The Impossibility of the Exonerated Five:
The Obvious Frauds of the Central Park Five Case
Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Countless media, "journalists" and "justice warriors", intentionally, leave all of this out of their reviews.
I say "intentionally" because they, intentionally, do not research, do not fact check nor vet that research, nor use critical thinking.
It is, simply, plainly, fraud or incredible willful ignorance.
My guess is that most of you have no clue and have heard none of this.
Raped, beaten jogger Trisha Meili, her surgeon Dr. Bob Kurtz and plastic surgeon Dr. Jane Haher said there was medical evidence to support the charge that more than one person was responsible for her attack.
Her injuries were different from what Reyes claimed as the sole attacker,
"There were hand prints pressed into her skin that looked red in outline," Kurtz said. The hand prints were of different sizes as well. "It looks like, to me, more than one person doing that," Haher said.
Meili: "I so wish the case hadn't been settled. I wish that it had gone to court because there's a lot of information that's now being released that I'm seeing for the first time. I support the work of law enforcement and prosecutors."
more here:
From the beaten, raped female jogger, Trisha Meili:
" 'I so wish the case hadn't been settled': 1989 Central Park jogger believes more than 1 person attacked her' ", as detailed:
Susan Welsh, Keren Schiffman, and Enjoli Francis, ABC News, May 23, 2019
Raped, beaten jogger Trisha Meili, her surgeon Dr. Bob Kurtz and plastic surgeon Dr. Jane Haher said there was medical evidence to support the charge that more than one person was responsible for her attack.
Her injuries were different from what Reyes claimed as the sole attacker,
"There were hand prints pressed into her skin that looked red in outline," Kurtz said. The hand prints were of different sizes as well. "It looks like, to me, more than one person doing that," Haher said.
Meili: "I so wish the case hadn't been settled. I wish that it had gone to court because there's a lot of information that's now being released that I'm seeing for the first time. I support the work of law enforcement and prosecutors."
more here:
What Does Trisha Meili Think Of 'When They See Us'? The Assault Survivor Remains Skeptical of the Central Park Five, By TAYLOR MAPLE, Bustle, May 29, 2019
https://www.bustle.com/p/what-does-trisha-meili-think-of-when-they-see-us-the-assault-survivor-remains-skeptical-of-the-central-park-five-17929091
Heard from the "Me, too" folks? Of course not.
Heard from the "Me, too" folks? Of course not.
======
Intro:
The following summary is based upon an investigation by two experts, highly experienced in investigating and finding police corruption and other malfeasance, within NYPD, and recommending prosecutions, with some of the most infamous cases in NYPD history.
The third author was the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, NYPD.
The investigation report is known as The Armstrong Report, commissioned by NYPD. Based upon my research, Armstrong is beyond reproach.
The NYPD Police Chief ordered this study.
The report and my summary includes all known, accessible evidence, detailed within the Armstrong Report (1), with the three authors, at bottom.
With this case, as with so many others, we have the standard media and movie reviewer response - the refusal to fact check, vet and research, combined with viewers/readers willful ignorance, now, with both becoming the automatic default for absolute certainty.
It is not that the media does not fact check, vet and research these cases. They, simply, refuse.
A few news articles are included in BOLD, with important points, links. Pay attention to them.
All the major documents and videos, from the case, here (1,2).
=====
Preface
p8 . . . the most likely scenario for the events of April 19, 1989 was that the (five) defendants came upon the jogger and subjected her to the same kind of attack, albeit with sexual overtones, that they inflicted upon other victims in the park that night. Perhaps attracted to the scene by the jogger’s screams, Reyes either joined in the attack as it was ending or waited until the defendants had moved on to their next victims before descending upon her himself, raping her and inflicting upon her the brutal injuries that almost caused her death.
p 25 It may well be that the juries would have accepted Reyes’s contention and concluded that the defendants were not present when the jogger was attacked. We believe, however, that it is necessary, for the purposes of our inquiry, to complete the record by considering other scenarios that a jury might also accept.
