Central Park 5

Jun 5, 19 10:49

Post #1 of 28 Views: 2771

Watched the new Netflix "When They See Us" mini-series about the Central Park 5. I have very vague recollections of this from the time.

It's somewhat in the vein of "Making a Murderer" which is a documentary, but really looking into this issue of the wrongfully convicted. It's a terrible situation. You are trying to imagine yourself, caught up in something like that - being wrongfully convicted of a crime, that you did not commit, and being sent to jail for it.

Like the story line in "Making a Murderer", the story behind the events that lead to the original conviction of the Central Park 5 is, complicated, shady, and shaky. Ultimately they were exonerated - but were they COMPLETELY innocent?

Wondering what others think.

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Re: Central Park 5 [Fleck] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 10:58

Post #2 of 28 Views: 2737

Queue the Trump hater's to remind everyone of what a racist he is in 5.4.3...

Re: Central Park 5 [orphious] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 11:02

Post #3 of 28 Views: 2717

orphious wrote:

Queue the Trump hater's to remind everyone of what a racist he is in 5.4.3...

It’s the only reason why this show was made.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Re: Central Park 5 [Fleck] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 11:04

Post #4 of 28 Views: 2710

Fleck wrote:

Watched the new Netflix "When They See Us" mini-series about the Central Park 5. I have very vague recollections of this from the time.

It's somewhat in the vein of "Making a Murderer" which is a documentary, but really looking into this issue of the wrongfully convicted. It's a terrible situation. You are trying to imagine yourself, caught up in something like that - being wrongfully convicted of a crime, that you did not commit, and being sent to jail for it.

Like the story line in "Making a Murderer", the story behind the events that lead to the original conviction of the Central Park 5 is, complicated, shady, and shaky. Ultimately they were exonerated - but were they COMPLETELY innocent?

Wondering what others think.

Where are they today?

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

Re: Central Park 5 [orphious] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 11:09

Post #5 of 28 Views: 2700

Does nothing for me - Trump loved stirring the pot, and being a controversial ass back then. If you knew about his behavior back then, what he's done/said as President, is of no real surprise.

Hitting a bit closer to home and from exactly the same time. Trump was involved briefly in the sport of cycling. He put some money (and there is some controversy if it was even his money - LOL), into a Professional Bike Race, and insisted that it be called by his name - Tour de Trump! Also in keeping with Trumps usually outrageous statements and behavior, he said, his race would be, "bigger than the Tour de France one day"!. He was completely out of it after a couple of years of involvement!

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Re: Central Park 5 [Duffy] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 11:13

Post #6 of 28 Views: 2681

It’s the only reason why this show was made.

The Trump involvement, while important at the time (taking out the newspaper ads - that had to be HIGHLY influential in the Court of Public Opinion!), how I viewed, was it was really just a cameo kind of thing. It was a minute or two in a 4 part, 5 hour series.

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Re: Central Park 5 [Fleck] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 11:37

Post #7 of 28 Views: 2634

Fleck wrote:

It’s the only reason why this show was made.

The Trump involvement, while important at the time (taking out the newspaper ads - that had to be HIGHLY influential in the Court of Public Opinion!), how I viewed, was it was really just a cameo kind of thing. It was a minute or two in a 4 part, 5 hour series.

Well to blatantly focus on Trump would be to obvious.

Agenda driven propaganda works better if the recipient comes to conclusions “on their own”.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Re: Central Park 5 [Duffy] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 11:50

Post #8 of 28 Views: 2608

Duffy wrote:

Fleck wrote:

It’s the only reason why this show was made.

The Trump involvement, while important at the time (taking out the newspaper ads - that had to be HIGHLY influential in the Court of Public Opinion!), how I viewed, was it was really just a cameo kind of thing. It was a minute or two in a 4 part, 5 hour series.

Well to blatantly focus on Trump would be to obvious.

Agenda driven propaganda works better if the recipient comes to conclusions “on their own”.

Haven't seen the series. What part of Trump's depiction was biased or misleading?

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Re: Central Park 5 [Fleck] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 11:58

Post #9 of 28 Views: 2589

Fleck wrote:

Watched the new Netflix "When They See Us" mini-series about the Central Park 5. I have very vague recollections of this from the time.

It's somewhat in the vein of "Making a Murderer" which is a documentary, but really looking into this issue of the wrongfully convicted. It's a terrible situation. You are trying to imagine yourself, caught up in something like that - being wrongfully convicted of a crime, that you did not commit, and being sent to jail for it.

Like the story line in "Making a Murderer", the story behind the events that lead to the original conviction of the Central Park 5 is, complicated, shady, and shaky. Ultimately they were exonerated - but were they COMPLETELY innocent?

Wondering what others think.

What do you mean by this?

