he lie to that same person to get him out of danger of the threat? Even into another prison?

 

Sounds like he was throwing things against the wall hoping one of them would stick.

 

The whole "we shouldn't trust the word of a serial rapist killer" is a weak argument. A far stronger argument to make is that the officers and DA who worked the case at the time are in no way willing to admit to anyone--even themselves--that they made such a critical mistake. So even when physical evidence and a confession shines light on a likely mistake, the stance taken is "No, we were right all along."

 

This part from the same article says a lot imo:

 

“(Meili) was in a coma,” said Reynolds. “If we’re railroading them, how do we know when she comes out of the coma what story she’s going to tell? If you are trying to pin it on someone, why would you risk that she would say something different?”

 

The actual criticism of how this case was handled isn't some Mark Furman-like conspiracy where the police wanted to frame some black kids. I think both the Burns documentary and the Netflix series show rather bluntly that all involved actually believed these boys to be guilty. Which means they also fully believed that when the victim came out of her coma she would either validate their actions and beliefs or wouldn't remember much of what happened anyway. So there was no railroading taking place, not how Reynolds means it anyway.

 

The real issue is why they believed what they believed, whether or not any civil rights were denied, whether there was any coercion taking place, hoew much intimiation occurred and what kind, etc, etc. The series even had the boys' parents and guardians failing them by encouraging them to tell the detectives what they wanted, mostly out of fear. I don't know if that occurred the way it was portrayed, but as a father it infuriated me as much as anything else in the show.

 

If anyone thinks these 5 boys' arrest and charges were nothing more than the result of an objective assessment and analysis of the provable facts, all I can say is that's a very naive stance to take (not saying you're taking that stance, by the way).

[DCSaints_fan]

The assumption was victim's injuries were so severe she was going to die, and wouldn't be able to testify.  Also, check out Making of Murderer.  They had the witness there who gave a description, and still police pegged the wrong person and they were still able to get a conviction and there was zero consequence.  

 

Even if detectives believed she did come out the coma, she could be "strongly encouraged"  to either point the finger at the suspects they wanted her to, or not testify. 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

It's interesting that the serial rapist killer's words shouldn't be believed or taken too handily as fact, but it's not said why. Is it simply because he raped and murdered? Because if so, that's incredibly flawed logic.

 

From the article you just linked to, the arresting officer tried giving reasons why the guy who has raped and killed and whose dna was found on the victim would lie about doing it alone. Here's what he said:

 

"Reynolds believes the already-imprisoned Reyes worked in concert with the other teens to attack Meili, and lied about acting alone to get a better cell assignment. The NYPD veteran also wonders if Reyes wanted to do a favor for the Central Park 5, or perhaps caved in to threats."

 

So the serial rapist killer lied in order to get a better jail cell...or, he lied to do the boys a "favor"..or, perhaps maybe he was threatened...

 

Okay lol...

 

Who is giving him the better jail cell? The boys' lawyer? Their families? The warden? You would think the people in charge of what cell he's in would have far more motivation to want him to implicate the 5 boys, not to exonerate them...because doing so puts a black eye on the entire NY justice system. And nobody outside of the justice system would have the authority or power to assign him a better jail cell, whatever that constitutes.

 

And what would have been the "favor" he's doing for the boys, and why?...Not sure that's ever explained.

 

And who threatened him? Another prisoner? If he's able to lie to get himself a better jail cell, couldn't he lie to that same person to get him out of danger of the threat? Even into another prison?

 

Sounds like he was throwing things against the wall hoping one of them would stick.

 

The whole "we shouldn't trust the word of a serial rapist killer" is a weak argument. A far stronger argument to make is that the officers and DA who worked the case at the time are in no way willing to admit to anyone--even themselves--that they made such a critical mistake. So even when physical evidence and a confession shines light on a likely mistake, the stance taken is "No, we were right all along."

 

This part from the same article says a lot imo:

 

“(Meili) was in a coma,” said Reynolds. “If we’re railroading them, how do we know when she comes out of the coma what story she’s going to tell? If you are trying to pin it on someone, why would you risk that she would say something different?”

 

The actual criticism of how this case was handled isn't some Mark Furman-like conspiracy where the police wanted to frame some black kids. I think both the Burns documentary and the Netflix series show rather bluntly that all involved actually believed these boys to be guilty. Which means they also fully believed that when the victim came out of her coma she would either validate their actions and beliefs or wouldn't remember much of what happened anyway. So there was no railroading taking place, not how Reynolds means it anyway.

 

The real issue is why they believed what they believed, whether or not any civil rights were denied, whether there was any coercion taking place, hoew much intimiation occurred and what kind, etc, etc. The series even had the boys' parents and guardians failing them by encouraging them to tell the detectives what they wanted, mostly out of fear. I don't know if that occurred the way it was portrayed, but as a father it infuriated me as much as anything else in the show.

