Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trumping the Facts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trumping the Facts

    In another instance of reality bending to ego, and giving a wink to the "I'm not racist but......" crowd

    Trump still insists the central park five are guilty

    http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37614095

    In this climate, and in response to the attack, Donald Trump - then known only as the flashy real estate developer who had just purchased the Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City - took out a full-page ad in four New York newspapers.
    "Bring back the death penalty. Bring back our police!" the ad read.

    "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," he continued.
    "Civil liberties end when an attack on our safety begins!"


    Then, in 2002, a new investigation revealed that serial rapist and convicted murderer Matias Reyes had actually committed the crime.
    He confessed he had acted alone. DNA evidence confirmed his account.
    Again the point is not what he thought as a emotional response in the immediate aftermath of the attack, it is what he thinks now notwithstanding all the godlike powers of hindsight.

  • #2
    The Central Park Five were guilty, and therefore remain so. This case is another members of the liberal left latched onto in an attempt to subvert justice. The Central Park Five were duly convicted in a court of law, so liberals retried the case in the court of public opinion. And they kept after it until they got the result they wanted.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Martok View Post
      The Central Park Five were guilty, and therefore remain so. This case is another members of the liberal left latched onto in an attempt to subvert justice. The Central Park Five were duly convicted in a court of law, so liberals retried the case in the court of public opinion. And they kept after it until they got the result they wanted.
      Maybe in Trumpland, but in real life your wrong on all counts.

      The convictions were vacated and the exonerating evidence predated the Ken Burns documentary by several years.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
        In another instance of reality bending to ego, and giving a wink to the "I'm not racist but......" crowd

        Trump still insists the central park five are guilty

        http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37614095


        Again the point is not what he thought as a emotional response in the immediate aftermath of the attack, it is what he thinks now notwithstanding all the godlike powers of hindsight.
        Trump is far from alone.

        Many in law enforcement find serial rapists and murderers to be less than truthful, and know that they enjoy their lone wolf reputation. The subject in question's veracity has been called into question more than once.

        I have no doubt that he was there, but there is also copious evidence proving that he was not alone. Nothing in his confession, particularly in the circumstances surrounding it, gives credence that the five were innocent.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #5
          So there was no DNA linkage to any of the five first convicted?

          Is it possible M. Reyes came upon the victim after the initial attack and took advantage of the situation?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
            Maybe in Trumpland, but in real life your wrong on all counts.
            In real life we have all seen this tactic employed before. The liberal/progressive left promotes a lie, are exposed as promoting a lie, then wait a period of time until they think no one remembers and start promoting the same lie again.

            I realize the logical fallacy of your underlying argument. Suspect A admitted to participation in a crime, therefore no other suspects could possibly also be guilty. But then those promoting the innocence of the Central Park Five have always relied on the ignorance, willful or deliberate, of those either desperate to subvert the justice system or biased against the police. As I stated the last time you brought this crap up, what this case truly represents is a classic example of leftist logic of the same type you display above. The victim was white, the defendants were black, therefore inherent racism in the system. The defendants in this case were duly convicted in a court of law. In response the liberal/progressive crowd simply retried the case in the court of public opinion.

            Matias Reyes is a career criminal. Murderpedia list him as not only a killer but a serial rapist. Yet his participation in the brutal rape of Meili does nothing to prove the innocence of the Central Park Five. Reyes claimed he acted alone, but this is the word of a career criminal who is also guilty of raping and killing a pregnant woman in front of her own children. The DNA evidence proves he participated in the rape, not that no one else participated in the crime. Further Reyes' confession was not subject to cross-examination. Therefore the convictions of the Central Park Five were overturned based on a volunteered confession of a career criminal, including his claim he acted alone. For those not paying attention, his first claim could be and was confirmed by DNA evidence. His second claim was based on nothing but his own credibility.

            But for liberal/progressive social justice warriors, the word of a career killer and rapist is far more credible than that of the entire NYPD.

