Thoughts on the Central Park Jogger
Glenn Reynolds has linked to several articles on the Central Park Jogger. I have posted and commented on this over the past week, and will present some thoughts here.
A review of the circumstances can be found in the NY Times. The Village Voice has interesting supplementation, but is light on some basic facts.
Briefly:
Up to thirty young black and Hispanic men were reported to have gone “wilding” in Central Park in April 1989. Nine incidents of assault, mugging, and harassment were reported to the police.
The police also discovered a badly beaten young woman who also appeared to have been raped. She remained in a coma for twelve days. She has since made an incomplete recovery, and has no memory of that night.
Six of the alleged “wilding” youths, ages 14 to 16, were detained by the police in connection with the rape and questioned. One refused to cooperate, insisted on counsel, and eventually was charged with another assault from that evening. The other five eventually gave videotaped confessions in the presence of their parents. There are no allegations of Miranda violations by the police.
The youths later retained counsel and recanted their confessions. There was little forensic evidences connecting them to the assault. The DNA of a sperm sample was known NOT to match any of the accused. However, when given an opportunity to take the stand and present their version of events, the defendants exercised their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Although no inference can properly be drawn from that in itself, it seems not to have been an effective rebuttal to the videotaped confessions. The five were convicted, sentenced as juveniles to roughly five years, and are now free.
And now? A man already serving a 33 year term in connection with another homicide/rape has come forward. His DNA matches with the Central Park case, so the unknown “missing rapist” has been found. He claims to have acted alone in viciously beating and raping the victim. Attorneys for the five convicts are proceeding through the courts seeking a new trial, or some form of exoneration. The NYC police department is conducting its own investigation and pursuing several possibilities, which seem to include these:
1. The sole rapist is telling the full truth, and the other five were wrongly convicted;
2. There is some connection between these six men, and the known rapist is lying when he says he acted alone.
3. The sole rapist committed his crime, and left. The victim staggered to her feet, and, as she tried to leave the park, was assaulted by the group of five. In this scenario, the known rapist is lying about the severity of his assault on the girl.
Some bloggers seem to believe that this incident shows another failure in our system. To add a bit of structure, let walk through the issues as identified at “Body and Soul”:
It struck me that there are so many disturbing things about this case that it is impossible to rank them, although inevitably people will insist on doing so:
* Five young men lost their reputations and several years of their lives because of a crime they did not commit -- a personal tragedy.
Well, this is still under review – they may well be guilty.
* The real criminal was free to commit more crimes, including murder.
Yes, which the police and public knew at the time. In any event, he was arrested several months later for a rape/murder and has been in jail since then. Arresting him at the time would have been preferable, but I have no reason to doubt that the police were looking for him and simply couldn't find him.
* The fact that the confessions were coerced does not speak well for our system of justice. (Yes, we know this kind of things happens. That doesn't stop us from being shocked when such a glaring example of it is revealed.)
The evidence that these were coerced is not presented. The five retained counsel and presented this “coercion” argument to a mixed jury in NYC, at a time when David Dinkins was Mayor. The jury did not believe it then. Why are we so quick to believe it now?
That said, the police have great latitude in an interrogation. “We have matching blood and hair, and three of your friends have confessed, but they all say you did it – want to tell us what really happened?” False, but an allowable (hypothetical) technique. Always retain counsel.
* The fact that the boys said at the time that the confessions were coerced and everyone assumed they were lying does not speak well for us as a society. Yes, every criminal says he's innocent, but the case was weak from the beginning and liberals especially should have been paying attention, should have noticed that something didn't smell right here. I didn't. We didn't.
Let’s take up “liberals especially should have been paying attention”. Meaning, NYC is not liberal enough? Or, only liberals care about civil rights and police misconduct? Look, when I say “Ruby Ridge”, liberals roll their eyes; when I say “Waco”, they say “whacko”. But police conduct is a bipartisan concern. Look for allies, don’t try to create enemies.
* A generation of young minority men -- especially black men -- was unfairly stigmatized. (It should be noted, of course, that the stigma would have been grossly unfair even if every detail of the story most of us believed was gospel truth, but the fact that it was a lie compounds the injustice.)
