There has never been an answer to that. Not even from the great Ken Burns. And saying 'It was Coerced" isnt good enough. If that was the case, the NYC cops would have a confession for every crime in history. No one would confess to something this heinous just to go home. Not to mention give details.
shareIf you didn't watch the documentary, then don't waste anyone's time posting here about a documentary YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T EVEN WATCH.
_________________________________________
"If you really want something in life you have to work for it. Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers."
Homer Simpson
"Stan Kubricks Mentor, people like you make me want to throw up. A clever screen name, rooted in passive aggression, to make people think you are cool. A comment that does nothing but attempt to insult. And an obvious ignorance behind it.
I lived in New York during the time. Watching a movie about actual events doesnt you smart, worldly or in any way educated about what really happened. Yes, you and Ken Burns share a point of view that the 'Establishment' is to blame for all the injustice in the world, but dont tell me I am wasting anyones time.
And yes, I did see the documentary, and aside from two or three people who had a vested interest in the innocence of the accused, no one gave any answers to why did they confess other that it was the cops being mean.
"no one gave any answers to why did they confess other that it was the cops being mean"I call bulleffingsheet when it's spit on my face.
They were young and impressionable. More importantly false confessions with details are actually very common. They were interrogated for hours without a lawyer or their parents being notified.. they were threatened with severe punishment unless they confess and the cop could put in a good word for them for "leniency". Google "psychology of false confessions details" you'll see the studies and articles which detail this phenomena. You ask comfortably why would you confess to a crime you didn't commit especially one so egregious as the one they were accused of doing. FEAR! fear of the unknown, fear of what could happen if they didn't confess. It's not so black and white when you're sitting comfortably behind a desk typing away on your keyboard.
shareThere's a very good episode of This American Life where they deal with confessions. In one of the two segments they talk about a guy who didn't confess and how people still thought he was guilty. But more relevant to this discussion is a case where the cops got a woman to confess falsely to a crime she didn't commit. And they go through the interrogation with one of the cops who conducted it, who has since gone on to give talks on how to prevent false confesssions, and he says that one of the things that had convinced him that she was telling the truth was the level of detail she gave. For instance, the victim's credit card had been taken and she knew where the charges had been run up and even what the money had been spent on. But when he went back and reviewed the video tape later he was horrified to discover that he had given her all that information and that he had, unwittingly, coached her along.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
Incorrect. 4 false confession are very rare. You might be able to get a false confession out of one of them but your not going to get it out of 4 of them and especially with details.
People don't understand why this was overturned and what this means. It doesn't mean they didn't do it and they are innocent only in the eyes of the law. A key part of the evidence that was influential was determined to be from someone else. This person who originally said he raped her after they were raped by the group later stated he did it alone after the statue of limitations had passed and he could embarrass the police by confessing.
They more than likely raped the lady, but it is still reasonable to let them off due to some of the evidence later being found incorrect and could have prejudiced the jurors.
Incorrect. Multiple false confessions are only rare because it's rare to have multiple attackers charged in a crime. There have been a number of cases of multiple false confessions, including this crime. The presence of multiple suspects may even enhance the tendency to falsely confess because police often claim that the other people implicated someone in the crime.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
Have you ever cross-examined a teen-aged boy when you are trying to get to the bottom of something? They will say *anything* to get you to stop asking questions. *Anything!* We are not talking about mature adults here. They were scared and exhausted kids who believed that they could go home if they just gave a story.
Jaan Pehechan Ho
To me this was made very clear
each of the boys were being told the other boys were accusing them. Saying they raped the jogger
The boys were told to tell the truth. They knew they didn't do anything but in order to save themselves they accused the others whom they were under the impression were already blaming them
then the cops told the boys that in order for their story to be believable they had to admit to being there at the scene. Otherwise How would they be able to say who did it if they weren't there
and ultimately they unknowingly put themselves at the crime scene all long thinking they were helping out the cops with their investigation and then they could go home
For anyone who questions the guilt of these 5 boys. Ask yourself
Why did the actual rapist confess to the crime. He had nothing to gain
All evidence ultimately pointed to him
He actually knew the facts of the case and details even the cops didn't know
Why would he confess to the crime and say he was alone if he wasn't the one who did it. And more importantly did it alone
"For anyone who questions the guilt of these 5 boys. Ask yourself
Why did the actual rapist confess to the crime. He had nothing to gain
All evidence ultimately pointed to him
He actually knew the facts of the case and details even the cops didn't know
Why would he confess to the crime and say he was alone if he wasn't the one who did it. And more importantly did it alone "
First, I believe the five boys are NOT guilty. As to the actual rapist's confession, well I saw a plausible reason but not from general media, so I am not posting it. The reason did move me out of the world of the naive, where 90% of us including me reside.