            Two separate crime scenes existed in relation to the attack on Trisha Meili. You do remember Trisha Meili? The victim of this crime? The fact two crime scenes produced evidence supported the prosecutions case the Central Park Five were involved in the initial attack against Meili regardless of whether they participated in the rape.

            Regardless of what the same hacks who are still promoting the "hands up, don't shoot" lie may want the world to believe, the NYPD is one of the best police organizations in the world. The crime was investigated for a year before the first suspects were brought to trial. The suspects were interviewed in the presence of their parents. The convictions which followed were largely based on the detailed confessions of the suspects, all of which were videotaped. It is important to note these confessions were made pre-trial. This means the defendants made their confessions prior to any of the potential evidence against them being revealed, to include what other suspects or witnesses might say. The confessions were also made prior to the victim waking from her coma and therefore possibly being able to identify them. Concerning the victim all the suspects knew at the time of their confessions was she had survived the attack. They could not have known she would be unable to identify them later due to retaining no memory of the assault. These confessions also survived a six-week hearing prior to being admitted as evidence by the sitting judge.

            Two separate juries heard the evidence and convicted the defendants on various charges. These convictions were upheld upon appeal.

            So of course the defense claimed the confessions were coerced by the police and took their case from the courtroom and re-tried it in the media. In doing so they employed the standard tactics of claiming inherent racism within the NYPD perpetrated upon these five little darlings by dishonest, bigoted cops. It is important to note, however, the claims made by the defendants their confessions were coerced was only made after they had consulted with civil attorneys.

            A recent article published in New York News and Politics highlights the arguments from both sides.

            Central Park Revisited

            Mike Sheehan, 54, one of the key detectives in the Central Park case, comes out of the city's tradition of street-savvy Irish cops. Michael Warren, 58, the lawyer who is trying to vindicate McCray, Richardson, and Santana, comes out of the sixties tradition of black radicalism. Both men, and the camps they represent, are tenacious in defending their sense of emotional innocence. "All this stuff about coercion really (blanks) me off," Sheehan says. "Do you honestly think that we -- detectives with more than twenty years in, family men with pensions -- would risk all of that so we could put words in the mouth of a 15-year-old kid? Absolutely not."

            "Oh, the police are lying," Warren says. "Absolutely. I've spoken to the parents, I've spoken to our clients, and I've seen the effect on them when they begin to tell the story of what was done to them during the interrogations: They break down. So I don't have any question as to their version of what took place."

            Source: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/crimel...36/index1.html

            In opposition to the argument you are attempting to promote are police investigators with decades of experience defending their conclusions while in support of your argument is a civil defense attorney basing his conclusions on the looks on his clients faces.

            How could any reasonable person ever question that dichotomy?

            Anyone who so desires can read the case file history. Do that and you find the assault on Trisha Meili was not the only crime committed that night and not the only crime for which the defendants were charged. Following the 1990 case the defendants were convicted for their participation in a series of attacks conducted throughout the night of April 19th, to include:

            "Accosting Michael Vigna, a racing biker, who escaped without physical injury;

            Assaulting and robbing Antonio Diaz, who was left on the side of a roadway unconscious;

            Menacing a couple on a tandem bicycle;

            Hurling rocks at and threatening a taxi driver;

            Threatening a male jogger, David Goode, who escaped without physical injury;


            Threatening a male jogger, Robert Garner, who escaped without physical injury;

            Assaulting a male jogger, David Lewis, who sustained physical injuries;

            Assaulting a male jogger, John Loughlin, who sustained serious injuries from being knocked to the ground, kicked, punched, and beaten with a pipe and a stick."


            The attack against Meili was the most henious committed that night, but it wasn't the only one. What you and all the other social justice warriors who can't see beyond skin color refuse to acknowledge is the simple fact the confession made by Reyes did not alter the evidence presented against the Central Park Five during the original trial. During her summation to the jury prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer stated, quote:

            "Others who were not caught raped her and got away."

