This case was tried and, later, it was found the Central Park Five were found not to have committed the crime. Yet the occupant of the White House and his base insist they are guilty. Even though it was proven they are innocent. And you, AFC, say it is a "hit job" against him.
He does not need any help losing in 2020. He is doing a fine job all by himself....
While I agree that was an injustice of epic proportions on convicting the 5 of the rape of that woman what is lost in this argument is the fact that those 5 were part of a larger group of teens who were going through the park assaulting and robbing various people that is a fact. A metal bar was taken from one of the 5's houses and carried by another to beat some joggers one so badly he spent 2 days in the hospital. So these 5 are not as innocent as the fresh driven snow either.
They did not commit the rape that dear leader claims they did. He refuses to apologize for his mistake, as usual. He is right, everyone else is wrong. I think those are much more important points.
It is a hit job on Trump because of the timing. This story could have been told in 2002. It wasn't told before the 2016 election because everyone knew Hillary would win. These guys likely did commit the rape because of the evidence and the facts of the case and Trump is probably right. I still want to watch the documentary though, it could change my mind but the evidence is they likely did it (at least some of them)
There is no justice in this country sometimes. I am sure thousands if not millions of innocent black men have been wrongly convicted in the past because of racism. As with everything with the left, social justice is all that matters, individual facts don't. I actually have no problem with them getting off (no pun intended) even if they did it, reparations for injustice on the innocent black men wrongly convicted in the past if you will. I am also happy they got millions of dollars. (Yes, I am sure I would likely feel different if I actually knew the victim) But I am not going to pretend I think at least some of these guys didn't participate in the rape. I would still return a verdict of not guilty because it's not the job of a juror to make a guess, and IMO there is almost always reasonable doubt, and no matter how small my verdict will always be not guilty if that is the case. Let's look at the actual facts. I will include links with more but the main ones are below:
"Santana was one of the first boys picked up in the park the night of the attacks, April 19, 1989. While being driven to the precinct house, he blurted out: “I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman’s tits.”
At this point, the jogger hadn’t been found. The police knew nothing about any rape.
Richardson rode to the precinct with another boy, who announced to the police that he knew who did “the murder,” naming Antron McCray. Richardson concurred, saying, “Yeah. That’s who did it.”
Again, the police didn't know about the jogger yet. (It’s not surprising that the boys thought she was dead: Her doctors didn’t expect her to live through the night.)
In a six-week pre-trial hearing, the boys’ confessions were subjected to relentless assault by defense attorneys. The confessions were attacked again during both trials and on appeal. The trial judge, the two multi-ethnic juries and the appellate court judges found the confessions voluntary -- and damning.
Salaam confessed to the rape after the detective questioning him said that fingerprints had been found on the jogger’s clothing, and if the prints were his, he was “going down for the rape.” Salaam confessed immediately. Why would he do that -- unless he was worried the prints might be his?
Taken to the scene of the crime by a detective and a prosecutor the following morning, Wise said, "Damn, damn, that's a lot of blood. ... I knew she was bleeding, but I didn't know how bad she was. It was really dark. I couldn't see how much blood there was at night.” (She’d lost three-quarters of her blood.)
The police also had incriminating testimony from friends and acquaintances of the defendants.
-- Dennis Commedo, one of the boys who was part of the larger group, told the police that, when he ran into Richardson in the park that night, he’d said, “We just raped somebody.”
-- Wise told a friend's sister, Melody Jackson, that he didn't rape the jogger; he "only held her legs down while Kevin (Richardson) f---ed her." Jackson volunteered this information to the police, thinking it would help Wise.
-- Two of Wise's friends said that, the next day, he told them, "You heard about that woman that was beat up and raped in the park last night. That was us!"
-- Another boy arrested for the attacks, but not the rape, told the detectives on videotape that he overheard Santana and a friend laughing in the park about how they’d “made a woman bleed.”
The defendants also knew facts about the attack that only someone who had been there could possibly know. Two of the boys, Santana and Richardson, independently pointed out the exact location where the rape had occurred.
Wise told the detective interviewing him that someone he thought was named “Rudy” had stolen the jogger’s Walkman. The officer’s notes state: “persons present when girl raped. ... Rudy –- played with tits/took walkman.”
At that point, the jogger was still in a coma. Police investigators had no way of knowing that she’d been carrying a Walkman. Thirteen years later, the sixth rapist, Matias Reyes -- the only rapist, according to Hollywood and former District Attorney Robert Morgenthau -- told police that in addition to raping the jogger, he’d stolen her Walkman."http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-06-19.html
"In 2002, the convictions of the five Central Park rapists were vacated on the word of a psychopath, Matias Reyes, who suddenly announced that he, too, raped the jogger -- not a surprise -- and also that he’d acted alone -- not possible...
Robert Morgenthau, Manhattan D.A....The only facts he cared about were: 1) an election was coming; and 2) so was his impending death. Overturning those convictions would assure him both re-election and an adulatory New York Times obituary.
The media demanded a rewrite, and Morgenthau was just the man to do it.
Reyes’ “confession” changed nothing about the evidence presented at trial. It was always known that other rapists got away: A small sample of semen on the jogger’s sock and cervix did not match any of the defendants'. That’s why, in her summation, prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer told the jury: "Others who were not caught raped her and got away."
Now we know: Reyes was one of those who “got away.”
Unlike the confessions of the boys convicted of the attack, Reyes's confession would result in no punishment. To the contrary, he was rewarded with a highly desirable prison transfer. Coincidentally, his conscience struck only after he was imprisoned with one of the convicted Central Park rapists, Kharey Wise, who happened to be the leader of a prison gang.
To be extra sure that the psychopath was telling the truth:
-- Reyes was never given a polygraph test.
-- The police were prohibited from interviewing him.
-- In fact, the police were prevented from even reviewing transcripts of the D.A.’s interviews with Reyes.
-- The police were further barred from interviewing Reyes’ prison acquaintances -- who said he’d admitted to joining a rape already in progress after hearing the jogger’s screams.
The maniacally repeated claim that “there was no physical evidence to tie the boys to the crime” is utter nonsense intended to fool the stupid.
What “physical evidence” were they expecting? There were no tire tracks, footprints, bullet casings or gun powder residue to be tested. The jogger’s pulverized body was found lying in a puddle of mud. The only conceivable “physical evidence” would be DNA.
But the use of DNA to solve crimes was nearly unheard of in 1989. No police force in the country would look for DNA to make a case. It was only about a year earlier that DNA had been used for the first time in any criminal court in the U.S. (Florida).
The very month that the jogger was attacked, newspapers were excitedly reporting on a novel forensic technique, a “still unfolding laboratory discovery, a genetic ‘fingerprint’ created from the body's deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA” -- as the Chicago Tribune put it.
Even five years later, DNA evidence wasn’t enough to convict O.J. Simpson..
Hard to believe, but it was possible for crimes to be solved before 2001! (That's about when the use of DNA in criminal cases became widespread.)
What the police had against the Central Park Five were detailed confessions, on videotape, given in the presence of their parents or adult relatives; the deeply incriminating statements of at least a half-dozen of their friends and acquaintances; and the defendants’ knowledge of facts about the crime that only the perpetrators would know."http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2019-06-12.html
Go ahead and attack Ann Coulter, because we know you probably can't attack the evidence.