Timeline. It has been reported that the timeline of events did not allow the CP5 to be involved in the rape of the female jogger. That is untrue, see pages 35-37. The timeline, nor their confessions, can exclude the CP5 in the assault on Trisha Meili, the female jogger, as well as their other victims, as detailed.
======
"Lead police officer on the Central Park 5 case looks back on the savage crime that rocked the city", GRAHAM RAYMAN, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, JUL Y 19, 2018
Police Officer Eric Reynolds
"(Reynolds) . . . was never a named defendant in the (civil) lawsuit, and speculates the omission was no accident. Including a black cop as a target of the lawsuit would contradict the narrative of white racist officers railroading the young teens."
Reynolds arrested 3 of the 5.
Reynolds states:
“(Trisha Meili, the assaulted female jogger) was in a coma. If we’re railroading them (CP5), how do we know when she comes out of the coma what story she’s going to tell? If you are trying to pin it on someone, why would you risk that she would say something different?”
"(CP5er Kevin) Richardson says, ‘OK, the female jogger (scratched my face)'."
“There was no coercion. If they all said the same exact things, then maybe I would think that. But they didn’t. Look at the video statements. They stand up and demonstrate (what happened).”
“If we had gone to trial in their (civil) lawsuit, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because all the facts would have come out. It would have been clear they participated and Reyes didn’t act alone. The evidence supported it. They (the Central Park 5) did not want to go to trial. They just wanted to get paid.”
The Central Park 5 confessions regarding the assault/rape of the female jogger
All confessions were ruled properly given and taken (next section).
p 1&2 Following a six week pre-trial hearing into the admissibility of defendants’ statements and other evidence, Justice Galligan carefully analyzed each claim raised by each defendant and found, with one exception that there was no constitutional or statutory violation by any of the officers or prosecutors involved and thus, no basis to suppress any of the statements or evidence made by or taken from the defendants.
p 17 Kevin Richardson made an incriminating statement to police within the first few minutes of his apprehension when he indicated that Antron McCray committed the “murder.”
p 21 Antron McCray’s admissions included an initial statement admitting to the rape of the female jogger and a later videotaped interview.
p 33 In the afternoon of April 20,1989, prior to being arrested, Kharey Wise made admissions to two acquaintances, Ronald Williams and Shabazz Head. Wise told them to get away from him because the police were after him. asked why the police were after him. Wise replied, “You heard about that woman that was beat up and raped in the park last night. That was us!".
p 33 Both Williams and Head were re-interviewed in 2002. Head claimed to have no memory of what he said to the detectives in 1989. Williams gave the same statement that he did in 1989. In addition, he was asked to explain what the statement "that was us” meant to him. He said that he took that to mean that Wise and others had raped the woman in the park on the night of April 19, 1989.
p 33 Melody Jackson stated that she got a call from Wise, from Riker's Island, Wise repeatedly stated that he didn’t rape anyone, that he “only held her legs down while Kevin fucked her". She testified at trial, and repeated what she had said and, again, re-confirmed her testimony in an interview in 2002.
33 When Kevin Richardson was interrogated by Detective Gonzalez on the morning of April 20, 1989, he was asked to explain the scratches on his face. Richardson admitted that he received the scratches from the female jogger while trying to stop the others from attacking her. Richardson said he received (the scratch) when he tried to take the female jogger off of the road (sharp - an admission of kidnapping and participating in the assault).
p 33 - 34 Dennis Commedo stated that on the night of April 19, 1989, Kevin Richardson said to him “we just raped somebody.” This statement was given to Detective Jo Jonza on April 25, 1989. In 2002 he claims to have no memory of the event.
