Reagan exposed as a racist in newly released recording.

[Correll]

DNA cannot exonerate someone.

DNA cannot exonerate someone.

Got a link for that claim?

DNA Exonerations in the United States - Innocence Project

"Fast facts:

• 1989: The first DNA exoneration took place
• 365 DNA exonerees to date
• 37: States where exonerations have been won
• 14: Average number of years served
• 5,065.5: Total number of years served
• 26.6: Average age at the time of wrongful conviction
• 43: Average age at exoneration
• 20 of 365 people served time on death row
• 41 of 365 pled guilty to crimes they did not commit
• 69%: Involved eyewitness misidentification"

I should say, that DNA cannot, by itself, exonerate someone.


In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

Which "rapists in question" are you referring to?
The ones who were falsely convicted by a white supremacist justice system?
What makes you think they are under any obligation to prove they were not there aside from the color of their skins?...

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"In 2001, Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and serial rapist serving life in prison, confessed to officials that he had raped the female jogger. His DNA matched that found at the scene, and he provided other confirmatory evidence.

"|He said he committed the rape alone.[3]

"Reyes could not be prosecuted for raping Meili, because the statute of limitations had passed. In 2002 Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney for New York County, had his office conduct an investigation and recommended to the state court that the convictions of the five men on all charges be vacated.

"The court vacated their convictions in 2002, and the state withdrew all charges against the men."

So, you're just trusting the word of the lifer, who could not be tried for his crime, on no one else being there with him?

Despite the confessions of many of the other rapists?


LOL!!!!!!



Dude. Just admit it. When choosing between a rape victim, and her vicious and vile rapists, you sided with the rapist, because you are a vile piece of shit.

 

[Polishprince]

"In 2001, Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and serial rapist serving life in prison, confessed to officials that he had raped the female jogger. His DNA matched that found at the scene, and he provided other confirmatory evidence.

"|He said he committed the rape alone.

I'm not impressed. Mr. Reyes was already serving life imprisonment at the time of his confession and was beyond punishment. He could have easily been fed the "confirmatory evidence" by busy body liberals seeking to glorify the African American youths- America's Sacred Cows. I'd like to know what Reyes got for his confession? More commissary? a cushy job? TV for his cell?

 

[Correll]

I should say, that DNA cannot, by itself, exonerate someone.


In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

Which "rapists in question" are you referring to?
The ones who were falsely convicted by a white supremacist justice system?
What makes you think they are under any obligation to prove they were not there aside from the color of their skins?...

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.

You can blame cops who interview minors without adult family members or legal counsel present, especially if the cops are racist, white-skinned bigots like Trump.

Your vile smears of the cops, and the NYC Justice system, ruled almost exclusively be dems for generations,

is just you being a dick.


like I said, a lot of their confessions and information used against them, was just volunteered.


If I recall correctly, one of them led the cops to the scene of the attack. How did he do that?

 

[georgephillip]

Got a link for that claim?

DNA Exonerations in the United States - Innocence Project

"Fast facts:

• 1989: The first DNA exoneration took place
• 365 DNA exonerees to date
• 37: States where exonerations have been won
• 14: Average number of years served
• 5,065.5: Total number of years served
• 26.6: Average age at the time of wrongful conviction
• 43: Average age at exoneration
• 20 of 365 people served time on death row
• 41 of 365 pled guilty to crimes they did not commit
• 69%: Involved eyewitness misidentification"

I should say, that DNA cannot, by itself, exonerate someone.


In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

Which "rapists in question" are you referring to?
The ones who were falsely convicted by a white supremacist justice system?
What makes you think they are under any obligation to prove they were not there aside from the color of their skins?...

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant.

"In addition, he said it was significant that both DNA samples at the scene came from the same source, a single unidentified man.[34]

"Since no DNA or other substantive physical evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the youths' confessions."

 

[Correll]

I should say, that DNA cannot, by itself, exonerate someone.


In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

Which "rapists in question" are you referring to?
The ones who were falsely convicted by a white supremacist justice system?
What makes you think they are under any obligation to prove they were not there aside from the color of their skins?...

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant.

"In addition, he said it was significant that both DNA samples at the scene came from the same source, a single unidentified man.[34]

"Since no DNA or other substantive physical evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the youths' confessions."

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.