Re: Central Park 5 [orphious] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 12:08

Post #10 of 28 Views: 2578

orphious wrote:

Queue the Trump hater's to remind everyone of what a racist he is in 5.4.3...

Trying to preempt folks from calling out your racist hero?
Why not be a man and accept that 'your' guy is a racist?

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

Re: Central Park 5 [j p o] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 12:19

Post #11 of 28 Views: 2556

j p o wrote:

Duffy wrote:

Fleck wrote:

It’s the only reason why this show was made.

The Trump involvement, while important at the time (taking out the newspaper ads - that had to be HIGHLY influential in the Court of Public Opinion!), how I viewed, was it was really just a cameo kind of thing. It was a minute or two in a 4 part, 5 hour series.

Well to blatantly focus on Trump would be to obvious.

Agenda driven propaganda works better if the recipient comes to conclusions “on their own”.

Haven't seen the series. What part of Trump's depiction was biased or misleading?

I'm going to guess Duffy hasn't watched any of it, and will soon state unequivocally HE IS NOT DEFENDING TRUMP!

Re: Central Park 5 [Fleck] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 12:24

Post #12 of 28 Views: 2545

I'm not interested in watching agitprop so I won't be seeing this series. To my knowledge all of the investigators and prosecutors involved in the case believe the 5 are guilty of playing a role in the rape. Throw in the fact that the wolfpack were involved in vicious assaults earlier that night in the park and its especially sickening that NYC paid them millions.

Re: Central Park 5 [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 12:38

Post #13 of 28 Views: 2520

PrinceMax wrote:

I'm not interested in watching agitprop so I won't be seeing this series. To my knowledge all of the investigators and prosecutors involved in the case believe the 5 are guilty of playing a role in the rape. Throw in the fact that the wolfpack were involved in vicious assaults earlier that night in the park and its especially sickening that NYC paid them millions.

The information is out there, you just have to not avoid it. Bold is added by me.

In 2002, Reyes said that on the night of April 19, 1989, he had assaulted and raped the jogger, when he was 17 years old. He said that he had acted alone.[52][53] At the time of the attack, he was working at an East Harlem convenience store on Third Avenue and 102nd Street, and living in a van on the street.[53][54] He provided a detailed account of the attack, details of which were corroborated by other evidence.[5] The DNA evidence confirmed his participation in the rape, identifying him as the sole contributor of the semen found in and on the victim "to a factor of one in 6,000,000,000 people".[5] DNA analysis of the strands of hair found in Richardson's underpants established that the hair did not belong to the victim.[55] The victim had been tied up with her T-shirt in a distinctive fashion that Reyes used again on later victims.[5]

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Re: Central Park 5 [j p o] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 13:04

Post #14 of 28 Views: 2493

j p o wrote:

PrinceMax wrote:

I'm not interested in watching agitprop so I won't be seeing this series. To my knowledge all of the investigators and prosecutors involved in the case believe the 5 are guilty of playing a role in the rape. Throw in the fact that the wolfpack were involved in vicious assaults earlier that night in the park and its especially sickening that NYC paid them millions.

The information is out there, you just have to not avoid it. Bold is added by me.

In 2002, Reyes said that on the night of April 19, 1989, he had assaulted and raped the jogger, when he was 17 years old. He said that he had acted alone.[52][53] At the time of the attack, he was working at an East Harlem convenience store on Third Avenue and 102nd Street, and living in a van on the street.[53][54] He provided a detailed account of the attack, details of which were corroborated by other evidence.[5] The DNA evidence confirmed his participation in the rape, identifying him as the sole contributor of the semen found in and on the victim "to a factor of one in 6,000,000,000 people".[5] DNA analysis of the strands of hair found in Richardson's underpants established that the hair did not belong to the victim.[55] The victim had been tied up with her T-shirt in a distinctive fashion that Reyes used again on later victims.[5]

And Reyes was rewarded for making that statement. Read the 2003 report issued by the NYPD on the case. It's very likely the 5 were guilty. I know liberals would like people to believe that this investigation and prosecution was something out of the 1950s Mississippi but it certainly was not.

Re: Central Park 5 [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 13:08

Post #15 of 28 Views: 2486

PrinceMax wrote:

I'm not interested in watching agitprop so I won't be seeing this series. To my knowledge all of the investigators and prosecutors involved in the case believe the 5 are guilty of playing a role in the rape. Throw in the fact that the wolfpack were involved in vicious assaults earlier that night in the park and its especially sickening that NYC paid them millions.

I am with you on this. But its a question of being guilty/not guilty and not of innocence. Those kids were not in the park for Shakespeare in the park event. They were tugs that did many crimes that night. I lived in the city that time not far from where the attack happened. I clearly remember the shock and fear that this caused. This crime went very deep into peoples It was a night with a lot of attacks, stone throwing in the park. they called it Wildering or something like that. It's a shame that they were paid millions but hat what happens when the police and their detective are eager to convict to appease the crowed. Its a tough one.

