4 ms·

> I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator? It's actually a pretty complicated case. I'd recomme

by throwaway622019 7y ago

> I'm puzzled: did they actually put five people in jail, even though there was actually one perpetrator? It's actually a pretty complicated case. I'd recommend reading both the recommendation from Morgenthau to vacate the convictions[1] (which ended up happening) and the Armstrong report[2] (which came to the conclusion that the Central Park Five were most likely involved in the attack). Doctors involved in the case as well as the victim still believe that there were more than one attacker[3] (the victim has no memory of the attack). The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison). Like I said, the best way to get an idea about the case is to read the two reports. Most of the news articles that cover the story don't do a great job. [1] http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/wise.pdf http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/wise.pdf [2] https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Armstrong.pdf https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Armstrong.pdf [3] https://abcnews.go.com/US/case-settled-1989-central-park-jogger-believes-person/story?id=63077131 https://abcnews.go.com/US/case-settled-1989-central-park-jog...

eaurouge 7y ago
> The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) Are you saying the police found DNA of one or more of the five on the victim?
- throwaway622019 7y ago
  They didn't find DNA from any of the five. They found the DNA from a sixth person the couldn't identify. This person confessed to the crime years later (after the statute of limitations passed), and also claimed he acted alone in that particular attack (the five were part of a larger group participating in multiple random assaults on bystanders that night).
  - eaurouge 7y ago
    Got it. Then this sentence is incorrectly phrased: > The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison). Should be: > The only person whose DNA was found there is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison). I would argue that your comments in brackets are also irrelevant, because it appears to be suggesting something for which there is no basis for. In other words, he confessed to the crime, period. And his DNA was found on the victim. So we know he is guilty, period.
    - chrismcb 7y ago
      Your edit removes a vital piece of info, that the person whose DNA was found at the scene was not one of the five. The ops statement makes it clear the DNA comes from a sixth person, while your edit doesn't. In fact I don't even see how you asked your question.
throwaway987665 7y ago
The Armstrong report is problematic. Its main goal is to justify the conduct of the NYPD and it does so by inventing new theories of the crime. In presenting the report the committee members themselves said that they could not rule out the possibility that the defendants are completely innocent of the crime (which is the definition of “reasonable doubt “). For some reporting on this committee at the time see https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jogger-case-lacks-official-certainty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jog...
- rayiner 7y ago
  The Armstrong Report was also authored by someone who had previously worked in the Knapp Commission, which investigated and exposed corruption in the NYPD. Additionally, reasonable doubt isn’t the standard in the court of public opinion and history. Obviously the conviction itself must live or die based on whether reasonable doubt exists. But if we want to sit here on a message board and speculate about what really happened, the reports conclusion of what “probably” happened may be a better standard. (There is an important distinction between the state’s failure to meet the burden of proof, and complete exoneration, as recent goings-on with Bob Muller demonstrate.)

eaurouge 7y ago

> The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) Are you saying the police found DNA of one or more of the five on the victim?

throwaway622019 7y ago
They didn't find DNA from any of the five. They found the DNA from a sixth person the couldn't identify. This person confessed to the crime years later (after the statute of limitations passed), and also claimed he acted alone in that particular attack (the five were part of a larger group participating in multiple random assaults on bystanders that night).
- eaurouge 7y ago
  Got it. Then this sentence is incorrectly phrased: > The only person who's DNA was found there (who wasn't part of the five) is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison). Should be: > The only person whose DNA was found there is the person who claims that there was only one attacker (he confessed to the crime and made the claim that he was the only attacker after meeting one of the five in prison). I would argue that your comments in brackets are also irrelevant, because it appears to be suggesting something for which there is no basis for. In other words, he confessed to the crime, period. And his DNA was found on the victim. So we know he is guilty, period.
  - chrismcb 7y ago
    Your edit removes a vital piece of info, that the person whose DNA was found at the scene was not one of the five. The ops statement makes it clear the DNA comes from a sixth person, while your edit doesn't. In fact I don't even see how you asked your question.

throwaway987665 7y ago

The Armstrong report is problematic. Its main goal is to justify the conduct of the NYPD and it does so by inventing new theories of the crime. In presenting the report the committee members themselves said that they could not rule out the possibility that the defendants are completely innocent of the crime (which is the definition of “reasonable doubt “). For some reporting on this committee at the time see https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jogger-case-lacks-official-certainty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/new-slant-on-jog...

rayiner 7y ago
The Armstrong Report was also authored by someone who had previously worked in the Knapp Commission, which investigated and exposed corruption in the NYPD. Additionally, reasonable doubt isn’t the standard in the court of public opinion and history. Obviously the conviction itself must live or die based on whether reasonable doubt exists. But if we want to sit here on a message board and speculate about what really happened, the reports conclusion of what “probably” happened may be a better standard. (There is an important distinction between the state’s failure to meet the burden of proof, and complete exoneration, as recent goings-on with Bob Muller demonstrate.)