This one is tough to watch, but very well done.

Looked like a fictional story to me

I have watched 3 out of 4. Very well done so far and makes me want to read up more on that whole situation.

HouseDivided06 said:

---

I have watched 3 out of 4. Very well done so far and makes me want to read up more on that whole situation.

---

The 4th episode is the hardest one to watch

Damn really? I thought the first one was pretty rough seeing how they pitted those kids against each other. Well, guess I know what I am doing tonight.

Netflix uses selective facts or outright lies anytime they want to show "injustice"

These kids were not innocent. The police just didn't catch the first attacker.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/238071/central-park-five-still-guilty-jack-kerwick

If they were a part of an attack that brutal their DNA would have been on her and the crime scene just like Matias Reyes's was.

If she scratched one of the five that bad his DNA would have been under her finger nails. They did find DNA under her finger nails, but again it was only from Reyes.

If you want to say they were guilty of other crimes in the park that night that's fine, but there is just no physical evidence that I'm aware of tying them to a rape

The accounts I've read, three of them never said they raped her. Also some of her injuries were inconsistent with one attacker. Beating the crap out of someone with a pipe won't put dna under anyone's fingernails.

Fairly certain none of the blood on the boys was ever tested.

She was beaten so badly one of her eyes popped out and her brain was mush. She probably wasn't digging her fingernails into anyone by that point. It's unlikely with her being held down she was defending herself much either.

Cy_Tolliver said:

---

The accounts I've read, three of them never said they raped her. Also some of her injuries were inconsistent with one attacker. Beating the crap out of someone with a pipe won't put dna under anyone's fingernails.

Fairly certain none of the blood on the boys was ever tested.

---

In the article you posted one of the boys was allegedly scratched by the jogger and left a mark on his face, his DNA would have been under her fingernails if that were true.

Also the doctor at the trial testified you could not tell if it was a single attacker or multiple from her injuries alone.

One thing is clear in this case and that is everyone has what they believe to be true and there is no convincing someone otherwise

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Cy_Tolliver said:

---

The accounts I've read, three of them never said they raped her. Also some of her injuries were inconsistent with one attacker. Beating the crap out of someone with a pipe won't put dna under anyone's fingernails.

Fairly certain none of the blood on the boys was ever tested.

---

In the article you posted one of the boys was allegedly scratched by the jogger and left a mark on his face, his DNA would have been under her fingernails if that were true.

Also the doctor at the trial testified you could not tell if it was a single attacker or multiple from her injuries alone.

---

DNA was hardly an exact science in 1989. You think they captured every possible bit? Of course not. I'm sure the police on the scene knew nothing about "DNA".

Three dozen kids were brought in for questioning that night. One kid specifically named Antron McCray as the "killer" when no one had ever even mentioned a murder. Anton McCray gave a very detailed account of what happened, who hit her, what they did. None of them said they actually raped her. Of the three dozen kids the police were supposedly "framing", only these five confessed and only these five could give detailed accounts of what happened. Four of the five confessed with their parents beside them. Strange how out of 36 kids, five were "coerced" into details and the the other 31 were released under no suspicion.

Other neighborhood witnesses came forward that the kids had been bragging about the attack as well. Raymond Santana blurted out details of "grabbing her tits" before police even mentioned there was a rape, or why they were being detained.

Also, all of the kids were covered in blood. Where did the blood originate? Are you suggesting "sure they savagely beat someone else in the park to the point they were covered in blood, but not HER"? And if they did, where is the other victim?

Cy_Tolliver said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Cy_Tolliver said:

---

The accounts I've read, three of them never said they raped her. Also some of her injuries were inconsistent with one attacker. Beating the crap out of someone with a pipe won't put dna under anyone's fingernails.

Fairly certain none of the blood on the boys was ever tested.

---

In the article you posted one of the boys was allegedly scratched by the jogger and left a mark on his face, his DNA would have been under her fingernails if that were true.

Also the doctor at the trial testified you could not tell if it was a single attacker or multiple from her injuries alone.

---

DNA was hardly an exact science in 1989. You think they captured every possible bit? Of course not.

Three dozen kids were brought in for questioning that night. One kid specifically named Antron McCray as the "killer" when no one had ever even mentioned a murder. Anton McCray gave a very detailed account of what happened, who hit her, what they did. None of them said they actually raped her. Of the three dozen kids the police were supposedly "framing", only these five confessed and only these five could give detailed accounts of what happened. Four of the five confessed with their parents beside them. Strange how out of 36 kids, five were "coerced" into details and the the other 31 were released under no suspicion.

Other neighborhood witnesses came forward that the kids had been bragging about the attack as well. Raymond Santana blurted out details of "grabbing her tits" before police even mentioned there was a rape, or why they were being detained.

Also, all of the kids were covered in blood. Where did the blood originate? Are you suggesting "sure they savagely beat someone else in the park to the point they were covered in blood, but not HER"? And if they did, where is the other victim?

---

I definitely haven't heard anything about all of them being covered and if so then why would they not have tested it?

I firmly believe if there was physical evidence tying them to this crime their convictions would not have been vacated. The only person that can be tied to what happen (confessions aside) is Matias Reyes...and what motivation does he have to come out and lie about him being the only person involved (he didn't even know them)

We should probably agree to disagree because we'll just go round and round and neither of us will convince the other

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Cy_Tolliver said:

---

HoustonAg2106 said:

---

Cy_Tolliver said:

---

The accounts I've read, three of them never said they raped her. Also some of her injuries were inconsistent with one attacker. Beating the crap out of someone with a pipe won't put dna under anyone's fingernails.