            It was known and cited at the time of the trials the semen found at the crime scene did not match any of the five defendants. Reyes subsequent confession simply filled in another blank. The trials resulted in lawful convictions, convictions which again survived appeal. From the report cited above, quote:

            FINDINGS REGARDING POLICE CONDUCT

            "Based on our review of the material related to this case and conversations with various witnesses and interested individuals, we conclude that there was no misconduct on the part of the New York City Police Department in the arrests and interrogations of the defendants. The police officers followed carefully the special statutory rules relating to the questioning of individuals less than 16 years of age, in particular rules pertaining to the participation of parents or guardians in such interviews. The New York County District Attorney and his senior staff have stated to us that they have found no evidence of coercion in the questioning of the defendants or others involved in the events of April 19, 1989, and they have no criticism of the interrogation or arrest techniques employed by the police. Our conclusion is also strongly supported by the opinion of Justice Thomas B. Galligan regarding the defendants’ original motions to suppress their statements."

            In addition, quote:

            "There is no corroboration for Reyes’s claim that he acted alone. The only evidence to support the view that he acted by himself remains his own statement that he did so."

            As for the defendants claims of their confessions having been coerced, the NYPD review addressed this point as well, quote:

            "However, although the defendants have complained of being coerced; and have claimed that the police officers pressed them to confess, only one of them purported to explain how they got the factual details they gave in their statements. Defendant Wise was the only defendant to claim he had been fed; answers. This contention was rejected in Justice Galligan's exhaustive opinion. The parents or family members of Santana, McCray and Richardson were present during all of their interrogations and the giving of written and video statements."

            Yet you would have us believe that even given the parents of the defendants were present during all interrogations and during their videotaped confessions, the police were still somehow able to either force them to confess or fed them the responses the police required.

            Case File History: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cpj...2703jgrrpt.pdf

            As for the Donald Trump connection to this case, Trump came to the defense of the victim as opposed to that of the perpetrators, and it is for that reason alone his detractors are attempting to use this case to support the idiotic claim his support for the victim renders him a racist. Trump remembered who the victim in this case actually was, a woman savagely raped, beaten nearly to death, and then tossed aside as trash by the perpetrators. Only the SJW crowd could employ logic so twisted as to render the criminals the victims and the victim as worthless. It is logic supported by a biased PBS documentary and the word of a convicted serial rapist and murderer, in response to which even CNN reported:

            "The NYPD panel also found a motive for Reyes to lie -- "evidence to suggest that he came forward in response to threats" in prison, where his paths crossed with Wise. His confession facilitated his transfer to a more preferable prison, where he is serving 33 years to life."

            Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/27/ny...ort/index.html

            But I understand you have an agenda to promote. The Queen has commanded...

            Murderpedia listing on Matias REYES: http://www.murderpedia.org/male.R/r/reyes-matias.htm

            In regard to the Central Park Jogger Case, this tactic of retrying cases in the court of public opinion is nothing new. You can reference the cases of Edmund Perry, Marla Hanson, Rodney King, O J Simpson, Marion Berry, Edward Summers, Michael Lasane, Christopher Lane, Jessica Chambers, George Zimmerman, Reginald Denny, and the murders of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian. In regard to the latter local blacks in the Knoxville area held a "Kill Them Again" rally and of course insist those arrested for the murders were both innocent and framed by the police.*

            The prize example of how the liberal/progressive left champions the criminal is*Mumia Abu Jamal, a convicted cop killer the left has all but deified. They call him a journalist framed by the system, even though the evidence in the case clearly proves his guilt.*

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              Trump is far from alone.

              Many in law enforcement find serial rapists and murderers to be less than truthful, and know that they enjoy their lone wolf reputation. The subject in question's veracity has been called into question more than once.

              I have no doubt that he was there, but there is also copious evidence proving that he was not alone. Nothing in his confession, particularly in the circumstances surrounding it, gives credence that the five were innocent.
              The problem is you can't pick and choose what you like from the collection of "confessions" and pretend it still represents reliable evidence. The addition of this stranger to the group doesn't simply make it less probable, it destroys the prosecution's theory of the case. If the original "confessions" were anyway genuine, they would have mentioned this stranger.