That you libs think that finding the other rapists, some how clears the ones that were caught, and fucking confessed, shows that you are stupid beyond the power of words to describe.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

And all the sheep in America thought this guy was a great man.whatever.

And you have no problem with Obama. Whatever

 

[Polishprince]

Which "rapists in question" are you referring to?
The ones who were falsely convicted by a white supremacist justice system?
What makes you think they are under any obligation to prove they were not there aside from the color of their skins?...

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant.

"In addition, he said it was significant that both DNA samples at the scene came from the same source, a single unidentified man.[34]

"Since no DNA or other substantive physical evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the youths' confessions."

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.


That you libs think that finding the other rapists, some how clears the ones that were caught, and fucking confessed, shows that you are stupid beyond the power of words to describe.

If the Central Park 5 were as innocent as newborn babes, as libs contend, why were the liberals so quick to pay Multi Million dollar "settlements" with the taxpayers' money instead of letting them sue in court?

If they sue, they could have testified as to their innocence, publicly, and the detectives could have testified to what they heard and did themselves.

Why the non-transparency?

 

[georgephillip]

Which "rapists in question" are you referring to?
The ones who were falsely convicted by a white supremacist justice system?
What makes you think they are under any obligation to prove they were not there aside from the color of their skins?...

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.

You can blame cops who interview minors without adult family members or legal counsel present, especially if the cops are racist, white-skinned bigots like Trump.

Your vile smears of the cops, and the NYC Justice system, ruled almost exclusively be dems for generations,

is just you being a dick.


like I said, a lot of their confessions and information used against them, was just volunteered.


If I recall correctly, one of them led the cops to the scene of the attack. How did he do that?

If I recall correctly, one of them led the cops to the scene of the attack. How did he do that?

Which one?
Maybe this will refresh your memory:

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"'Unlike the accurate accounts they gave to police of those events [other attacks in the park], their confessions to the assault on the jogger were wrong about where, when and how it happened."[47]

"Only Wise made any statement about the different scenes of the jogger attack, and detectives had taken him to the park to the crime scene before he made his videotaped confession.[48]

"Each of the suspects had made different errors in time and place about the jogger attack in their confessions, with most placing it near the reservoir.

"None of the five said that he had raped the jogger, but each confessed to having been an accomplice to the rape.[6]

"Each youth said that he had only helped restrain the jogger, or touched her, while one or more others had raped her.

"Their confessions varied as to who they identified as having participated in the rape, including naming several youths who were never charged.[6]

"Although four suspects (except Salaam) confessed on videotape in the presence of a parent or guardian (who had generally not been present during the interrogations), each of the four quickly retracted his statement within weeks.

"Together they claimed that they had been intimidated, lied to, and coerced by police into making false confessions.

"While the confessions were videotaped, the hours of interrogation that preceded the confessions were not."

 

[Correll]

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant.

"In addition, he said it was significant that both DNA samples at the scene came from the same source, a single unidentified man.[34]

"Since no DNA or other substantive physical evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the youths' confessions."

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.


That you libs think that finding the other rapists, some how clears the ones that were caught, and fucking confessed, shows that you are stupid beyond the power of words to describe.

If the Central Park 5 were as innocent as newborn babes, as libs contend, why were the liberals so quick to pay Multi Million dollar "settlements" with the taxpayers' money instead of letting them sue in court?

If they sue, they could have testified as to their innocence, publicly, and the detectives could have testified to what they heard and did themselves.

Why the non-transparency?

Good point. And we know why.


They didn't want America to see the criminal violent punks that the Left was releasing back into the community.

 

[Correll]

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.

You can blame cops who interview minors without adult family members or legal counsel present, especially if the cops are racist, white-skinned bigots like Trump.

Your vile smears of the cops, and the NYC Justice system, ruled almost exclusively be dems for generations,

is just you being a dick.


like I said, a lot of their confessions and information used against them, was just volunteered.


If I recall correctly, one of them led the cops to the scene of the attack. How did he do that?

If I recall correctly, one of them led the cops to the scene of the attack. How did he do that?

Which one?
Maybe this will refresh your memory:

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"'Unlike the accurate accounts they gave to police of those events [other attacks in the park], their confessions to the assault on the jogger were wrong about where, when and how it happened."[47]

"Only Wise made any statement about the different scenes of the jogger attack, and detectives had taken him to the park to the crime scene before he made his videotaped confession.[48]

"Each of the suspects had made different errors in time and place about the jogger attack in their confessions, with most placing it near the reservoir.