This seems a bit broad. First of all, the “wilding night” happened, with police reports as noted. If the point is that people have been wrongfully fearing the prospect of being beaten and raped, when their only valid fear was being beaten and robbed, well, that is a subtle distinction. And I cautiously observe that the history of crime and race relations in NYC, and this country, did not begin on that night.
* Americans built a myth out of a lie.
Well, see above. There is a lot more to this “myth” than one incident that may or may not be a “lie”.
So, what do I think? Well, for the people who see a conspiracy in every action Bush or Cheney take with respect to the Middle East, or energy, this next bit should be easy to follow. And, full disclaimer, I am identifying a possible scenario, not advocating. A possible, hypothetical scenario that the police are probably considering.
HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO:
This is all about the money, or, if you will, the Benjamins. NYC may face the possibility of a civil lawsuit if these five can show that the confessions were coerced and that the conviction was improper. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, the attorneys hear through the grapevine that the rapist with the matching DNA has been found. Contact is made.
“You know, everyone knows you raped her; if your story was that you beat this girl nearly to death, that would really help some friends of mine.” “”Really?” “If my clients collect from the city, they would probably remember the people who helped them.” “Really.”
OK, it is just a possibility. The sole rapist is lying for money and notoriety. Or do you have evidence that it could not have happened? Would it be responsible to investigate? Now, what about "innocent until proven guilty" - why do these five have to show the sole rapist is not lying? Well, right now they have been proven guilty, and the presumption of innocence is gone. If a judge orders a new trial, then the burden of proof will shift back to the prosecution, which would presumably attempt to discredit this witness. However, absent the confessions there seems to be no case.
So, might the sole rapist have reason to lie? Yes. And might NYC have a reason to conduct a mini-cover-up? Well, there are the financial considerations with a lawsuit, and people’s reputations may be at stake.
My suggested course of action: call for a full, fair, impartial review. Better bet is the Feds, and a group of local black policeman are calling for just that. However, that means taking the case away from the heros of 9/11 and a popular Mayor. And agitate - e-mails to the NY Times, local news outlets, Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan, TAPPED (if they are still with us). Bob Herbert, columnist at the NY Times, covers this sort of story all the time - get the media going. Work the civil liberties angle for right wing support. Contact Mayor Bloomberg, Senators, and Congressmen. No, links, sorry: think of it as a test of commitment.
Some view this case as a sign that the system has failed. People, we are the system, which includes judicial review and media scrutiny. Get to work.
UPDATE: I relent. If I were to focus my effort with one e-mail, it would be to Bob Herbert at the Times, who lives for stories of racial injustice. Perhaps he skipped this last week in deference to 9/11, but he might well have it this week. In which case, it will be a story of evil, racist cops oppressing the rest of us. His e-mail is not available, but send him encouragement at the editorial board of the NY Times. The e-mail address is:
editorial@nytimes.com
UPDATE: If I had an editor, there would be a serious discussion abot the job performance. Let's see:
In reviewing the case, I say: "There are no allegations of Miranda violations by the police."
Huh? Of course the defense attorney and various bloggers have alleged that. Let's make that "The trial judge reviewed and dismissed allegations of Miranda violations, and the Times account does not present this as a serious issue."
Secondly, in presenting a hypothetical jailhouse conversation between the sole rapist and representatives of the five defendants, I use the word "clients". NO, NO, NO! I have no intention of alleging, even in the wildest hypothetical, that the attorneys themselves would have had that conversation with the rapist. Change "clients" to "associates", or "friends", or some suitable term of art from the Sopranos.
Now, I steal some links from the InstaPundit and add one of my own. I salute the can-do spirit at Armed Liberal. I note the spirit at Uppity-Negro, Sisyphus Shrugged, and the afore-mentioned Body and Soul. And my man at Pandagon has questions; do I have answers?
Mark Kleiman has some interesting observations. We could argue just how well they apply to this specific case, but taken generally they are authoritative and astute.
Recent Comments