p 34 Orlando Escobar was interviewed in 1989 and again in 2002 and was also implicated as being part of the original group. On May 11, 1989, Escobar stated that on the night of April 19, 1989, he saw Raymond Santana, Steven Lopez, Kevin Richardson and Yusef Salaam, with others, coming from the direction of where the rape took place. In both the 1989 and 2002 statements he admitted his own culpability.
p 34 Antonio Montalvo was interviewed in 1989 and pled guilty to assault but did not mention the attack on the female jogger. In 2002, when he was reinterviewed, Montalvo stated that he had seen Santana, McCray and five others coming over a hill where the attack occurred. Commedo, Escobar and Montalvo were not together when they made these observations nor when they reported them to the police.
p 5 Santana and Richardson separately pointed out the location of the rape when brought to Central Park. When Wise was questioned, he made reference to a man named “Rudy” who took the jogger’s Walkman; the description of the jogger’s “Walkman pouch” was similar to Reyes’s description of a “fanny pack.”
p 32 Both Reyes and Wise testified that the jogger had a Walkman. There is no way they would have known that, without having been involved in the assault on the jogger, as the police didn't find a Walkman, as Reyes' said he stole it. Wise testified that "Rudy", who evidently was Reyes, was the one who stole the Walkman. The jogger, who had no memory of the assault, had no recollection of the Walkman, but stated that she owned two Walkman's and that one was missing. Reyes and Wise both described the joggers pouch or fannypack, where the Walkman was kept.
p 5 At the time of this interview, the police had no way of knowing that the jogger had a Walkman or that she carried it in a pouch. Wise also commented on the amount of blood at the spot where the rape occurred. When asked why he was so surprised by the amount of blood, he answered, “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.”
Sharp: The walkman confessions supports that the defendants and Reyes were there, together, during the assault, as there is no other explanation for both of them identifying the walkman, within their confessions.
p 34 Witness/Defendant Clarence Thomas’ videotaped statement, was that he overheard Santana and Lopez laughing and talking about how they “made a woman bleed.”
p 34 While being processed at the Central Park Precinct and in response to a comment by Police Officer Powers that the group should be home with their girlfriends and not beating people, Santana looked at Steven Lopez, smiled and said “I already got mines.” Santana and Lopez then both laughed.
This statement was suppressed at trial as given without a Miranda warning.
p 34 While being transported from the Central Park Precinct to the 20th precinct by Detective Sheehan, Santana said, not in response to any question, “I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman’s tits.”, which, of course, is participation in the rape.
p 35 Following his videotaped interview, Santana and his father were driven home by Detective Michael Sheehan to get fresh clothing, stopping at the 102nd Street transverse road along the way. When asked where the attack occurred, Santana pointed north of the transverse road down towards the ravine. They walked into the woods and Santana said that it was too dark to find anything else.
p 35 While interviewed by P.O. Powers, on April 20, 1989 at 6:00 PM, the officer asked Richardson who he thought was hurt worse, the man or the woman. Richardson replied that he thought “the man looked worse than the woman (the female jogger)”
p 35 After being brought back to the crime scene on the morning of April 20th, Richardson, while standing on the 102nd Street transverse, told Detective Sheehan that, “This is where we got her.” Later that morning on a second trip to the scene, Richardson accurately identified an area northwest of a large tree on the slope north of the transverse as the area where “the raping occurred.”
p 35 Wise, after being brought back to the crime scene by Detective Sheehan and Assistant District Attorney Fairstein on the morning of April 20th, and while walking down towards the spot where the rape occurred, Wise was overheard muttering, “Damn, damn that’s a lot of blood. Damn, this is really bad, that’s a lot of blood.” When asked why he was so surprised by the amount of blood, he answered, “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.” (See Hearing Transcript pp. 4560-4561, 4569.)
p 35 When asked if he was familiar with the area, Wise responded, “This is where we” and stopped and finished “they raped her.” When asked what happened here, Wise says, “This is where they dragged her.” Again he started to say “we” and changed to “they.”
