(07-27-2019, 09:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(07-27-2019, 12:03 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: There have been too many wrongful conviction cases for this to be okay. I hate that their "three hots and a cot" as well as their medical is paid for by our tax dollars, but unless you're 300% sure that person did the crime (Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, David Berkowitz to name a few) by actual evidence and testimony then I don't feel comfortable with it. 

It doesn't matter if you find out AFTER they're dead that they were innocent, and that has happened. Or those five guys in NY who were in prison for a long time for a crime they didn't commit and were exonerated only because one of them ended up in the same cell block as the guy who actually did the crime. He ended up confessing to it and DNA matched so the others were set free, paid a butt ton of money but still feel pretty screwed by the whole thing. Not a capital punishment case but still....

The CP5 are guilty. They confessed to consistent details and it was a group assault that included them and Reyes,. Read the Armstrong Commission Report, it's much more convincing than Bob Mueller's hack job. Money quote therein:

"We believe the inconsistencies contained in the various statements were not such as to destroy their reliability. On the other hand, there was a general consistency that ran through the defendants' descriptions of the attack on the female jogger: she was knocked down on the road, dragged into the woods, hit and molested by several defendants, sexually abused by some while others held her arms and legs, and left semiconscious in a state of undress."

The actual rape took place in the woods, and the trail that the rapist made while dragging the victim into the woods was 18in wide. There may have been one person in front of the victim and one person behind her, but there is no way you can explain rape charges for five men based on that evidence.

The best explanation for five separate individuals confessing to such a thing is that the police thought they needed to coercively question five individuals to get one confession, but they ended up with five. In any case the individuals recanted their confessions and plead not guilty, so they were not reliable witnesses either way. The evidence should have been allowed to speak for itself.

---