A prisoner serving a long, long sentence, has something to gain when he frees a fellow prisoner and it's likely more than peace of mind or getting right with his religion. (bearing false witness). It could be money (I have absolutely no proof of that and doubt it), or it could be gaining saftey and respect from other prisoners. Prison is a separate society.
What is true is he had nothing to lose.. the statute of limitations, 5 years then for non-homicide crimes, had passed.... but to say he had nothing to gain is naive.
Interrogation by the cops is very stressful, even for innocent people. These kids were interrogated for hours by angry adults. Innocent people will sometimes confess just to get out of that situation. The cops promise to let them go home if they just tell them what they want to hear. But since they're innocent, these people think that they'll never be convicted because the evidence will show that they're innocent. Unfortunately it often doesn't work that way and the fact that someone confessed can override even conclusive physical evidence pointing to their innocence.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
"Graymin" may have seen the documentary, but didn't understand what he saw...
They were brow beaten into confessing.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
they didn't just arrest 5 people. all of your explanations for why these 5 confessed would make sense if they hadn't arrested many other teens who were in the park that night wilding who DIDN'T CONFESS. if pure coercion was the reason, why didn't they have 20 confessions?
sharethey didn't just arrest 5 people. all of your explanations for why these 5 confessed would make sense if they hadn't arrested many other teens who were in the park that night wilding who DIDN'T CONFESS. if pure coercion was the reason, why didn't they have 20 confessions?
The children confessed because adults abused them.
sharethey weren't children. they were the ones abusing adults that night. even they admit that themselves.
sharethey weren't children. they were the ones abusing adults that night. even they admit that themselves.
your mistake is in assuming that this movie includes all information pertinent to the case. it doesn't even show all the evidence against them, let alone that they have admitted SINCE BEING RELEASED FROM PRISON that they were assaulting people that night. this includes beating a man with a pipe and a stick. this wasn't childish rough-play, he was beaten unconscious and seriously injured.
the movie deliberately makes it appear that they just happened to be walking around with a group of teens that night. their ages at the time were 14, 15, 15, 15, and 16 at the time. matias reyes who admits to committing the rape and savage beating of the jogger was 17 at the time. was he just a child, too?
this movie does not tell the entire story. it makes a much more interesting story and political point if these kids were completely innocent of any wrong-doing and the case was all about racism, but that's simply not true.
No one would confess to something this heinous just to go home
And saying 'It was Coerced" isnt good enough.
in the case of the west memphis 3 they got one confession from one mentally retarded suspect who claims he confessed simply to go home. the other 2 suspects never confessed.
in this case these suspects not only confessed on videotape that their confession was not coerced, but did so with their parents present. there were also elements in their confessions about the crimes committed that night in the park that were true and they maintained their guilt of beating and robbing people that night even after being released.
Borderline mentally retarded. And still a child.
Does it matter that their parents where there? The only thing that matters about who was there or not were the fact there were no lawyers to warn the kids of the tricks being played on them.
I am sure there were elements in their confessions that were true. If I made up a story about a rape that I thought might be true I bet I would get some aspects right. But If you have participated you should be getting most details right, not just a few.
Crucially they also got many things wrong.
Their actions elsewhere are in the park are totally irrelevant.
The Norfolk Four is another example. These were four guys in Norfolk Virginia who were convicted of killing a woman. But the case for their guilt was a complete shambles. The cops browbeat two of the victims neighbors into confessing. But their stories were contradictory and their DNA didn't match the DNA evidence at the crime scene. So they got them to name two more people, but their DNA didn't match either. Then they got one of them to name a couple more guys but these guys all had airtight alibis. One had withdrawn money from and ATM hundreds of miles away minutes before the murder occurred. Another was chatting with his girlfriend when the murder took place. Plus, the physical evidence seemed to suggest one assailant. But the cops didn't seem to find any of this odd. Finally, another guy confessed. He gave a confession which fit with the crime and said that he committed it alone. His DNA matched that at the crime scene. But the cops still refused to believe that the Norfolk Four were innocent.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.
[deleted]