p 35 Wise was asked to go to the precinct the day after the April 19, 1989 assaults in Central Park. During one of his interviews with Detective Hartigan at the precinct on April 20, 1989, Wise revealed that he washed his clothes when he got home the night before.
p 23 there was a general consistency that ran through the defendants’ descriptions of the attack on the female jogger. She was jogging; she was knocked down on the road; dragged into the woods; hit and molested by several assailants; sexually abused by some while others held her arms and legs; and left semi-conscious in a state of undress, after an assault that covered a relatively short period of time. This general description was common to all or most of the defendants’ statements, despite some differences in specifics. We find it unlikely that such similar descriptions could have been given spontaneously. The defendants would have to have been told by their interrogators the outline of what they were supposed to say. As discussed above, we concur with the District Attorney and Justice Galligan’s opinion that no such deliberate planting of information occurred.
p 25 It may have been, as a former inmate-acquaintance claimed Reyes told him, that the attack on the jogger was already in progress when Reyes joined, attracted to the scene by the jogger’s screams. (sharp: As, also, supported by the Walkman).
p 25 the alternative theory of the attack upon the jogger – that both the defendants and Reyes assaulted her, perhaps successively.
p 24 only one of (the defendants) purported to explain how they got the factual details they gave in their statements. Kharey Wise was the only defendant to claim he had been “fed” answers. This contention was rejected in Justice Galligan’s exhaustive opinion, ruling on defendants’ motions to suppress.
p 6 blood stains were found on Santana’s right sneaker, Salaam’s jacket and on co-defendant Lopez’s underwear, and semen stains were found on the underwear of McCray and Richardson, and on Santana’s sweatshirt. This evidence is by no means dispositive, but it contradicts various reports that no blood was found on any of the defendants.
======
Persistent Myths in the Central Park Jogger Case: Time for a reality check, By Michael F. Armstrong, Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2014,
" . . .the (Central Park 5) defendants were not abused nor fed false information." "The defendants were convicted not only for attacking the jogger, but for assaulting others as well. The other victims included a man beaten into unconsciousness with a pipe. No evidence contradicts these convictions. For the most part they were confirmed by the defendants and have never been specifically denied."
They were not and cannot be exonerated for any of their many crimes, that night. Many media and "justice warriors", simply and plainly, felt the need to lie.
======
FINDINGS REGARDING POLICE CONDUCT p 13-25
Sharp: Every claim of police misconduct was ruled to be false. The defendants and others lied.
Sharp: Every claim of police misconduct was ruled to be false. The defendants and others lied.
p 1 & 2 Following a six week pre-trial hearing into the admissibility of defendants’ statements and other evidence, Justice Galligan carefully analyzed each claim raised by each defendant and found, with one exception, that there was no constitutional or statutory violation by any of the officers or prosecutors involved and thus, no basis to suppress any of the statements or evidence made by or taken from the defendants.
p 1 & 2 Based on our review of the material related to this case and conversations with various witnesses and interested individuals, we conclude that there was no misconduct on the part of the New York City Police Department in the arrests and interrogations of the defendants. with " no evidence of coercion in the questioning of the defendants or others involved in the events of April 19, 1989, and they have no criticism of the interrogation or arrest techniques employed by the police. Our conclusion is also strongly supported by the opinion of Justice Thomas B. Galligan regarding the defendants’ original motions to suppress their statements."
p 23 The defendants would have to have been told by their interrogators the outline of what they were supposed to say. As discussed above, we concur with the District Attorney and Justice Galligan’s opinion that no such deliberate planting of information occurred.
p7 the issue of (police) coercion was laid to rest authoritatively by the exhaustive opinion of Judge Galligan. Our review confirms that police interrogations were conducted professionally and in accordance with applicable rules.