Re: Central Park 5 [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 13:12

Post #16 of 28 Views: 2480

PrinceMax wrote:

j p o wrote:

PrinceMax wrote:

I'm not interested in watching agitprop so I won't be seeing this series. To my knowledge all of the investigators and prosecutors involved in the case believe the 5 are guilty of playing a role in the rape. Throw in the fact that the wolfpack were involved in vicious assaults earlier that night in the park and its especially sickening that NYC paid them millions.

The information is out there, you just have to not avoid it. Bold is added by me.

In 2002, Reyes said that on the night of April 19, 1989, he had assaulted and raped the jogger, when he was 17 years old. He said that he had acted alone.[52][53] At the time of the attack, he was working at an East Harlem convenience store on Third Avenue and 102nd Street, and living in a van on the street.[53][54] He provided a detailed account of the attack, details of which were corroborated by other evidence.[5] The DNA evidence confirmed his participation in the rape, identifying him as the sole contributor of the semen found in and on the victim "to a factor of one in 6,000,000,000 people".[5] DNA analysis of the strands of hair found in Richardson's underpants established that the hair did not belong to the victim.[55] The victim had been tied up with her T-shirt in a distinctive fashion that Reyes used again on later victims.[5]

And Reyes was rewarded for making that statement. Read the 2003 report issued by the NYPD on the case. It's very likely the 5 were guilty. I know liberals would like people to believe that this investigation and prosecution was something out of the 1950s Mississippi but it certainly was not.

How did Reyes fake the DNA evidence? Was Reyes otherwise connected with these guys? What evidence beyond coerced confessions connects the 5 to the crimes?

From wikipedia with references:
Jurors who were interviewed after the trial said that they were not convinced by the confessions, but were impressed by the physical evidence introduced by the prosecutors: semen, grass, dirt, and two hairs "consistent with" the victim's hair[5]:6 recovered from Richardson's underpants

Except the semen and hair don't match not that we have good DNA tests.

They were most likely not Boy Scouts singing in the choir. But they didn't commit that crime.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Re: Central Park 5 [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 13:18

Post #17 of 28 Views: 2470

PrinceMax wrote:

j p o wrote:

PrinceMax wrote:

I'm not interested in watching agitprop so I won't be seeing this series. To my knowledge all of the investigators and prosecutors involved in the case believe the 5 are guilty of playing a role in the rape. Throw in the fact that the wolfpack were involved in vicious assaults earlier that night in the park and its especially sickening that NYC paid them millions.

The information is out there, you just have to not avoid it. Bold is added by me.

In 2002, Reyes said that on the night of April 19, 1989, he had assaulted and raped the jogger, when he was 17 years old. He said that he had acted alone.[52][53] At the time of the attack, he was working at an East Harlem convenience store on Third Avenue and 102nd Street, and living in a van on the street.[53][54] He provided a detailed account of the attack, details of which were corroborated by other evidence.[5] The DNA evidence confirmed his participation in the rape, identifying him as the sole contributor of the semen found in and on the victim "to a factor of one in 6,000,000,000 people".[5] DNA analysis of the strands of hair found in Richardson's underpants established that the hair did not belong to the victim.[55] The victim had been tied up with her T-shirt in a distinctive fashion that Reyes used again on later victims.[5]

And Reyes was rewarded for making that statement. Read the 2003 report issued by the NYPD on the case. It's very likely the 5 were guilty. I know liberals would like people to believe that this investigation and prosecution was something out of the 1950s Mississippi but it certainly was not.

So every other one of his attacks, he was alone, but this one, that follows every other detail of his other attacks, for some reason had 5 other people? People that he didn't know?

Re: Central Park 5 [chaparral] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 13:47

Post #18 of 28 Views: 2425

The 5 were attacking people throughout the park that night. Reyes was in the park that night. So it's very possible they came across Reyes prior to the rape or during the rape and participated in the attack. Or do you think Reyes told them to back off because he works alone? One of the 5, upon being picked up and put in the back of a police car, said " I didn't rape her, I just grabbed her tits." Another of the 5, in a conversation with a friend's sister said he didn't rape the woman, but just held her down. The police had nothing to do with that admission. But I suppose you'll believe that was somehow coerced by the police as well.

Re: Central Park 5 [j p o] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 13:52

Post #19 of 28 Views: 2408

j p o wrote:

Duffy wrote:

Fleck wrote:

It’s the only reason why this show was made.

The Trump involvement, while important at the time (taking out the newspaper ads - that had to be HIGHLY influential in the Court of Public Opinion!), how I viewed, was it was really just a cameo kind of thing. It was a minute or two in a 4 part, 5 hour series.

Well to blatantly focus on Trump would be to obvious.

