In the Central Park trials, forensic evidence was nearly nonexistent. A few hair specimens recovered from two defendants’ clothing were held to be “consistent” with that of the victim. DNA was in its infancy—the first conviction based on the science in the United States had only occurred in 1987, and the first databank in New York wouldn’t be operational until 1996—and larger, cleaner samples than are necessary today were required to identify or disqualify a suspect. A recent reevaluation of hair analysis in past cases by the FBI found that 88 percent of their findings were confirmed by DNA, which leaves ample room for reasonable doubt
Jurors who agreed to interviews after the trials said that they were not convinced by the youths’ confessions, but were impressed by the physical evidence introduced by the prosecutors: semen, grass, dirt, and two hairs described as “consistent with” the victim’s hair that were recovered from Richardson’s underpants.
Years later, more advanced DNA testing also revealed that the hairs in Richardson’s clothes did not match the victim.
Mitochondrial DNA testing on the hairs found on one of the defendants revealed that the hairs were not related to the victim or the crime. Further testing on hairs found on the victim also matched Reyes. Neither blood nor the hair found on the rock matched the victim.
As for the reevaluation of forensic evidence, one hair held to be consistent with that of the jogger was lost, and an FBI analyst repudiated his predecessor’s testimony about the three others. They were not suitable for comparison microscopically, he said. DNA retests on those hairs, according to Ryan, tended to disfavor connection to the jogger, though insufficient material existed to meet established scientific standards for verification.Armstrong counters by pointing out that various blood and semen stains had also been recovered from the clothing of three defendants. He concedes that they didn’t figure much as evidence then, and the samples, if they exist, might be too small, too degraded, or contaminated for retesting—but, in the Ryan motion, they aren’t mentioned at all. Only two of the Five were arrested the night of the attack, delaying the collection of evidence; three others were brought in the next day. Armstrong notes that Wise washed his clothes as soon as he got home that night.Did he do that often? Ever? Without context, it is unfair to draw conclusions.
I mean how can nobody see the problem with the fact that Reyes story is impossible since there was DNA from at least 1 other individual found on Meili.
Also the point about the blood is valid. But the fact that there were handprints on her of at least 2 different sizes also makes Reyes claim impossible.
How often are Amanda Knox or Steven Avery used as an example of the broken justice system in America?
I see “They Were No Angels” used pretty frequently. Upon closer examination that statement isn’t that far off. Just because Trump’s ignorant ass said it means anyone who disagrees with certain versions of events is a racist or ignorant.
I concede that they should have been found not guilty of the charges against Trisha Meili. Had the prosecutors only charged them with the assaults on the 4 others this conversation doesn’t exist.
Even in 2002, while still adamantly denying the rape, Santana and Richardson acknowledged their guilt in other crimes committed in the park.
Finally, Id like to say that when the Netflix series “When They See Us” takes Fox News level political license it’s worth pointing out. Especially when I think it’s fair to assume many of the people who took part in the #CancelLindaFairstein movement probably are accepting the “WTSU” as truth. Fairstein’s biggest crime was most likely having implicit bias.
Oh man, you mean if they had been convicted of lesser crimes instead of thrown in jail for decades for something they didn’t do, people would be happier? No way.
You mean you were not convinced by the skeptical Daily Beast article written by [checks notes] a former NYPD officer?
Weird.
But putting any potential bias aside, I’m not even sure what the point of the article is.
Thirteen years later, after the boys had served between six and thirteen years in prison, a man named Matias Reyes confessed to the rape, and DNA evidence later established that his was the only semen sample recovered from the scene.
Yes, it seems that someone else was obviously responsible for the assault for which the CP5 were jailed. What I argue in this article: what if the CP5 were still guilty?
Which if you’re saying now that you no longer believe that, then good for you. Not many people can change their stances in the face of arguments from others.
I have no idea what you’re actually trying to argue here. What is your actual point? Pick one:
You actually think the CP5 did, in fact, commit the crime for which they were imprisoned.
You do not think the CP5 committed the crime for which they were imprisoned, BUT their conviction is not actually bad because they probably committed other crimes.
Some other argle bargle.
My point, which I thought would be obvious, is that in a case that paints the NYPD in an extremely bad light, it’s not super persuasive to read a skeptical argument from a former NYPD officer.
If you can provide source materials for actual physical evidence it would be helpful to you’re case.