Fairly certain none of the blood on the boys was ever tested.

---

In the article you posted one of the boys was allegedly scratched by the jogger and left a mark on his face, his DNA would have been under her fingernails if that were true.

Also the doctor at the trial testified you could not tell if it was a single attacker or multiple from her injuries alone.

---

DNA was hardly an exact science in 1989. You think they captured every possible bit? Of course not.

Three dozen kids were brought in for questioning that night. One kid specifically named Antron McCray as the "killer" when no one had ever even mentioned a murder. Anton McCray gave a very detailed account of what happened, who hit her, what they did. None of them said they actually raped her. Of the three dozen kids the police were supposedly "framing", only these five confessed and only these five could give detailed accounts of what happened. Four of the five confessed with their parents beside them. Strange how out of 36 kids, five were "coerced" into details and the the other 31 were released under no suspicion.

Other neighborhood witnesses came forward that the kids had been bragging about the attack as well. Raymond Santana blurted out details of "grabbing her tits" before police even mentioned there was a rape, or why they were being detained.

Also, all of the kids were covered in blood. Where did the blood originate? Are you suggesting "sure they savagely beat someone else in the park to the point they were covered in blood, but not HER"? And if they did, where is the other victim?

---

I definitely haven't heard anything about all of them being covered and if so then why would they not have tested it?

I firmly believe if there was physical evidence tying them to this crime their convictions would not have been vacated. The only person that can be tied to what happen (confessions aside) is Matias Reyes...and what motivation does he have to come out and lie about him being the only person involved (he didn't even know them)

---

Matias Reyes was already in jail and since she didn't die, he was under no possibility of further penalty due to statute of limitations. However, he could become a jailhouse hero for exonerating others, not ratting out anyone, and embarrassing the police. Not to mention there is a chance he has no idea what happened because he raped her and left.

The blood on the boys was never tested. And yes they all had blood on them.

My guess the reason they won't let police interview Reyes is because since he didn't do all the beatings, he won't be able to describe how she received all her injuries. I mean, it's not like she had a skinned knee. She was beaten savagely all over her body.

Again, as to why the blood on the boys wasn't tested - I'm fairly certain the average NYC beat cop had never heard of "DNA testing" in 1989. So they never collected it.

Actually there is nothing different or contradictory in their confessions that exonerates them. None of them ever said they raped her. They were convicted under NY Law which classifies as rape what they actually did. So the fact that Matias Reyes raped her is completely irrelevant to their convictions, but it's great for a story and for everyone to scream "injustice"

And look, I get the skepticism when you look through the lens of normal life. "What are the odds of this guy raping someone and then within a short few minutes others coming around and beating her?" Well, under normal circumstances, pretty slim. But this night we had thirty plus kids running wild through Central Park attacking everyone. So it is not unusual at all that the same person is attacked by multiple people.

[This is not the Politics Forum and posters are not going to post like that on this board. Based on your moderation history, you know what you posted was over the line and you are on a break. - Conservative, Trump voting Staff]

[There is no point in quoting a post that long if you are not going to add something to the post. -Staff]

This is just stupid.

Quote:

---

Not since the O.J. Simpson acquittal have we witnessed this gross a travesty of justice.

---

It was ridiculous that oj got off but an guilty guy getting off is insignificant compared to an innocent man going to jail or death row as one current politician spent his personal money to encourage.

This is just terrible and antithetical to our system of justice.

Quote:

---

However, neither this nor the word of this serial rapist and murderer that he acted alone goes any distance whatsoever toward proving the innocence of "the Central Park Five.

---

I am pretty sure this guy takes the exact opposite stance on a certain report that didnt exonerate a certain person.

Great. For so long they have tried to control the narrative in regards to this case. Now finally the guys have a chance to tell their story. Doesn't matter if you like it or believe it... the sentences were vacated.

Tone2002 said:

---

Great. For so long they have tried to control the narrative in regards to this case. Now finally the guys have a chance to tell their story. Doesn't matter if you like it or believe it... the sentences were vacated.

---

Well said.

Not only vacated, they were awarded a small fortune in compensation. If there had been evidence to the contrary I don't think tens of millions would have just been given away for nothing. IF you can be objective enough to take race out of the mix, if these had been any young men who were out for mischief but not high crimes, and they were treated as they were by the police, I would like to think you would have been upset.

Wife and I just finished watching it. Enjoyed watching it, we had never heard about it. Episode 4 was really tough.

I am still not finished. Can only deal with ten or fifteen minutes at a time.

Just finished over the weekend. In regards to Korey Wise, it's crazy how what was shown in the series was only a microcosm of what he ACTUALLY went through. This is one of those cases that seems like no matter what he feels in life in general, he's fully justified for it having been through all that for no reason at all. The $12M compensation is not enough for Wise if we're being completely honest. He should have received the entire $41M while the others got $12M minimum.

BQCadet said:

---

[There is no point in quoting a post that long if you are not going to add something to the post. -Staff]

---

Interesting since I did add something to the post. The boys did not have a speck of blood on them.