======
BOYS' GUILT LIKELY IN RAPE OF JOGGER, POLICE PANEL SAYS, ROBERT D. MCFADDEN, NYTIMES, JAN. 28, 2003,
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/boys-guilt-likely-in-rape-of-jogger-police-panel-says.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/nyregion/boys-guilt-likely-in-rape-of-jogger-police-panel-says.html
". . . the report by the police panel -- its points sounding like a rebuttal to (Manhattan district attorney Morgenthau) -- insisted there was no new evidence beyond Mr. Reyes's claims, said that the videotaped and written confessions had not been coerced or fed to the suspects by investigators, and that timelines constructed to show that the defendants were elsewhere were unreliable." " . . . the ''most likely scenario'' was that the (CP5) and Mr. Reyes had attacked the jogger, either simultaneously or consecutively. "
''We believe that the vacating of the convictions of the defendants for raping the jogger was required because this was new evidence that had to be evaluated by a jury,'' 'Mr. Reyes's claim that he acted alone was uncorroborated, and that 'We think the word of a serial rapist killer is not something to be heavily relied upon'.''
=====
p 23 It has been asserted by the press and others that the fact that there were numerous inconsistencies in the defendants’ statements demonstrates that the statements were coerced. These assertions fail to account for the fact that the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the defendants’ statements were fully explored at the time of the defendants’ pre-trial hearing and the Court’s decision. The same inconsistencies and weaknesses were vigorously but unsuccessfully raised again at defendants’ trials.
p 23 The newly discovered evidence of Matias Reyes’s involvement in the jogger’s rape, upon which the dismissal of the defendants’ cases was based, casts no new light on the question of whether the police interrogations were properly conducted. No evidence, old or new, has been found that in any way disturbs or even bears upon Justice Galligan’s factual findings.
p 1 Without being contacted by the police, Antron McCray voluntarily appeared at the precinct, in the company of his mother, and was not held. Because of statements made by the defendants and others implicating them, Kharey Wise and Yusef Salaam, as well as McCray, were contacted by the police the next day, and came to the precinct voluntarily.
p 8 there is no reason to believe that the defendants were prompted into making erroneous statements.
p 25 It is important to note again that the parents or family members of Santana, McCray and Richardson were present during all of their interrogations and the giving of written and video statements.
p 24-25 Raymond Santana was asked about the events of April 19, 1989. He admitted assaulting a man, but claimed that he made up the story regarding the rape, and he just used the names of those arrested with him that night as his cohorts. Yet, Santana again admitted the facts other than those relating to the female jogger. When asked why he said what he said in 1989 about his participation in the attack on the female jogger, he responded that two of the detectives “okey doked me with that good cop bad cop routine. One of the detectives told me that the others admitted raping the woman and said I was there and that if I did not admit it he couldn’t help me. So I made up the story you see on the tape to satisfy them.” By his own admissions in 1994 and again in 2002, Santana stated that he made up the story -- he did not say the police fed him a story for him to adopt as his own. Had they done so, Santana would surely have said that when he reversed himself, rather than claiming, truthfully or falsely, that he made the story up himself.
p 13 - the inconsistencies contained in the various statements were not such as to destroy their reliability. All of the defendants were obviously attempting to minimize their own involvement and the stories they told necessarily included fabrications. On the other hand, there was a general consistency that ran through the defendants’ descriptions of the attack on the female jogger. She was jogging; she was knocked down on the road; dragged into the woods; hit and molested by several assailants; sexually abused by some while others held her arms and legs; and left semi-conscious in a state of undress, after an assault that covered a relatively short period of time. This general description was common to all or most of the defendants’ statements, despite some differences in specifics. We find it unlikely that such similar descriptions could have been given spontaneously. The defendants would have to have been told by their interrogators the outline of what they were supposed to say. As discussed above, we concur with the District Attorney and Justice Galligan’s opinion that no such deliberate planting of information occurred.
p 6 Some of the defendants, Santana, McCray and Richardson, later (1994, 2002) have repeated their admissions of guilt in robberies and/or assaults, but not the rape of the jogger.
