MovieChat Forums > The Central Park Five (2014) Discussion > The overturning of the conviction was co...

The overturning of the conviction was correct but they probably did it.

posted 10 years ago by quisp65
26 replies | jump to latest

4 false confessions with details?!!! No! It doesn't work that way.

This verdict was rightfully overturned because some of the key evidence that could have influenced the jurors was determined to come from someone else, but they more than likely did it, because 4 of them confessed, and the person that later was found to be the source of the DNA, at first stated that he raped the girl after the group did it, but only confessed he was the sole rapist after the statute of limitations ran out and could reasonably be expected since he was currently a convict wanting to embarrass the police, since most convicts do hate the police.

This wanting to jump the gun and say they were victims is nothing but white guilt and makes people look ridiculous. You don't get 4 false confessions! Saying these people were victims is like saying OJ was a victim. OJ should have got off because the jury found him not guilty, but he certainly did it and people would look foolish defending him.

[–] HOKfilms 10 years ago

Four false confessions of which you saw but a few minutes. Four confessions which lacked major details the police didnt have beforehand. Four confessions that didnt match up with each other according to one of the jurors... no physical evidence despite it being a spur of the momemt crime. Pretty solid case, Johnson. Sprinkle sosome crack on them and lets get out of here.

I <3 Emily Blunt

[–] sharonhdavis 10 years ago

Thank you HOKfilms, couldn't have said it any better! I think the whole lack of physical evidence is overlooked. The woman was soaked in her own blood, yet not even a microscopic speck of this blood is found on either of the two boys were taken directly from the park to the station. To me this is speaks volumes of their innocence!

[–] quisp65 10 years ago

People's recollection of events usually don't match up in situations like this. If this was 4 false confessions then it will go down as the most false confessions ever produced by US police interrogation.

I just don't think false confessions are that common. If it was, they would be getting a false confession the majority of the cases they investigated, but they don't because it's much more rare. The white guilt factor like we see with Ferguson or with Zimmerman is more likely and I think it is what we see happening here. Prejudice also means the ones perpetuated by the media and whitey is always guilty of keeping the brothers down till proven innocent and even then he is still guilty as we have seen on CNN, MSNBC and the likes.

But I understand them getting off, some of the important evidence turned out to be BS.

[–] Arimas01 10 years ago

FYI, if you had watched the movie or even done just a little bit of impartial research, you can clearly see that the confessions weren't the same, until the officers and the DA started directing these CHILDREN into saying what they wanted them to say. IDK why it's so hard for a certain group of people to recognize a child as a child when he happens to be black. Would you expect a 14 yr old white boy, who has never had any experience with the law to be sophisticated and know well enough to not trust the police? After the false confessions are thrown out, what other type of evidence do they have?

You may be entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to mine.
Arimas, Samira

[–] the_la_baker 9 years ago

http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Master_List_False_Confessions.htm l

[–] ReflectedGlory 9 years ago

The boys didn't even know where the crime had occurred, their stories didn't match, there is no physical evidence linking any of them to anything, and none of them said a word about the person who DID do it, Reyes. Because they had no idea who he was.

The only person looking foolish here is you.

Aaah, buckle this.

[–] information_police 9 years ago

False confessions are very common.

Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.

[–] Born_Tomorrow 10 years ago

4 false confessions with details?!!! No! It doesn't work that way.

This verdict was rightfully overturned because some of the key evidence that could have influenced the jurors was determined to come from someone else, but they more than likely did it, because 4 of them confessed, and the person that later was found to be the source of the DNA, at first stated that he raped the girl after the group did it, but only confessed he was the sole rapist after the statute of limitations ran out and could reasonably be expected since he was currently a convict wanting to embarrass the police, since most convicts do hate the police.

This wanting to jump the gun and say they were victims is nothing but white guilt and makes people look ridiculous. You don't get 4 false confessions! Saying these people were victims is like saying OJ was a victim. OJ should have got off because the jury found him not guilty, but he certainly did it and people would look foolish defending him.

What a complete ignoramus.

All typos and misspellings courtesy of a public educational system.

[–] quisp65 10 years ago

lol... Ignoramus for believing in 4 confessions? False confession are not that common! 1 maybe... 4 NO!!!