 

If anyone thinks these 5 boys' arrest and charges were nothing more than the result of an objective assessment and analysis of the provable facts, all I can say is that's a very naive stance to take (not saying you're taking that stance, by the way).

 

1.  You'll have to explain why doubting the word of a serial rapist and murder is incredibly flawed logic.

 

2.  The NYPD do not control the NY DOC.  He was moved after his confession to what was generally considered a more desirable prison reportedly because there were fears for his safety that he hadn't confessed earlier i.e. there would be retaliation for him not confessing earlier.

 

3.  I'm not sure everybody sees it the same way you did.  There are certain people out there that have taken the attitude that the cops/prosecutors were happy to frame whomever out of general vindictiveness towards minorities and public pressure to get a conviction without worrying about actual innocence or guilt.

 

Just for example:

 

"No matter how well you think you remember the trial of the Central Park Five, the Harlem boys who were sent to jail for the brutal rape of Trisha Meili, aka the Central Park jogger, this harrowing series will anger you, depress you and make you stop buying the crime novels written by Linda Fairstein, the then-head of the Manhattan sex crimes unit who engineered the Thomas Cromwell-like plot against innocent black children."

 

https://nypost.com/2019/05/31/when-they-see-us-does-justice-to-central-park-fives-brutal-story/

 

(Even see the post above this one.)

 

4.  I do agree, it isn't surprising that the cops and the prosecutors that thought they were guilty still believe that they are guilty.  People that put a lot of work and sacrifice into a narrative are not likely to let it go.  I wouldn't say the fact that somebody that decided they were guilty in 1989 still believes they are guilty is good evidence that they are guilty.

 

5.  I thought the link was interesting as it was from an African American cop that pulled then in initially and was apparently there through the night thought they were guilty (and then not surprisingly still thinks they are guilty).  His role does seem to be missing from the series, and it does sort of introduce some issues into the idea that race or racism were as large of drivers in the process as depicted in the series.

 

Here's an African American cop then when he sees them presumably isn't just seeing race, was there and so has first hand knowledge of the methods/techniques that were used, and thinks/thought they were guilty.  I didn't bring it up as evidence that they were guilty, just that view point wasn't necessarily directly and only related to race.

 

 

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

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.

 

I'm not missing the point.  You either seem to be missing my point or simply ignoring it.

 

My point is that type of misidentification is common and is more common when people of different races are involved.

 

It has less to do with how she saw you  and more of a function of how the human brain works and could happen between any two people, with the likelihood of it going up if the two people are different races.  It is something that could happen to or be done by any of us (if we aren't exceedingly careful).  It really had very little to do with you and her and is really about all of us.

 

Like my first post said, I wouldn't take it personally, and it isn't all about race.  It is part of being human.

 

Better police lineup/photo arrays don't decrease the number of misidentifications made.  All they do is it make it less likely that a (innocent) suspect is misidentified.  If you misidentified somebody the cops know didn't commit the crime and was there as a filler, it is still a misidentification.

[bearrock]

16 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Like my first post said, I wouldn't take it personally.

 

Yeah @Califan007.  Don't take it personally.  That woman didn't have anything against you specifically.  Just young black boys in general.  

 

Different races may increase eye witness error, but somehow I don't see that same woman pointing the finger at a random model minority asian boy as the perpetrator if she thought she saw an asian boy break the window (did she really see a black boy or just a random dark figure?)

 

@PeterMP Is it your position that the original defendants are guilty?  Their video confession was obtained after 7 hours of interrogation, for which we have no record of.   They were minors who did not have the benefit of counsel or parents during those 7 hours.  Manhattan DA's office, long before De Blasio came into office, concluded that the confessions were inconsistent and unworthy of belief.  (As an aside, 30% of convicted exonerated by the innocence project confessed to their crimes).  Jurors from the original trial said they were not convinced by the confessions, but were impressed by the physical evidence (that two strands of hair found on one of the defendant likely matched the victim based on hair profile, not DNA.  After Reyes' confession, the hair was tested for DNA, which was too degraded for a definitive result, but testing showed that it likely did not belong to the victim).

 

You have group of five kids that were very likely involved in somekind of activity in central park that night.  The convictions for low level crimes were set aside due to prejudicial effect of the rape case, not exculpatory evidence.  Then you have them being interrogated by the police for 7 hours, after which they come out with confessions.  And there's not a single iota of physical evidence linking them to the crime (despite the fact that career serial rapist seems to have left plethora of physical evidence, we're to believe that these teenagers were super criminals who left a gang rape crime scene squeaky clean?).  I certainly hope we require a lot more to conclude that someone is guilty of a crime.

