3 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoThe 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.)