[–] I_Am_Galactus 10 years ago

http://murderpedia.org/male.R/r/reyes-matias.htm
/Thread

[–] kute_lokita 9 years ago

Yes four!!!!!.. It is possible if you want to get the hell out of the police precinct and the detectives are telling to point the other guy and you will walk out a free man, you bet your ass a 14 year old boy is going to say so and so did it. It's the 80's in New York City, which was reckless during the time, crack scene, murders, robberies, rapes. During that time there was an East Side Rapist who was serial killing women and raping them (and guess what, that turned out to be the person who attacked this woman). The detectives wanted to put someone behind bars and they successfully did it by interrogating these kids (without their parents) and who had never been arrested, hence they didn't know exactly how these things work that's why they kept blaming each other. If the confessions were true, the evidence found at the scene would have matched, not only that, all their stories would have also matched each other.

[–] alympik 9 years ago

False confessions are more common then you would like to believe, obviously. Your ignorance here is truly mind boggling. Try doing some research before you make yourself look stupid (too late in this instance). Here's one list in case your lack of intelligence prevents you from even googling: http://listverse.com/2013/05/22/10-controversial-convictions-based-on-false-confessions/

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 10 years ago

You must be really fVcking stupid. These were classic coerced confessions which didn't match with each other or the physical evidence. Reyes did it. He confessed, his DNA matched, and she was attacked in a manner he used on other victims.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] fidgette 9 years ago

Is the OP Donald Trump?

It's pathetic that the OP's only source of "they're guilty!" is to repeat "4 confessions!". Great buddy.

It's not like people haven't been coerced in a group before. It's actually a pretty common police tactic. They are allowed to lie to a suspect in order to get a confession. So, if you're a 14-16 year old boy without a lot of worldly knowledge and it's the 80s. And the police keep you in a room and interrogate you for upwards of 26 hours, would you not feel worn down?

If they don't let you speak to your parents prior to questioning, when they don't tell you that you can call a lawyer etc. when you're a minor.

NONE of their "confessions" even matched up with the case, they also didn't even match up with one another. They all said someone else did different things at the scene, and they didn't even use names because they were being told "ok the dark kid" etc. They were being coached and lead to what to say and who to blame.

And in terms of actual physical evidence THIS CASE HAD NONE! The woman was nearly beaten to death yet the 2 kids who were picked up right at the park had no trace on them???

You do realize that interrogations are a light form of torture and to kids, being kept in a room for a day, you'd probably say you did things you didn't do, if you were promised the ability to go home.

But congratulations on having their "4 confessions" even though those confessions make no sense.

[–] There_Is_No_Sayid 9 years ago

One other thing to keep in mind is that innocent people know that they're innocent and so that can actually be a factor in them falsely confessing. By design, interrogation is supposed too be stressful on the subject. The cops are trying to get them to implicate themselves in a crime. Some innocent people will falsely confess just to get out of that stressful situation, especially people who are mentally ill, stupid, or, as in the case of the subjects of this film, young. However, since these people know that they're innocent, they figure that their confession won't be enough to convict them, that all the other evidence will point away from them and that they won't actually serve any time.

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

[–] information_police 9 years ago

Someone just published a study where they took a bunch of people and questioned them for a long time and tried to get them to admit they did something that they didn't do. These people weren't even under threat for prison or any punishment but the interrogator got 70% of then to actually think they did something that hadn't happened.

Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.

[–] queenoftheuniverse1 8 years ago

since these people know that they're innocent, they figure that their confession won't be enough to convict them, that all the other evidence will point away from them and that they won't actually serve any time.

I seriously doubt any of them thought it through in this manner. They were young and had been held in interrogation for hours without a lawyer present or even a parent or guardian present so the confessions began to become in their minds the only way out of the box.

It had more to do with the manipulation of the confessions by the interrogators than any thought that they might figure their confession would not be enough to convict them. Police interrogators are skilled at leading their suspects into a corner and phrasing questions to get a person to answer in a way that might make them look to be involved even when they might not be. The snippets of the confession tapes we were shown exemplify those techniques used. I would like to see more of the actual confession tapes.

After being held in an interrogation room for hours and feeling they have no way out, having questions presented to them over and over that were confusing and misleading, being young and alone in a room with more than one authority figure badgering them to give details and being promised a deal if they would just confess, and we could go on and on about how they might have felt trapped and thought it would be better to just give the police what they wanted to hear in order to get free (free in their minds for the moment at least although none of them seemed to understand the implications of what confessing would ultimately mean) I think all of them just caved in from those pressures.