[Bozo the kKklown]

I find it ironic that believing the exonerated was seen as sort of conspiratorial by a few posters yet are clinging to the conspiracy that those children were involved in the rape.

 

Also those people didn’t see the miniseries or watch the documentary but think we are wrong and are ignoring physical evidence and a confession that matches with the crime scene. You gotta love it.

[StillUnknown]

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I find it ironic that believing the exonerated was seen as sort of conspiratorial by a few posters yet are clinging to the conspiracy that those children were involved in the rape.

 

Also those people didn’t see the miniseries or watch the documentary but think we are wrong and are ignoring physical evidence and a confession that matches with the crime scene. You gotta love it.

 

shifting the burden to the kids, now adults, to prove what is non-existence from their perspective

[thegreaterbuzzette]

On 6/9/2019 at 9:31 AM, TheGreatBuzz said:

I've heard a lot about the series.  I feel like its something I should watch for educational benefit but know it will make me feel like **** when done.  Like watching Schindler's list. 

You have to watch. It's dark and depressing. Like I already told you. I cried at the end, more than I ever have for a movie. I think one would say, I wept.

 

On 6/9/2019 at 1:13 PM, 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. 

Wow. Let's say there was a hit a run. Killed family of 7 in a van on the highway. You were seen in the area driving 11 miles I over the speed limit, but you werent involved. So since you were speeding (aka guilty of a crime), we shouldnt feel bad or consider it wrong if you went to jail for life being accused of hitting the other vehicle? Oh and your wife that went to the station with you for questioning, that wasnt even in the vehicle - she got charged too.

 

 

On 6/10/2019 at 7:59 PM, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

This series seems to be race baiting “when they see us”...

 

No. If you research what happened or watch the series, you'd see there were MANY black, brown, etc that were just as guilty of horrific behavior towards the kids. They = everyone

Us = the 5 accused

 

 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

Yeah @Califan007.  Don't take it personally.  That woman didn't have anything against you specifically.  Just young black boys in general.  

 

Different races may increase eye witness error, but somehow I don't see that same woman pointing the finger at a random model minority asian boy as the perpetrator if she thought she saw an asian boy break the window (did she really see a black boy or just a random dark figure?)

 

@PeterMP Is it your position that the original defendants are guilty?  Their video confession was obtained after 7 hours of interrogation, for which we have no record of.   They were minors who did not have the benefit of counsel or parents during those 7 hours.  Manhattan DA's office, long before De Blasio came into office, concluded that the confessions were inconsistent and unworthy of belief.  (As an aside, 30% of convicted exonerated by the innocence project confessed to their crimes).  Jurors from the original trial said they were not convinced by the confessions, but were impressed by the physical evidence (that two strands of hair found on one of the defendant likely matched the victim based on hair profile, not DNA.  After Reyes' confession, the hair was tested for DNA, which was too degraded for a definitive result, but testing showed that it likely did not belong to the victim).

 

You have group of five kids that were very likely involved in somekind of activity in central park that night.  The convictions for low level crimes were set aside due to prejudicial effect of the rape case, not exculpatory evidence.  Then you have them being interrogated by the police for 7 hours, after which they come out with confessions.  And there's not a single iota of physical evidence linking them to the crime (despite the fact that career serial rapist seems to have left plethora of physical evidence, we're to believe that these teenagers were super criminals who left a gang rape crime scene squeaky clean?).  I certainly hope we require a lot more to conclude that someone is guilty of a crime.

 

1.  You have no idea what she saw or what she would have done in different circumstances because you have no idea who she was or her life history. 

 

Accusing somebody you don't know from a situation don't know anything about of doing something wrong without any evidence.  I'm glad you aren't a cop or a prosecutor.

 

2.  No, I'm not saying they were guilty.  What I said, was it would have been nice if the series would have (more) addressed the Armstrong report and why the civil case didn't go forward for 10 years.  And that's what I think.  I don't know if they were guilty or not.

 

From there, I posted a story from an African American cop that was there when the initial suspects were found at the park and there through the night through their questioning, the reason of which I explained in the above post.

 

I've also tried to explain that misidentifications of people are common by eye witnesses and even more common when they involve people of different races, but aren't really related to racism or directly even race other than how our brains seem to work.  It isn't a flaw or the result of some people or a race against another person or another race of people, but a general human trait.

 

(and the rapist only left behind one piece of evidence. DNA.)

[tshile]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

  It really had very little to do with you and her and is really about all of us.

This one’s not worth it. People are really sensitive to the whole “do all $race look alike to you?!” thing. 

