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 or refused to fact check and vet, which is not accidental.
======
FINDINGS REGARDING POLICE CONDUCT p 13-25
======
"Meili said she remains compelled by confessions made by members of the Central Park Five and is not sold on their innocence." (Ibid, NY Daily News, 7/19/2018 & 12/13/2018)
=====
Sharp: At trial, 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
". . . 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.
======
"(Trisha) Meili believes firmly the Central Park Five were not wronged by the NYPD or the Manhattan DA’s office. 'When that lawsuit was settled, it gave some the impression that the detectives and the prosecutors had acted improperly and I’d like to see it be acknowledged that there wasn’t a violation of (the teens’) civil rights,' Meili said." "Trisha Meili wants to bring justice to the police and prosecutors who fought so hard to bring it to her during the investigation and trial." "Meili concluded that police and assistant prosecutors fought the good fight, and are innocent of accusations they railroaded five black and Latino teens." (Ibid, NY Daily News, 7/19/2018 & 12/13/2018)
======
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."
======
Netflix mini-series "When They See Us"
"In her suit for unspecified damages, an apology and more, (Central Park Five (CP5) prosecutor, ex-Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Linda) Fairstein said that the Felicity Huffman-portrayed depiction of her (within "When They See Us") made her look like a “racist, unethical villain who is determined to jail innocent children of color at any cost.”
Defendants Netflix and DuVernay were unsuccessful in getting the case dismissed, when US. District Judge Kevin Castel determined, within his ". . . 67-page decision (which) found evidence that in depicting Fairstein as a villain emblematic of broader problems in criminal justice, the defendants “reverse-engineered plot points to attribute actions, responsibilities and viewpoints to Fairstein that were not hers and are unsupported in defendants’ substantial body of research materials.”
"US District Judge Kevin Castel on Tuesday said Fairstein plausibly alleged that Netflix, director Ava DuVernay and writer-producer Attica Locke acted with actual malice as to five scenes in “When They See Us.”
The Manhattan judge said jurors should decide whether there was “clear and convincing evidence that defendants were recklessly indifferent to the truth.”
("US judge orders Netflix to face defamation lawsuit by Central Park Five prosecutor Linda Fairstein" By Reuters, Sep. 20, 2023,
The case was settled, out of court.
Former prosecutor settles lawsuit against Netflix over Central Park Five series, AP, June 4, 2024
https://apnews.com/article/netflix-central-park-five-lawsuit-duvernay-33e090919d183c32537cc952ef3031ff#
Linda Fairstein statement:
"The Court's ruling on summary judgment already exposed the truth of what happened. The defendants sought to portray me as the Series' villain and, in doing so, "reverse- engineered plot points to attribute actions, responsibilities and viewpoints" to me that were not mine, nor were they supported by a single piece of evidence in the defendants' so-called substantial research materials. Documents and testimony in the public record since that motion was filed, and recently unsealed, demonstrate that the scenes that were the subject of my lawsuit were "invented" by the filmmakers, and that the defendants intentionally and viciously targeted me when marketing and promoting the Series.". (Statements From Linda Fairstein and Counsel Regarding Settlement of Defamation Case Against Netflix, Inc. News provided by Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP Jun 04, 2024, Statements From Linda Fairstein and Counsel Regarding Settlement of Defamation Case Against Netflix, Inc. (prnewswire.com)
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.
======
"Meili questioned whether Reyes’ word that he was a lone assailant should have held such weight. She doesn’t put “much credibility” to his admission, describing Reyes as a “pathological liar” and “sociopath.” (Ibid, NY Daily News, 7/19/2018 & 12/13/2018)
======
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.
Sharp: Which is contradicted by the testimony that they thought the male jogger was beaten much worse than was Trisha Meili. The male joggers beating was horrific. Reyes may have injured her, even more, but based upon the male joggers condition, the CP5 were, certainly, capable of the damage to Trisha Meili.
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.
p 8 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.
======
Ava DuVernay Rips Central Park 5 Prosecutor After Lawsuit Settlement, Praises Netflix For “Unwavering Support” & $1M Innocence Project Donation, By Dominic Patten, Executive Editor, Legal, Labor & Politics, Deadline, June 4, 2024,
but, this:
"There is no evidence that police or prosecutors coerced the defendants or fed them stories.
Trial judge Thomas Galligan held an extensive, six-week pretrial hearing on the precise issue of whether the defendants' statements were improperly obtained.
His 116-page opinion stated that with one minor exception, regarding a peripheral remark, they were not.
Four of the five defendants at the pretrial hearing made no allegation that they had been coerced or told what to say.
The court rejected the fifth defendant's charges that he was coerced and fed a story.
The claims by all of the defendants that confessions were extracted under police pressure came only after they consulted civil attorneys.
In 2002 Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly appointed a panel (of which I was a member) to look into this matter.
The panel criticized some aspects of the handling of the case but found that no police or prosecutorial misconduct had occurred in detaining or interrogating the defendants.
Similarly, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which consented to vacating the defendants' convictions, nevertheless found that no police or prosecutorial misbehavior occurred in their detention or questioning.
Then-Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau has consistently so stated, as did his office's supervisory personnel in sworn testimony before the City Council in 2003"
"Persistent Myths in the Central Park Jogger Case: Time for a reality check", By Michael F. Armstrong, Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2014,
======
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.
======
" . . . critics of the decision (to vacate the convictions of the CP5) say (the CP5) were tried and found guilty in another brutal Central Park attack that night and argue the evidence does not rule them out as possible participants in Meili’s case." (Ibid, NY Daily News, 7/19/2018 & 12/13/2018)
======
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.
Why the $41 million Dollar Settlement
Mieli " . . . views the deal as a way for Mayor de Blasio to score political favor with his liberal base. For years, city attorneys under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg battled lawyers for the plaintiffs in court and vowed to defend the case. “I was shocked and somewhat disgusted,” Meili said. “And really so disappointed that the case against the city claiming the detectives and prosecutor had acted improperly … that it was settled for what seems to me like a campaign promise from then-candidate Bill de Blasio.” (Ibid, NY Daily News, 7/19/2018 & 12/13/2018)
======
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
======