I don't think any of them had the first thought about evidence or no evidence being present. They just wanted out of that room. Unfortunately, once they confessed they were even less likely to be set free, but they had no idea that would be the price to pay for their confessing.

[–] quisp65 8 years ago

Unfortunately, once they confessed they were even less likely to be set free, but they had no idea that would be the price to pay for their confessing.

It's possible, but I just don't think likely. I grew up in the criminal element and it's ingrained in people's heads to never confess. Especially amongst a bunch of boys we know were part of the criminal element, because of the other things they were doing that night. They thought they would go free if they confessed to a rape?!!! They would have to be pretty stupid to believe that.

I am willing to believe they are innocent if 4 false confessions are likely, but from the links people gave it looks like this is a world record, so I just don't think it is likely.

[–] queenoftheuniverse1 8 years ago

That's why I wish they had shown more of the actual interrogation tapes. I don't think they were stupid but if I remember correctly from what I have read they were all interrogated for hours with no adults representing them available.

I think they were exhausted and just wanted to say anything they thought would get them out of that room. I read an article once about these same techniques being used in other cases and it was estimated 70% of INNOCENT people will eventually confess to crimes they did not commit just because of exhaustion, confusion and believing they will be released if they cooperate when they are subjected to these types of interrogations.

When the interrogation goes on for hours on end with no food or rest many people cannot bear it any longer and will just say whatever they think the investigators want to hear just to get out of that room. Unfortunately, once the confession is out they are certainly not going to be released but their state of mind does not allow them to fully comprehend what will actually happen if they confess. Also, I think at least one of these boys was under the impression he would be given a deal if he confessed, but with no legal representation he had no way of knowing the police were lying until it was too late.

EDIT: I see another poster also read about the study where innocent people will confess to crimes they did not commit. I will try to find the original article I read and post the link. It sounds like information_police probably read the same article I read. It is much more common than you think to have a false confession when someone is essentially being tortured (i.e. being deprived of sleep and food).

[–] SALTER-pt 9 years ago

Any time the term "white guilt" comes up you're pretty well assured the user of the term is an absolute idiot. Such is the case here.

The police were criminally negligent in their handling of this case. That's not "white guilt". It's reality.

The female mind is, after all solely tuned to being self-serving - rjfme

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

Any time the term "white guilt" comes up you're pretty well assured the user of the term is an absolute idiot.

I was going to say racist. "White guilt" has nothing to do on why they convictions were overturned. OP wants to see 5 black men in prison whether they did it or not.

If I don't reply, you're probably on my ignore list for something I forgot already

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EstaQ 8 years ago

To understand what happened, and possibly HOW it happened, please watch "Making A Murderer". (I realize I'm replying to an older comment-- Making A Murderer began late 2015; the case it depicts is unrelated to Central Park Five).
Also, add to whatever you learn there, that the "confessions" we're elicited after those kids were up for two days straight, maybe not even counting the time before arrest.
Most importantly, NONE of their DNA was found on the victim! The guy who eventually confessed is whose DNA WAS FOUND on the victim! This wasn't mentioned in the trial!

And btw, why would you say they "probably did it" but overturning the conviction was "correct"???? WHHYYYYY???!?

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

I was going to cite MAM too. The police can feed the facts to the suspects and make it look like he leads them to the crime scene.

If I don't reply, you're probably on my ignore list for something I forgot already

[–] Lee733 7 years ago

I would consider myself impartial. I don't have any political affiliations. It makes no difference to me whether a group of teenagers committed a rape 30 years ago or not. I haven't seen the documentary yet, when I heard about it I thought it sounded interesting so I did some reading on the case. I wasted a good four hours of my life. To me it's pretty much obvious that these kids were guilty of committing several heinous crimes that night. I understand that people don't like police interrogation techniques. I don't either. But, the fact is that without confessions most crimes would be difficult to prosecute. So, that's where the police are coming from. They know (or think they know) who did what, but they can't prove it. I'm sure they get bogus confessions a lot. Moreover they trick suspects into self-incrimination, or twist their words to serve their purpose. It's something that should be prevented. However, I think in this case it just so happens that the suspects were guilty.