 

I listened to an npr segment on this. I think it was the one about how the brain works, a solid 30-40 minutes. I know what you’re talking about. 

 

I also listened to two looney npr hosts go on an 8 minute rant about how white people confusing black people are micro aggressions. 

 

People are overly sensitive to it. I don’t blame them, but it doesn’t make it right. I just don’t think you’re going to get anywhere on that one. 

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, tshile said:

I also listened to two looney npr hosts go on an 8 minute rant about how white people confusing black people are micro aggressions. 

 

Considering how the definition of microaggressions is set to include things that are unintentional and I can see how being confused for somebody else by the majority of the population more than other people would be frustrating (especially in a criminal situation), I'd tend to agree that it is a microaggression.

 

Microaggression doesn't mean that somebody did something intentionally or even really motivated by discrimination (e.g. racism).

 

@Califan007 may have been subjected to a microaggression (though, my advice would still be, don't take it personally and it probably wasn't really only about race, but just how human brains work (which I think in general is a good idea with respect to microaggressions)  Of course, this also doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to limit the number of microaggression we commit.).

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I don’t think the five people convicted are guilty of anything besides the kind of trouble any teenager could get into.  They were done a great injustice. They deserve all the restitution they can get. The prosecutor in the case did a ****ty job.  (you can’t argue that point, innocent people were sent to jail for many years for no reason). 

 

HOWEVER the point of this miniseries is to make the issue something more than it is. Less that 5 percent of people in prison are actually innocent. I consider that a job well done, personally. There are not a lot of innocent people mistreated by the criminal justice system in prison.

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I don’t think the five people convicted are guilty of anything besides the kind of trouble any teenager could get into.  They were done a great injustice. They deserve all the restitution they can get. The prosecutor in the case did a ****ty job.  (you can’t argue that point, innocent people were sent to jail for many years for no reason). 

 

HOWEVER the point of this miniseries is to make the issue something more than it is. Less that 5 percent of people in prison are actually innocent. I consider that a job well done, personally. There are not a lot of innocent people mistreated by the criminal justice system in prison.

 

IMO, 5% (assuming that number is accurate, and I have no idea how you would determine that number in a reliable manner so I'm extremely dubious that it is accurate) is 5% too many.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

IMO, 5% (assuming that number is accurate, and I have no idea how you would determine that number in a reliable manner so I'm extremely dubious that it is accurate) is 5% too many.

 

 

Innocence project puts the number at 1% which is probably too low.

 

https://www.innocenceproject.org/how-many-innocent-people-are-in-prison/

 

Being correct 95 percent of the time is pretty good for a non-omniscient system.

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  You have no idea what she saw or what she would have done in different circumstances because you have no idea who she was or her life history. 

 

Accusing somebody you don't know from a situation don't know anything about of doing something wrong without any evidence.  I'm glad you aren't a cop or a prosecutor.

 

2.  No, I'm not saying they were guilty.  What I said, was it would have been nice if the series would have (more) addressed the Armstrong report and why the civil case didn't go forward for 10 years.  And that's what I think.  I don't know if they were guilty or not.

 

From there, I posted a story from an African American cop that was there when the initial suspects were found at the park and there through the night through their questioning, the reason of which I explained in the above post.

 

I've also tried to explain that misidentifications of people are common by eye witnesses and even more common when they involve people of different races, but aren't really related to racism or directly even race other than how our brains seem to work.  It isn't a flaw or the result of some people or a race against another person or another race of people, but a general human trait.

 

(and the rapist only left behind one piece of evidence. DNA.)

 

1. If you want to say that none of us know enough about her to  conclude whether or not her false accusation was racially motivated, that's fine.  But just as I don't know her background to say what she would have done, studies that show that lineup accuracy dropping from 60% to 45% when involving a different race are hardly sufficient reason to dismiss the possibility of a person's racial bias.  Especially so where the person is accusing a random passerby and not inaccurately picking a suspect out of a lineup.  

  

2.  This is what you wrote

 

Quote

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 onl y  because a politician caved to public opinion.

 

I'll take your word at face value that you are not suggesting that the original five are guilty.   The length of time it takes to litigate is not indicative of the strength of the plaintiff's position.  Especially, where as here, the question of discrimination and bias would have to be decided by a fact finder.  It took the city and the plaintiffs' attorneys 3+ years to review and release the first batch of documents after agreeing to unseal the records following NYT's lawsuit for access.  That alone should give you some idea as to the depth of discovery involved.  Proving actual racial discrimination by a police department is a monumental task and was always going to require lengthy litigation (I assume the Bloomberg administration had no interest in speeding things along either).