"None of the five said that he had raped the jogger, but each confessed to having been an accomplice to the rape.[6]

"Each youth said that he had only helped restrain the jogger, or touched her, while one or more others had raped her.

"Their confessions varied as to who they identified as having participated in the rape, including naming several youths who were never charged.[6]

"Although four suspects (except Salaam) confessed on videotape in the presence of a parent or guardian (who had generally not been present during the interrogations), each of the four quickly retracted his statement within weeks.

"Together they claimed that they had been intimidated, lied to, and coerced by police into making false confessions.

"While the confessions were videotaped, the hours of interrogation that preceded the confessions were not."

Wow. THey are running though the park at night, and they got some of the details of where they helped rape a woman, wrong?


Well, i guess that is more important than the fact that they admitted to helping rape the woman.

YOu ever admit to helping to rape a woman?

 

[georgephillip]

Which "rapists in question" are you referring to?
The ones who were falsely convicted by a white supremacist justice system?
What makes you think they are under any obligation to prove they were not there aside from the color of their skins?...

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant.

"In addition, he said it was significant that both DNA samples at the scene came from the same source, a single unidentified man.[34]

"Since no DNA or other substantive physical evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the youths' confessions."

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.


That you libs think that finding the other rapists, some how clears the ones that were caught, and fucking confessed, shows that you are stupid beyond the power of words to describe.

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.

Was the jury aware the DNA evidence was not a match or was the jury told DNA results were "inconclusive"?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant."

 

[Polishprince]

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant.

"In addition, he said it was significant that both DNA samples at the scene came from the same source, a single unidentified man.[34]

"Since no DNA or other substantive physical evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the youths' confessions."

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.


That you libs think that finding the other rapists, some how clears the ones that were caught, and fucking confessed, shows that you are stupid beyond the power of words to describe.

If the Central Park 5 were as innocent as newborn babes, as libs contend, why were the liberals so quick to pay Multi Million dollar "settlements" with the taxpayers' money instead of letting them sue in court?

If they sue, they could have testified as to their innocence, publicly, and the detectives could have testified to what they heard and did themselves.

Why the non-transparency?

Good point. And we know why.


They didn't want America to see the criminal violent punks that the Left was releasing back into the community.

I'd like to know what connections there were between the Central Park 5's attorneys and the liberal establishment? How much did they kick back of their substantial contingency fee to the politicians in New York?


A trial for damages would have given the detectives a chance to explain their side of the story, but more importantly, it would allow the Five to rehabilitate their public images. A lot of people in the general public still think they did it.

Further, it would allow the public to see exactly what happened, and if the judgment went against the city, they would be able to advocate for changing procedures to prevent it from happening again as well as fingering the individual culprits responsible.

But instead, they just cut a check of the taxpayers money and kept it on the QT.

 

[Correll]

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant.

"In addition, he said it was significant that both DNA samples at the scene came from the same source, a single unidentified man.[34]

"Since no DNA or other substantive physical evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the youths' confessions."

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.


That you libs think that finding the other rapists, some how clears the ones that were caught, and fucking confessed, shows that you are stupid beyond the power of words to describe.

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.

Was the jury aware the DNA evidence was not a match or was the jury told DNA results were "inconclusive"?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant."

Doesn't matter. The DNA does not incriminate the first 5 rapists caught.

 

[Polishprince]

But instead, they just cut a check of the taxpayers money and kept it on the QT.

I wonder what the libs would say if Manafort sued the DOJ for unlawful imprisonment and abuse while behind bars, and the Barr DOJ would agree to a settle of $50 million which is what the Central Park Alleged Rapists got?

 

[georgephillip]

Which one was that?
How old was he?
Were any adult family members present when he "confessed?"
Was his "confession" obtained without access to counsel?

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant.

"In addition, he said it was significant that both DNA samples at the scene came from the same source, a single unidentified man.[34]

"Since no DNA or other substantive physical evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the youths' confessions."

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.


That you libs think that finding the other rapists, some how clears the ones that were caught, and fucking confessed, shows that you are stupid beyond the power of words to describe.