Agenda driven propaganda works better if the recipient comes to conclusions “on their own”.

Haven't seen the series. What part of Trump's depiction was biased or misleading?

Doesn’t matter.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Re: Central Park 5 [PrinceMax] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 14:02

Post #20 of 28 Views: 2397

PrinceMax wrote:

The 5 were attacking people throughout the park that night. Reyes was in the park that night. So it's very possible they came across Reyes prior to the rape or during the rape and participated in the attack. Or do you think Reyes told them to back off because he works alone? One of the 5, upon being picked up and put in the back of a police car, said " I didn't rape her, I just grabbed her tits." Another of the 5, in a conversation with a friend's sister said he didn't rape the woman, but just held her down. The police had nothing to do with that admission. But I suppose you'll believe that was somehow coerced by the police as well.

How is that very possible? So the only witness happened to be Reves to the attack by the 5? That seems so astronomically unlikely.

Also, you are the one that is suggesting that Reves said that. Which seems unlikely.

How do you know that the Friend's sister is telling the truth or is not confusing it with something else? How do you know it is not some 14 year old saying something stupid.

Doesn't it just seem much more likely that Reves attacked the woman, just as he has attacked multiple other women? And is backed up by DNA and multiple other details? Isn't that much more likely than some crazy scenario where he just happens to run into these 5 kids and for some reason this single time works with others?

Re: Central Park 5 [orphious] [ In reply to ]

Jun 5, 19 20:33

Post #21 of 28 Views: 2293

orphious wrote:

Queue the Trump hater's to remind everyone of what a racist he is in 5.4.3...

And the punctuation Nazis!

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

Re: Central Park 5 [sphere] [ In reply to ]

Jun 6, 19 3:38

Post #22 of 28 Views: 2230

Re: Central Park 5 [orphious] [ In reply to ]

Jun 6, 19 7:29

Post #23 of 28 Views: 2161

orphious wrote:

Queue the Trump hater's to remind everyone of what a racist he is in 5.4.3...

No one can beat you do it. You're the person on this forum who's absolutely fixated on racism and brings it up far more frequently than anyone else.

Re: Central Park 5 [trail] [ In reply to ]

Jun 6, 19 7:52

Post #24 of 28 Views: 2138

absolutely false.

Re: Central Park 5 [orphious] [ In reply to ]

Jun 6, 19 8:03

Post #25 of 28 Views: 2125

orphious wrote:

absolutely false.

I don't know, I get the sense you want findinfreestyle back so you can have someone to act as a foil to air your racial grievances, but since he hasn't been in the LR for a while you're just plaintively baiting with "3, 2, 1" so you can have a playmate.

Last edited by: trail: Jun 6, 19 8:04

Re: Central Park 5 [trail] [ In reply to ]

Jun 6, 19 8:15

Post #26 of 28 Views: 438

trail wrote:

orphious wrote:

absolutely false.

I don't know, I get the sense you want findinfreestyle back so you can have someone to act as a foil to air your racial grievances, but since he hasn't been in the LR for a while you're just plaintively baiting with "3, 2, 1" so you can have a playmate.

nope. I will argue that something is or isn't racist... that much is true. But to say I am the #1 person to bring it up is not true at all. I brought it up here because that is usually cited as proof positive in this forum that Trump is a racist.

Re: Central Park 5 [orphious] [ In reply to ]

Jun 6, 19 8:20

Post #27 of 28 Views: 431

orphious wrote:

trail wrote:

orphious wrote:

absolutely false.

I don't know, I get the sense you want findinfreestyle back so you can have someone to act as a foil to air your racial grievances, but since he hasn't been in the LR for a while you're just plaintively baiting with "3, 2, 1" so you can have a playmate.

nope. I will argue that something is or isn't racist... that much is true. But to say I am the #1 person to bring it up is not true at all. I brought it up here because that is usually cited as proof positive in this forum that Trump is a racist.

Well it is not not evidence that he is racist and is not evidence that he is not racist. If we could say he was not racist we would say that, but we cannot do that.

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Re: Central Park 5 [j p o] [ In reply to ]

Jun 6, 19 8:31

Post #28 of 28 Views: 419

j p o wrote:

orphious wrote:

trail wrote:

orphious wrote:

absolutely false.

I don't know, I get the sense you want findinfreestyle back so you can have someone to act as a foil to air your racial grievances, but since he hasn't been in the LR for a while you're just plaintively baiting with "3, 2, 1" so you can have a playmate.

nope. I will argue that something is or isn't racist... that much is true. But to say I am the #1 person to bring it up is not true at all. I brought it up here because that is usually cited as proof positive in this forum that Trump is a racist.

Well it is not not evidence that he is racist and is not evidence that he is not racist. If we could say he was not racist we would say that, but we cannot do that.

you must be part of the next investigation team, a must.

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.