 

As to the Armstrong report, well it's simply an insult to the Manhattan DA's office.  Prosecutors are not in the habit of admitting fault in one of the most high profile cases in the city's history and opening up the city and department to huge liability.  They don't go believing every jail house snitch, especially those who have nothing to lose like Reyes.  DA's motion to vacate spells out in detail the steps they took to corroborate Reyes' confession with respect to not only the central park case, but how Reyes' confession solved another cold case.  How details of the rape matched with Reyes' calling card methods.  Why substance of central five's confession could not be true if Reyes' was involved in the rape.  DA's office underwent extensive corroboration of the substance of Reyes' confession as well as psychological review of Reyes himself before concluding that not only did Reyes did commit the rape, but also that he did it alone and he was telling the truth.  Armstrong report isn't a report so much as it is a theory (charitably).

[PeterMP]

9 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

  2.  This is what you wrote

 

 

I'll take your word at face value that you are not suggesting that the original five are guilty.   The length of time it takes to litigate is not indicative of the strength of the plaintiff's position.  Especially, where as here, the question of discrimination and bias would have to be decided by a fact finder.  It took the city and the plaintiffs' attorneys 3+ years to review and release the first batch of documents after agreeing to unseal the records following NYT's lawsuit for access.  That alone should give you some idea as to the depth of discovery involved.  Proving actual racial discrimination by a police department is a monumental task and was always going to require lengthy litigation (I assume the Bloomberg administration had no interest in speeding things along either).

 

As to the Armstrong report, well it's simply an insult to the Manhattan DA's office.  Prosecutors are not in the habit of admitting fault in one of the most high profile cases in the city's history and opening up the city and department to huge liability.  They don't go believing every jail house snitch, especially those who have nothing to lose like Reyes.  DA's motion to vacate spells out in detail the steps they took to corroborate Reyes' confession with respect to not only the central park case, but how Reyes' confession solved another cold case.  How details of the rape matched with Reyes' calling card methods.  Why substance of central five's confession could not be true if Reyes' was involved in the rape.  DA's office underwent extensive corroboration of the substance of Reyes' confession as well as psychological review of Reyes himself before concluding that not only did Reyes did commit the rape, but also that he did it alone and he was telling the truth.  Armstrong report isn't a report so much as it is a theory (charitably).

 

Your post seems to suggest that it isn't possible that the 5 are not innocent and that the police/prosecution didn't act improperly.

 

Is it possible that the 5 are innocent and that the police/prosecution weren't didn't discriminate?

 

If the civil case did go to trial and the NYC authorities were not found guilty of discrimination/bias would you support the 5 going back to jail?

 

Do you disagree that the miniseries makes it seem like the discrimination/bias was clear and obvious?  

 

If they have evidence that the things that were said and done were said and done, I'd have no problem finding for them.

 

I agree with @Califan007

"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."

 

Now, if you want to tell me that they don't actually have evidence to support even 25% of that, then that explains my statement. No?

 

Out of curiosity, do you know of any cases where a civil rights claim against a city took more than 10+ years to go to trial where the complainant was trying to get it to go trial and the complainant won? 

 

I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that if you had a strong case and good evidence (as at least appears to be suggested by the miniseries) that going to court quickly should be relatively easy.

 

Here's an idea.  They don't actually have good evidence that supports a lot of the dialogue and actions in the miniseries that (seems to) make the bias clear.  They were working to gather evidence that would prove the bias in the case (if any), but the series goes beyond that which exist (at least at the time).

 

That people can't agree with what documents to release doesn't seem to me to have any bearing on the evidence of the case.  The prosecutors have an interest in keeping things that embarrass them from the public and the defendants have an interest in keeping things that embarrass them  from the public so somebody has an interest in keeping most information out of the public.  And unlike a court room there are not pre-established rules as to what information is allowed in (or out) and what is not.

 

I'm not saying that the police/prosecutors weren't racially biased either.  I'm extremely doubtful the evidence is as clear and plentiful as shown in the miniseries.

 

I don't think anybody disagrees that the Armstrong report is (at best) a theory.  What would you call the idea that Reyes carried out the attack completely alone? 

[bearrock]

11 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Your post seems to suggest that it isn't possible that the 5 are not innocent and that the police/prosecution didn't act improperly.

 

Is it possible that the 5 are innocent and that the police/prosecution weren't didn't discriminate?

 

If the civil case did go to trial and the NYC authorities were not found guilty of discrimination/bias would you support the 5 going back to jail?

 

 

There's a distinction between "improperly" and "racial bias/discrimination".  They could have (and in my opinion did) act improperly by interrogating five teenagers for 7 hours without counsel or parents and then building an entire case off that.  They did act improperly by failing to look into other possibilities, which may have led them to Reyes, who committed rape in Central Park two days before the incident in question, which could have led them to connecting Reyes with the crime based on physical evidence.