              If you want to toss all of them out, including the newest, then fine but that leaves only direct physical evidence tied to a known violent sex offender with a similar M.O. The evidence of "multiple" offenders was always at best debatable and inconsistent in the details.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                So there was no DNA linkage to any of the five first convicted?

                Is it possible M. Reyes came upon the victim after the initial attack and took advantage of the situation?
                Yes.

                And in gang rape situations, it is not uncommon that only one viable DNA sample will be recovered.

                Keep in mind that DNA evidence was in its infancy when this attack took place, and the key phrase is 'viable sample'.

                The fact that no viable sample for the five were found proves that no viable samples were found. They could have worn condoms, or samples could simple have been contaminated by blood, mucus, site debris, other DNA samples, or have simply not been in a collectable state.

                The five were not convicted on DNA evidence. Therefore the absence thereof should not impact their conviction.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  The problem is you can't pick and choose what you like from the collection of "confessions" and pretend it still represents reliable evidence. The addition of this stranger to the group doesn't simply make it less probable, it destroys the prosecution's theory of the case. If the original "confessions" were anyway genuine, they would have mentioned this stranger.
                  To take any confession at face value is foolish. You take a confession and cross-reference it with physical evidence and other factual data to tie it together. Every confession in tis case, like most cases, contains verifiable falsehoods, particularly to their own culpability.

                  So no 'theory' was destroyed, because prosecutors do not present theories; they present facts.

                  There is also the issue that the sixth, later confession contains verifiable falsehoods. It changes nothing about the five; it only adds a sixth offender who could have, as suggested, have attacked the girl after the fire. Given that the sixth subject was a known associate of at least one of the five, his inclusion in the main attack is very believable.

                  In no place in the trial did the prosecutor argue that there were only five attackers; in several places the records state 'at least five assailants'.


                  Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                  If you want to toss all of them out, including the newest, then fine but that leaves only direct physical evidence tied to a known violent sex offender with a similar M.O. The evidence of "multiple" offenders was always at best debatable and inconsistent in the details.
                  Nonsense. The evidence of multiple attackers was undeniable. Perhaps in Canada a single attacker can hold a victim by both wrists and ankles (separately) while performing various sexual assaults, but in the USA to obtain those bruise and abrasion patterns it takes more than one person.

                  In the USA people's feet seldom change up to two and a half shoes sizes during an incident. Nor have I heard of a rapist who changed his shoes multiple times during an attack.

                  And that is just a few of the 1300 items of evidence presented by the State.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Martok View Post
                    In real life we have all seen this tactic employed before. The liberal/progressive left promotes a lie, are exposed as promoting a lie, then wait a period of time until they think no one remembers and start promoting the same lie again. .....
                    ... The prize example of how the liberal/progressive left champions the criminal is*Mumia Abu Jamal, a convicted cop killer the left has all but deified. They call him a journalist framed by the system, even though the evidence in the case clearly proves his guilt.*
                    Wow, that was one hell of a post!
                    I had not heard about this case before, tanks for putting all that up there.

                    And the propaganda is flying pretty thick these days, and will for the next 3 weeks as the only Dem strategy is to raise Trump's disapproval rating. They can't make Hillary likable, or lower her own negatives, so ...

                    Guess its time to start putting some threads of my own up, information about issues, instead of this Peyton-Place garbage.
                    "Why is the Rum gone?"

                    -Captain Jack

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Martok View Post
                      In real life we have all seen this tactic employed before. The liberal/progressive left promotes a lie, are exposed as promoting a lie, then wait a period of time until they think no one remembers and start promoting the same lie again.
                      ................................................


                      LOL! Nope in real life I have a job and don;t have time for a scatter-gun pan judicial essay on everything from OJ to liberalism but lets sum up perhaps where we agree

                      1) confessions can be unreliable
                      2) prosecutors are subject to political pressure




                      The new DNA evidence and new confession demanded at a minimum a retrial, but the same system that convicted has now vacated those same convictions. You liked the political pressure and the result in the first instance but don't like it in the final instance.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                        The new DNA evidence and new confession demanded at a minimum a retrial, but the same system that convicted has now vacated those same convictions. You liked the political pressure and the result in the first instance but don't like it in the final instance.