======
Central Park Five prosecutor breaks silence, says it was mistake to vacate convictions and pay off accused teens
Graham Rayman, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 7/19/18,
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-tim-clements-central-park-five-20180713-story.html
" . . .some of the kids talked about attacking (the beaten male jogger). They identified their own victims. In many of the cases, we didn’t know who the victims were, so how do the police coerce statements from people about facts that they weren’t even aware of?”
"The Central Park Five documentary produced by Sarah Burns, daughter of Ken Burns" . . ."was a piece of trash, and knowing who was behind it, and the fact that Sarah Burns had worked as paralegal for one of the lawyers in the (CP5) lawsuit made me think they had set out to try to support the fictitious claims that had been floated."
" . . .some of the kids talked about attacking (the beaten male jogger). They identified their own victims. In many of the cases, we didn’t know who the victims were, so how do the police coerce statements from people about facts that they weren’t even aware of?”
"The Central Park Five documentary produced by Sarah Burns, daughter of Ken Burns" . . ."was a piece of trash, and knowing who was behind it, and the fact that Sarah Burns had worked as paralegal for one of the lawyers in the (CP5) lawsuit made me think they had set out to try to support the fictitious claims that had been floated."
======
Reyes
p 13 Matias Reyes, then 18 years of age, was also in the park on the night of April 19, 1989. In 2002, he came forward to reveal that he had raped the female jogger and to claim that he did so alone.
p 4 There is no corroboration for Reyes’s claim that he acted alone. The only evidence to support the view that he acted by himself remains his own statement that he did so. This makes Reyes’s general credibility a matter of considerable importance. Reyes’s former attorney and defense psychologist have attested to his instability and lack of credibility. Even Justice Galligan, who also presided over Reyes’s murder/rape trial in 1991, was quoted in the press as stating that “[I]f Reyes is a credible witness, then credibility has a new meaning.”
p 26 - 32) Reyes' credibility. There is a need to read the entire section. He's a sociopath, with both his own attorney and the judge stating Reyes cannot, ever, be trusted to tell the truth.
p4 a former inmate-acquaintance claimed Reyes told him, that the attack on the jogger was already in progress when Reyes joined, attracted to the scene by the jogger’s screams.
p 25 Or, (Reyes) may have been following her (the female jogger) and held back, temporarily, when the defendants intercepted her. Or, the defendants may have abandoned the jogger after mauling her in the hit-and-run style typical of their rampage that night. Coming upon her just after the attack, Reyes could have perpetrated a new attack, but in a much more brutal fashion.
p 26 In any of these scenarios, it would have been likely that Reyes, not the defendants, was guilty of the more vicious outrages inflicted upon the jogger. The bloody and sustained beating, the tying of the jogger’s hands in front of her face, and the rape itself (which apparently was anal as well as vaginal) were more characteristic of Reyes than of the behavior exhibited by the defendants and their friends during their rampage.
p 26 If Reyes and the defendants both attacked the jogger at overlapping or different times, the only aspect of Reyes’s account that is necessarily at odds with the statements of the defendants is the one for which there is no corroboration – that he came upon her alone. It must be emphasized that we do not contend that any such theory would affect the correctness of the decision to vacate the defendants’ convictions. That decision rested on new exculpatory evidence, which is Reyes’s claim that he acted alone. The jury should have heard this new evidence regardless of whether there also might be a possibly convincing explanation for that new evidence that placed the defendants at the scene, albeit in a lesser role.
p8 We conclude that the various inconsistencies in defendants’ statements, and the other recently revealed weaknesses in the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in light of Reyes’s claim that he alone attacked the jogger, could afford a reasonable basis for maintaining that Reyes did, indeed, commit an attack on the jogger by himself.