 

This doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the police/DA were engaged in overt or implicit racial discrimination.

 

Civil trial on wrongful conviction, malicious prosecution, and racial discrimination has no bearing on criminal conviction of the accused.  Jury may decide that they see insufficient evidence to conclude that the state lacked probable cause to prosecute or that they don't see the state engaging in wrongful actions.   Or that any wrongdoing by the state was a result of good faith mistake and not a result of racial animus.  Jury does not have to conclude that the convicted are actually guilty by preponderance of the evidence to decide for the state in these civil actions.

 

I will say that in light of Reyes' confession and DNA evidence linking him to the rape (the sole DNA evidence in the case), that no reasonable prosecutor would have decided to prosecute at the time and no reasonable jury could conclude that the five are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  

 

Quote

Do you disagree that the miniseries makes it seem like the discrimination/bias was clear and obvious?  

 

If they have evidence that the things that were said and done were said and done, I'd have no problem finding for them.

 

I agree with @Califan007

"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."

 

Now, if you want to tell me that they don't actually have evidence to support even 25% of that, then that explains my statement. No?

 

 

It's a TV show. This isn't news or even a documentary.  The chances of actual dialogues throughout the show being true to any high degree is slim to none.  As to actual things that were done (centered in episode 2 about conspiracy between prosecutor and police), I have to assume there's a lot of dramatic license there (simply because none of the involved have admitted to any conspiracy and that's how lot of TV shows are).  At the same time, proving a conspiracy in court is always difficult unless somebody rolls or people involved are stupid.  Two people can look at the same instance of police and DA ignoring conflicting evidence and inconsistent timeline and one may conclude railroading due to racial discrimination, the other may conclude shoddy policy work.  I think we have enough for the shoddy police work.  As to racial bias, I don't know enough about the case to conclude on that.  We'll probably get a better picture as all the materials eventually get unsealed.

 

Quote

Out of curiosity, do you know of any cases where a civil rights claim against a city took more than 10+ years to go to trial where the complainant was trying to get it to go trial and the complainant won? 

 

I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that if you had a strong case and good evidence (as at least appears to be suggested by the miniseries) that going to court quickly should be relatively easy.

 

Here's an idea.  They don't actually have good evidence that supports a lot of the dialogue and actions in the miniseries that (seems to) make the bias clear.  They were working to gather evidence that would prove the bias in the case (if any), but the series goes beyond that which exist (at least at the time).

 

Marty Tankleff case took about 7 years to settle after vacating the conviction (well, state portion.  The suit against county and police was settled 11 years later.  State was over 3 million, local was over 10 million).  I don't believe there was any political outcry over his case to be resolved.  

 

I don't think most attorneys would view lengthy litigation and eventual settlement as a weakness in a plaintiff's case.  For example, the central park five case sued for 250 million and sought damages for both wrongful conviction and racial bias.  They are entirely different ball games.  Racial bias is going to entail looking at the history of the officers and prosecutors involved, which the defense is going to strenuously object to as a fishing expedition.  Evidences that filmmakers used to craft their story may not be admissible in court, so the plaintiff's attorney has to try to get at the proof another way.  There are a myriad of things that can delay a case.  What I can say is that a case brought in Federal Court in 2003 won't get delayed for 10 years just because plaintiffs feel their case isn't strong and they need more time to dig around, hoping to land on a smoking gun.  Judges and courts, especially at the federal level, get evaluated on various metrics and length to resolve a case is very high on the list.  Unless the judge was hellbent on pissing off every colleague in the building, you wouldn't let a plaintiff drag out a weak case for 10 years while they go blindly fishing for evidence.

 

Quote

That people can't agree with what documents to release doesn't seem to me to have any bearing on the evidence of the case.  The prosecutors have an interest in keeping things that embarrass them from the public and the defendants have an interest in keeping things that embarrass them  from the public so somebody has an interest in keeping most information out of the public.  And unlike a court room there are not pre-established rules as to what information is allowed in (or out) and what is not.

 

 

The document release is a result of agreement resolving a lawsuit by the New York Times for access.  It's not two chummy lawyers holed up in a conference room agreeing to keep things out of public light.  If prosecutors and defense were unreasonably dragging their feet, I would imagine NYT would have no qualms about suing again.  That the partial release of documents (I believe that was 200K pages?) took 3+ years speaks to the sheer volume of material involved in the case. 

 

Quote

I'm not saying that the police/prosecutors weren't racially biased either.  I'm extremely doubtful the evidence is as clear and plentiful as shown in the miniseries.