                        You don't get a retrial after you have served your sentence.

                        Vacating a sentence is a handy way to look like you are doing something while doing nothing. All 5 were out of prison already.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Martok View Post
                          In real life we have all seen this tactic employed before. The liberal/progressive left promotes a lie, are exposed as promoting a lie, then wait a period of time until they think no one remembers and start promoting the same lie again.

                          I realize the logical fallacy of your underlying argument. Suspect A admitted to participation in a crime, therefore no other suspects could possibly also be guilty. But then those promoting the innocence of the Central Park Five have always relied on the ignorance, willful or deliberate, of those either desperate to subvert the justice system or biased against the police. As I stated the last time you brought this crap up, what this case truly represents is a classic example of leftist logic of the same type you display above. The victim was white, the defendants were black, therefore inherent racism in the system. The defendants in this case were duly convicted in a court of law. In response the liberal/progressive crowd simply retried the case in the court of public opinion.

                          Matias Reyes is a career criminal. Murderpedia list him as not only a killer but a serial rapist. Yet his participation in the brutal rape of Meili does nothing to prove the innocence of the Central Park Five. ....
                          .....*
                          Excellent post and summation of a very involved and complicated case. As pointed out by you and others, looking at "at least" five assailants, if not more, and compelling conditions for all six to be quilty to various degrees.

                          Also appreciate the linkage/inference to similar situations where the guilty eventually wiggle free due to "social injustice" undermining legal justice.

                          Can only rep a post once, but this deserves more.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                            To take any confession at face value is foolish. You take a confession and cross-reference it with physical evidence and other factual data to tie it together. Every confession in tis case, like most cases, contains verifiable falsehoods, particularly to their own culpability.

                            So no 'theory' was destroyed, because prosecutors do not present theories; they present facts.

                            There is also the issue that the sixth, later confession contains verifiable falsehoods. It changes nothing about the five; it only adds a sixth offender who could have, as suggested, have attacked the girl after the fire. Given that the sixth subject was a known associate of at least one of the five, his inclusion in the main attack is very believable.



                            Facts aren't presented to the jury in sequence without commentary. Basic trial prep for all parties involves constructing a theory of the case so that the facts fit into a story line that is believable and understandable.

                            Of course confessions often contain falsehoods that minimize personal culpability They also may contain errors in detail but still may be true in substance. There are also cases of demonstrably false confessions particularly with young suspects.

                            When they contain errors in substance that don't reflect on the accused guilt or innocence of the accused, such as the existence of an entirely new perpetrator when the accused has already named the others involved, then there is reason to question the reliability of the entire confession.



                            Nonsense. The evidence of multiple attackers was undeniable. Perhaps in Canada a single attacker can hold a victim by both wrists and ankles (separately) while performing various sexual assaults, but in the USA to obtain those bruise and abrasion patterns it takes more than one person.

                            In the USA people's feet seldom change up to two and a half shoes sizes during an incident. Nor have I heard of a rapist who changed his shoes multiple times during an attack.
                            Yes perhaps it is more complicated in Canada. For example, here sometimes all marks on a victims body don't occur in the same instant in time. So for example, grabbing someone off a path, struggling with her, subduing, her dragging her somewhere while fighting her, smashing her head and then raping her may result in pervasive injuries throughout her body even when one person is involved.

                            As for the shoe evidence, it was a public park with an injured victim. Not a secured remote crime scene with a dead body.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                              LOL! Nope in real life I have a job...
                              I worked my entire fracking life pal. That I am now retired is a blessing, not an indictment. But elitist is as elitist does.

                              Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                              ...and don;t have time for a scatter-gun pan judicial essay on everything from OJ to liberalism...
                              Translation: You can't refute anything so resort to insult.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X