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.

Was the jury aware the DNA evidence was not a match or was the jury told DNA results were "inconclusive"?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant."

Doesn't matter. The DNA does not incriminate the first 5 rapists caught.

Doesn't matter. The DNA does not incriminate the first 5 rapists caught.

It matters a great deal if the jury was told DNA evidence against the five rape SUSPECTS was "inconclusive" or whether the jury was told the DNA evidence did not incriminate the five rape SUSPECTS.

Does Trump have an alibi?

 

[Correll]

Don't recall. A lot of it was just volunteered. YOu can't blame the cops because some punk they pick up, running wild in the streets, doesn't have his mommy with him.


You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

You know that the juries, all knew that their DNA was NOT found at the scene right? And still found them guilty based on the evidence and their testimony?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant.

"In addition, he said it was significant that both DNA samples at the scene came from the same source, a single unidentified man.[34]

"Since no DNA or other substantive physical evidence tied the suspects to the crime, the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the youths' confessions."

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.


That you libs think that finding the other rapists, some how clears the ones that were caught, and fucking confessed, shows that you are stupid beyond the power of words to describe.

Correct. The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.

Was the jury aware the DNA evidence was not a match or was the jury told DNA results were "inconclusive"?

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"Analysis indicated that none of the suspects' DNA matched either of the two DNA samples collected from the crime scene, but results were reported as 'inconclusive' by police pre-trial.[49]

"At trial, the FBI expert said that being able to exclude their DNA was significant."

Doesn't matter. The DNA does not incriminate the first 5 rapists caught.

Doesn't matter. The DNA does not incriminate the first 5 rapists caught.

It matters a great deal if the jury was told DNA evidence against the five rape SUSPECTS was "inconclusive" or whether the jury was told the DNA evidence did not incriminate the five rape SUSPECTS.....

Sounds like a meaningless spin distinction to me.


The DNA was not used as evidence to convict them. IT was not a match. They always knew that there was at least one other rapist, that got away.


That you libs think that finding the other rapists, some how clears the ones that were caught, and fucking confessed, shows that you are stupid beyond the power of words to describe.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Trump placed his racist ad calling for their execution BEFORE they were tried and "convicted."

All five were later exonerated of that particular rape based on DNA evidence.

Central Park jogger case - Wikipedia

"None of the suspects' DNA matched the DNA collected from the crime scene: two semen samples that both belonged to one unidentified man. No substantive physical evidence connected any of the five teenagers to the rape scene, but each was convicted in 1990 of related assault and other charges."

DNA cannot exonerate someone.

DNA cannot exonerate someone.

Got a link for that claim?

DNA Exonerations in the United States - Innocence Project

"Fast facts:

• 1989: The first DNA exoneration took place
• 365 DNA exonerees to date
• 37: States where exonerations have been won
• 14: Average number of years served
• 5,065.5: Total number of years served
• 26.6: Average age at the time of wrongful conviction
• 43: Average age at exoneration
• 20 of 365 people served time on death row
• 41 of 365 pled guilty to crimes they did not commit
• 69%: Involved eyewitness misidentification"

I should say, that DNA cannot, by itself, exonerate someone.


In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

In this case, the DNA does not show that they were not there, just that someone else WAS there.

Which we always knew.

ONly some one irrationally biased in favor of the rapists in question, could look at that evidence, and see anything that "exonerates" the other rapists.

Which "rapists in question" are you referring to?
The ones who were falsely convicted by a white supremacist justice system?
What makes you think they are under any obligation to prove they were not there aside from the color of their skins?...

What about the one that volunteered that he only held her legs down, during the rape?

I would certainly think that that one, is under an obligation to prove he was not there. Since, he admitted that he was there. And helped rape the woman.


You can shove your race baiting up your ass, you piece of shit.

wah wah wah as always,from the tiresome childish troll who cant handle defeat and is now talking to himself.

this is all you EVER do in your immature ways of dealing with defeat same as crusader retard,whine whine whine.

that idiot child always threw tantrems and fits and went into meltdown mode and took it personal when i took him to school that reagan ran the most corrupt administration ever acting like reagan was his dad or something so i put that stupid fuck on ignore YEARS ago.

YOU are actlng like the same baby he is getting angry over facts you cant counter and lying as well same as him so i am about to do the same with you. two child babies who are too immature to deal with facts about their hero.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Stopped reading here. Bored. YOu lose. Loser.