 

You may be justified in saying you are not certain that they are as biased as shown in the miniseries (again, it's a TV show).  I can't speak to what the evidence is until all the material gets released.  Even then, what an admissible evidence would show in court and what a reasonable person would conclude based on all credible information are not necessarily the same.

 

Quote

I don't think anybody disagrees that the Armstrong report is (at best) a theory.  What would you call the idea that Reyes carried out the attack completely alone? 

 

While they may both be theories, Reyes' confession and Manhattan DA's conclusion are supported by physical evidence and lengthy independent corroboration, where the DA's office had every motivation to conclude that Reyes was lying.  Armstrong report extrapolates from the fact the original five knew too much details of the crime to saying they are probably guilty and there are some possible ways that places both them and Reyes as the perps (some of these ideas are outright rejected by the DA in their motion to vacate).  The extrapolation ignores the key fact that original five were interrogated for 7 hours by the police without any counsel. 

 

I may theorize that Snyder is a terrible owner and also that he's an alien from Krypton.  But one theory is lot more likely than the other.  

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

While they may both be theories, Reyes' confession and Manhattan DA's conclusion are supported by physical evidence and lengthy independent corroboration, where the DA's office had every motivation to conclude that Reyes was lying.  Armstrong report extrapolates from the fact the original five knew too much details of the crime to saying they are probably guilty and there are some possible ways that places both them and Reyes as the perps (some of these ideas are outright rejected by the DA in their motion to vacate).  The extrapolation ignores the key fact that original five were interrogated for 7 hours by the police without any counsel. 

 

I may theorize that Snyder is a terrible owner and also that he's an alien from Krypton.  But one theory is lot more likely than the other.  

 

This is a very good post, but I'd say a few things:

 

1.  I think a lot of people are acting like the miniseries is a good representation of reality/the evidence.  And I think you see that in this thread and certainly see it in other places, including news papers.  There is a lot of sense out there that this miniseries should make you angry and people are angry, which doesn't make a lot of sense if it isn't a good representation of reality/the evidence.  Getting upset over a potentially largely fictional story, doesn't make much sense.

 

2.  Part of the settlement in the NYT case was that both sides would agree on the release of the material, the judge did get mad at both sides over the slow release of the material, and the CP5 are now complaining about what information was released first (their confessions being released early) so there are issues there specific to the release of information that presumably wouldn't be related to a court case.

 

3.  There is some evidence that multiple people were involved in some phase of her assault.  She's even come out and said that she believes more than one person was likely involved.  The doctors that treated her also have said that her injuries are consistent with more than one person being involved in some phase of the attack.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/central-park-joggers-doctors-said-injuries-show-she-was-attacked-by-more-than-one-person-matias-reyes-confession-led-to-convictions-dismissal-of-central-park-five-1403234704

 

It doesn't seem that the Armstrong report conclusion is as weak as you are suggesting.  (And again, I don't really know the full details, which is why it would have been nice if the miniseries addressed it.  Are the doctors wrong/lying? What?)

 

4.  The case was going to be over turned based on Reyes' being a DNA match.  There wasn't much value in the DA's office fighting that.  I don't see really see anybody (Armstrong and the Felicity Huffman character have both said they support over turning the convictions) that doesn't think the convictions shouldn't have been overturned given the DNA evidence (Maybe Trump would be the exception).  And from there, re-prosecuting the original 5 would be very difficult with Reyes saying he acted alone so I don't see anybody call for a re-prosecution of them. 

 

But even given those things, people like to talk about what likely happened.

 

And the DA certainly doesn't have any incentive to conclude that she was attacked by multiple people if they don't have a case that they can prosecute and win.  The easiest thing for the DAs office to do once Reyes DNA matched was to conclude that Reyes is telling the truth about acting alone.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

They could have (and in my opinion did) act improperly by interrogating five teenagers for 7 hours without counsel or parents and then building an entire case off that. 

 

I am curious where you got 7 hours without parents or counsel from though.  I see where they were questioned for 7 hours (at least), but at least some of them seem to have had parents/family there for some of that.

 

(Like one parent got sick and they were left with a sister.)

 

In the story I posted, the arresting African American cop talked about wanting to just process the paper work and get them out so he could go home, but one father hadn't shown up (suggesting the others had parents on the scene relatively quickly (before the police knew of the rape)).

[bearrock]

26 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

1.  I think a lot of people are acting like the miniseries is a good representation of reality/the evidence.  And I think you see that in this thread and certainly see it in other places, including news papers.  There is a lot of sense out there that this miniseries should make you angry and people are angry, which doesn't make a lot of sense if it isn't a good representation of reality/the evidence.  Getting upset over a potentially largely fictional story, doesn't make much sense.

