2 ms·

Again, assuming they actually did anything. Which at this point is a pretty big assumption. One requiring us to believe a one-sided narrative. So either we beli

Again, assuming they actually did anything. Which at this point is a pretty big assumption. One requiring us to believe a one-sided narrative. So either we believe the one sided narrative of the NY Times camp, or we believe the one sided narrative of the Trump-like camp. The only things we really know as fact, is that the DNA at the scene belonged to the perp. Which perp turned out to be none of the people we actually convicted of the crime. Everything else requires us to believe suspect entities. Were the confessions uncoerced? Well, that all depends on whether or not you believe the NYPD and the courts. Was it actually these kids who committed all these other crimes? Well, again, depends on whether you want to believe the NYPD and courts, or the guys who are now speaking without fear of further torture. This whole thing went off the rails when the initial exculpatory evidence was ignored. From that point on, every decision just made things worse and worse.

rayiner 7y ago
There was physical evidence linking them to the other crimes for which they were convicted.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Again, if you trust the entities producing the evidence, there was. List the evidence, and an intellectually honest guy would have to concede that it's all based on trust. So it really does come down to, who do you trust? I think the only thing we can say for certain is none of these guys committed the crime they were convicted of. And even that is only because we actually have the DNA, not because we trust the actual perp who confessed to the crime.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    They were convicted of more than just that crime, first of all. Second, I don’t think there is any indication the police fabricated evidence here. I think confessions are weaker evidence than we assume, and should be treated with more suspicion. I think the police and prosecution pursued a case while ignoring the inconsistencies in the confessions. But there is no indication that anyone manufactured evidence or tried to frame these young men. And that’s my point in the sibling comment. If you think criminal justice reform can be achieved by hiring people who won’t fabricate evidence against totally innocent people, I’m sorry you’re going to be disappointed by how much deeper the challenges run.
    - bilbo0s 7y ago
      I know they were convicted of more than one crime. That's my entire point. We have no idea which crimes they were guilty of, if any, or which they were innocent of. The only thing we know is, they didn't commit the crime that we have the DNA for. And again, we know that because we have DNA, not because we have to trust some perp or some cop. Point is, any evidence that requires trust in the police, or the defense, is suspect. And you have to choose who you should believe. But you really won't be able to say with certainty that such evidence is not of tainted colour. You just don't have honest enough people in the system to do that. What happened here, is that people ignored all the exculpatory evidence. Even though it certainly agitated against the veracity of other "evidence" that had been "collected" by the police. Once that decision was made, a bad outcome was a virtual certainty.

rayiner 7y ago

There was physical evidence linking them to the other crimes for which they were convicted.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Again, if you trust the entities producing the evidence, there was. List the evidence, and an intellectually honest guy would have to concede that it's all based on trust. So it really does come down to, who do you trust? I think the only thing we can say for certain is none of these guys committed the crime they were convicted of. And even that is only because we actually have the DNA, not because we trust the actual perp who confessed to the crime.
- rayiner 7y ago
  They were convicted of more than just that crime, first of all. Second, I don’t think there is any indication the police fabricated evidence here. I think confessions are weaker evidence than we assume, and should be treated with more suspicion. I think the police and prosecution pursued a case while ignoring the inconsistencies in the confessions. But there is no indication that anyone manufactured evidence or tried to frame these young men. And that’s my point in the sibling comment. If you think criminal justice reform can be achieved by hiring people who won’t fabricate evidence against totally innocent people, I’m sorry you’re going to be disappointed by how much deeper the challenges run.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    I know they were convicted of more than one crime. That's my entire point. We have no idea which crimes they were guilty of, if any, or which they were innocent of. The only thing we know is, they didn't commit the crime that we have the DNA for. And again, we know that because we have DNA, not because we have to trust some perp or some cop. Point is, any evidence that requires trust in the police, or the defense, is suspect. And you have to choose who you should believe. But you really won't be able to say with certainty that such evidence is not of tainted colour. You just don't have honest enough people in the system to do that. What happened here, is that people ignored all the exculpatory evidence. Even though it certainly agitated against the veracity of other "evidence" that had been "collected" by the police. Once that decision was made, a bad outcome was a virtual certainty.