sharp: Which is contradicted with three statements, by Wise and Reyes, with regard to the walkman and by a former inmate-acquaintance who claimed Reyes told him, that the attack on the jogger was already in progress when Reyes joined, attracted to the scene by the jogger’s screams. In addition, Reyes acting alone does not exclude the defendants assaulting the woman jogger, before or after Reyes, although the walkman remains, meaning the assaults were together or they overlapped, as well as the observations from the jogger's doctors, as well as all the confessions regarding their involvement in the rape.
p8 the consistencies found in the defendants’ statements, the informal remarks made by the defendants, the corroborative testimony of other witnesses, the absence of a convincing motive for Reyes and suspicion of his general credibility, lead us to conclude that it is more likely than not that the defendants participated in an attack upon the jogger.
p8 . . . the most likely scenario for the events of April 19, 1989 was that the defendants came upon the jogger and subjected her to the same kind of attack, albeit with sexual overtones, that they inflicted upon other victims in the park that night. Perhaps attracted to the scene by the jogger’s screams, Reyes either joined in the attack as it was ending or waited until the defendants had moved on to their next victims before descending upon her himself, raping her and inflicting upon her the brutal injuries that almost caused her death.
p 4 the defendants might have abandoned the jogger after mauling her in the hit-and-run style typical of their rampage and Reyes could then have come upon her and perpetrated a new attack, but in a much more brutal fashion.
p 4 of the more vicious outrages inflicted upon the jogger, which would have been more characteristic of Reyes than of the behavior exhibited by the defendants.
p 4 The defendants’ lesser role would in fact be consistent with their confessions.
======
When They See Us (2019): History vs Hollywood
History vs Hollywood: For accuracy, they gave "When They See Us", 5 out of 10, 50% or an F, as detailed.
Funny, they could fact check but the media refused to.
======
The following is a listing of "some" of the evidence regarding the five defendants’ participation in the other assaults: p 39-40
1) The assault on Antonio Diaz. A total of 23 people were named as participants or as being present:
Richardson was implicated by 7 accomplices; he also admitted participation.
Santana was implicated by 5 accomplices; he denied participating although he saw some kind of commotion from a distance.
McCray was implicated by 6 accomplices; he admitted participation.
Salaam was implicated by 3 accomplices; he did not admit or deny participation but was present.
Wise was implicated by 5 accomplices; he acknowledged being present, but denied participation.
2) The harassment of the couple on the tandem bike. A total of 13 people were named as participants or as being present:
Richardson was implicated by 3 accomplices; he also admitted participation.
Santana was not implicated by anyone; he did not mention this incident at all.
McCray was implicated by 1 accomplice; he admitted participation.
Salaam was implicated by 2 accomplices; he admitted participation.
Wise was implicated by 2 accomplices; he admitted participation.
3) The crossing of the 96th Street Transverse road to the reservoir.
A total of 17 people were identified as having gone south towards the reservoir: Richardson was implicated by 2 accomplices; he admitted going.
Santana was implicated by 5 accomplices; he admitted going.
McCray was implicated by 4 accomplices; he admitted going.
Salaam was implicated by 3 accomplices; he admitted going.
Wise was implicated by 1 accomplice; he eventually admitted going.
4) The assault on the jogger David Lewis.
A total of 11 people were identified as participants or as being present:
Richardson was implicated by 1 accomplice; he denied participation.
4) The assault on the jogger David Lewis.
A total of 11 people were identified as participants or as being present:
Richardson was implicated by 1 accomplice; he denied participation.
Santana was implicated by 2 accomplices; he admitted participation.
McCray was implicated by 3 accomplices; he did not discuss this assault.
Salaam was implicated by 1 accomplice; he did not discuss this assault.
Wise was not implicated by anyone; he did not discuss this assault.
5) The assault on the jogger John Loughlin.
A total of 19 people were identified as participants or as being present:
Richardson was implicated by 5 accomplices; he denied participation.
Santana was implicated by 6 accomplices; he admitted participation.
McCray was implicated by 6 accomplices; he admitted participation.
Salaam was implicated by 7 accomplices; he admitted participation.