 

 

 

I'll agree with this in that miniseries is a tv show, nothing more, nothing less.  To get at the reality and the evidence, we need to delve deeper into it, beyond one filmmaker's presentation of the story.  I do think that the miniseries presents a lot of things correctly and the shoddy police and prosecutorial work, should give people a lot of food for thought.  At the end of the day, five people spent years in prison for something that they never would have been convicted of if all the gatherable facts were presented.  To me, that's enough for anger even without the racial overtones.

 

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I am curious where you got 7 hours without parents or counsel from though.  I see where they were questioned for 7 hours (at least), but at least some of them seem to have had parents/family there for some of that.

 

(Like one parent got sick and they were left with a sister.)

 

You're right, it was not across the board  7 hours straight interrogation without parents or counsel.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/dnabook/NY-HOW CENT PK CASE COLLPSD.1st

 

Quote

Under the law, parents are an important barrier to coercion of minors. In three cases, the parents were in the room while the videotapes were made. The two exceptions were boys thought to be past 16, the age when a parent is usually required: Mr. Wise, who was 16, and Mr. Salaam, who was 15, but had a transit pass showing his age as 16. Mr. Salaam's questioning was not videotaped because his mother arrived and, after an encounter with Ms. Fairstein, of the Sex Crimes Unit, called for a lawyer. While the parents of the other three were present for the videotapes, they apparently were absent during key moments of the interrogations. Mr. Richardson's mother fell ill after being in the station house for 11 hours, and she left him in the custody of his sister. It was then that he incriminated himself. Mr. Santana was questioned for three hours in the presence of his grandmother, and later his father, denying any involvement in the rape. At some point, his father and grandmother left the station house, and by Detective Hartigan's account, the teenager asked if he could speak alone to the investigator. Then, the detective said, Mr. Santana essentially confessed to the rape. The detective testified, "I never asked him questions as to what he did." Later, Mr. Santana made the same admissions on camera, with his father in the room. Mr. Santana was interviewed again in June and described the assault on one of the joggers at the reservoir, but made no mention of the rape. Asked about it, Mr. Santana said he had been tricked by Detective Hartigan and another detective, Humberto Arroyo. "Hartigan told me the others admitted raping the woman and said I was there and that if I didn't admit it, he couldn't help me," a police report quotes Mr. Santana as saying. "So I made up the story you see on the tape to satisfy them."

 

To me, the fact that the three teenagers didn't admit to anything while parents were present (who were not allowed to coach the teens according to the detective in the article you previously posted) but then made damning confessions after the parental figures were no longer present makes the confession very suspect.  I have to wonder what happened during that period of absence and that skews my entire view of the confession.

[thegreaterbuzzette]

15 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I don’t think the five people convicted are guilty of anything besides the kind of trouble any teenager could get into.  They were done a great injustice. They deserve all the restitution they can get. The prosecutor in the case did a ****ty job.  (you can’t argue that point, innocent people were sent to jail for many years for no reason). 

 

HOWEVER the point of this miniseries is to make the issue something more than it is. Less that 5 percent of people in prison are actually innocent. I consider that a job well done, personally. There are not a lot of innocent people mistreated by the criminal justice system in prison.

Isn't the fact that they are innocent yet in jail itself a mistreatment by the criminal justice system?

 

I've been mistreated by the criminal justice system. Did you know even if case is thrown out and the judge gives a very stern talking to the state's DA for even prosecuting and asks they deliver a message back to the officers involved that they were wrong......you still have to pay fees for the administration of paperwork? Not even counting legal fees that turns out you probably didn't need but were so scared by the police tactics and behavior that you obtained one?

 

 

[Gamebreaker]

On 6/10/2019 at 8:59 PM, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

2 to 5 percent of people in prisons are innocent.

 

 

This series seems to be race baiting “when they see us”...

 

 

I wouldn’t want to be in the 5 percent.

 

Where does this statistic come from? Does it take into account the number of cases that don't go to trial? Is it taking into account the number of times that a prosecutor overcharges the suspect to apply pressure on them to take a plea deal, despite the suspect may not be actually guilty? Or that some people plead guilty so that they don't sit in jail waiting for trial? 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

Where does this statistic come from?

 

I tried looking it up last night but I couldn’t find it. As far as murder and rape, the innocents project puts the number at around 1 percent.

 

5 hours ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Isn't the fact that they are innocent yet in jail itself a mistreatment by the criminal justice system?

 

Yes, they were. My point is that it’s not systematic.

 

 

[Chew]

In case anyone was unsure of where Donny stands on this issue today:

 

Trump was asked if he would apologize for pushing for the execution of 14 and 15 year-old boys that were later fully exonerated --

 

 

[Bozo the kKklown]