Wise was implicated by 2 accomplices; he did not discuss this assault.
Whatever conclusions may be reached regarding Matias Reyes’s claim that he raped the female jogger alone, there seems to be no reason to believe that the defendants were innocent of the other crimes for which they were convicted.
p 1 (& 13) Out of the approximately forty teenagers who entered Central Park that night, thirty seven were interviewed. Ten were arrested and ultimately convicted of charges resulting from their activities. Five of these ten (the defendants) were charged with the assault and rape of the female jogger, the assault of John Loughlin, the assault on David Lewis, and a riot charge. All but Wise were convicted of assault, riot, robbery and rape. Wise was convicted of assault, riot and sexual abuse.
p 1 (& 13) The other individuals who were arrested pled guilty to the assaults on Diaz, Loughlin or Lewis, but not to the assault of the female jogger. The defendants had implicated these other individuals in the assaults on the victims other than the female jogger. Matias Reyes, then 18 years of age, was also in the park on the night of April 19, 1989. In 2002, he came forward to reveal that he had raped the female jogger and to claim that he did so alone.
p8 With respect to the other crimes for which the five were convicted, two of the defendants reaffirmed their guilt for these crimes, one of these, together with a third, did so in 2002, and four other individuals who had pleaded guilty to the assaults, implicated the defendants in these crimes in their interrogations or recorded statements and there is no basis for maintaining that the defendants were not involved in the other crimes for which they were convicted.
p6 there is no reason, on the merits, to think that a jury fairly presented with the evidence against the defendants would come to a different conclusion than was reached before.
======
The Innocence Frauds by Entertainment & Social Justice Warriors, as many others, Are the Norm, Not the Exception
The Innocence Frauds by Entertainment & Social Justice Warriors, as many others, Are the Norm, Not the Exception
The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
======
The following evidence was unavailable for The Armstrong Panel to review: (p 11-12)
• results of additional forensic, DNA tests recently performed by the FBI and a private laboratory under the direction of the District Attorney’s office;
• forensic evidence from defendants’ trials; and
• notes and transcripts of interviews with Matias Reyes by the District Attorney’s office and correction officers.
In addition, we have been unable to accomplish the following:
• a complete interview of Matias Reyes
• interviews of several of Reyes’s inmate-acquaintances, some of whom have indicated that he had said things to them that contradicted the story he told the District Attorney.
p 4-5 Reyes has been interviewed extensively by the staff of the District Attorney’s office, for the most part without the direct participation of the Police Department, who were permitted to view one videotaped interview and one brief audio recording of an interview.
p 4-5 No hearing was held with respect to defendants’ motions to vacate their convictions, thus no opportunity was given to cross-examine Reyes in public under oath. We understand that he has not been subjected to a polygraph examination, perhaps because he is thought to be too unstable to allow for a meaningful test.
======
More here:
THE CENTRAL PARK FIVE JOGGER ATTACKERS:
Guilty – In Their Own Words
======
FN
1) The Armstrong Report
2 of the 3 authors of the Armstrong Report (Armstrong and Martin) have been very involved in investigating and prosecuting police corruption and/or malfeasance. I don't know the scope of Hammerman's duties.
Armstrong served as Chief Counsel to the "Knapp Commission", investigating corruption in the New York City Police Department, He has received the Norman S. Ostrow Award of the New York Council of Defense Lawyers
Jules Martin served on The New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB), an independent agency, empowered to receive, investigate, hear, make findings, and recommend action on complaints against New York City police officers alleging the use of excessive or unnecessary force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or the use of offensive language. The Board’s investigative staff, composed entirely of civilian employees, conducts investigations in an impartial fashion. The Board forwards its findings to the Police Commissioner.
Stephen L. Hammerman was Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, NYPD (2002-04)
2) Documents, videos, Central Park 5 case
======
Victim Services
Additional research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone.
1) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
======
Partial CV