Stopped reading here. Bored. YOu lose. Loser.

Do you comprehend what you don't read, Rube?

Inside the Government's Racial Bias Case Against Donald Trump's Company, and How He Fought It

"For Trump, whose statements as a presidential candidate about Mexican immigrants, women and Muslims have drawn charges of racism and sexism, his role as a defendant in a discrimination case put him near the center of a civil rights-era struggle over society’s changing views about race and culture.

"The 20-month legal battle marked the first time Trump became a regular presence on newspaper front pages. It served as an early look at the hardball tactics he has employed in business and, more recently, in politics.

"And its resolution showed how Trump, even in the heat of battle, is often willing to strike a deal."

Trump’s Long War with Justice

1973? LOL!!!!

Say, how often did you tell your dad, how to do his job?

1973? LOL!!!!

Say, how often did you tell your dad, how to do his job?

My dad was never a KKK supporter, and I was never president of his company.
....ps

Got it. Never. I would dismiss any reports from when Trump was working for his DAD, as evidence against Trump.


You got anything from when Trump was actually in charge, or you just full of shit?

Got it. Never. I would dismiss any reports from when Trump was working for his DAD, as evidence against Trump.


You got anything from when Trump was actually in charge, or you just full of shit?

You are way beyond delusional if you believe Trump and his dad were not racists:

"In the years since then, Trump has assembled a long record of comment on issues involving African Americans as well as Mexicans, Hispanics more broadly, Native Americans, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, women, and people with disabilities.

"His statements have been reflected in his behavior—from public acts (placing ads calling for the execution of five young black and Latino men accused of rape, who were later shown to be innocent) to private preferences ('When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,' a former employee of Trump’s Castle, in Atlantic City, New Jersey, told a writer for The New Yorker).

"Trump emerged as a political force owing to his full-throated embrace of 'birtherism,' the false charge that the nation’s first black president, Barack Obama, was not born in the United States.

"His presidential campaign was fueled by nativist sentiment directed at nonwhite immigrants, and he proposed barring Muslims from entering the country. In 2016, Trump described himself to The Washington Post as 'the least racist person that you’ve ever encountered.'"

An Oral History of Trump’s Bigotry

Trump and his racist base are burying the GOP.
Good riddance.

georgephillip

He pretty much proved in spades he is BEYOND delusional acting like a child with his lies that Reagan was not only a great man but a great president. I honestly thought Crusader Retard and pollitical chic errr i mean politcal IDIOT, were the only reagaut zombie worshippers who were THAT delusional and stupid . they are soooo stupid,they have been so brainwashed by our corrupt school system and corporate controlled media and SERIOUSLY actually believe he ended the cold war.comedy gold. our history classses in our corrupt school system are so much failing the american people in spades.

Same as Crusader Retard and Political chic-err i mean political idiot, he is too stupid to comprehend it that GOOD presidents in the MODERN AGE now,if they are a good president,they dont serve more than one term hense WHY they took out JFK cause he was our last GREAT president we had,He was trying to get us back to the constitution of the united states where the PEOPLE had control over the government instead of all these corporations that do now. Oh these three reaganut worshippers DONT think the corporations run our government,i forget,they think we live in a free country with free speech and that reagan did not take a shit on the constitution.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

“Reagan exposed as a racist in newly released recording.”

Actually not.

The fact that Reagan was a racist is well documented; the newly released recording is further confirmation of that fact.

Reagan was a great man and a greater President.


Your inability to admit that, reflects poorly on you.

the funniest lie of the century.


I thought only Crusader Retard and USMB's resident troll Political Chic who EVERYBODY knows worships the REPUBLICANS and NEVER says one word about their corruption,only the dems are corrupt in HER warped mind , were THIS stupid. add ONE MORE to the list of stupid fuck resident trolls of USMB that worship asswipe mass murderer Reagan.

the three stooges. same as those two peas in a pod,a troll who cowardly evades evidence and goes by what the corrupt school system and corporate media taught him.

Are you old enough to remember when leftards like you, vicious attacked Reagan for predicting that the Soviet Union would fall?

When I was a youth, it was an accepted fact that the USSR would never fail, because the people behind the Iron Curtain loved Tyranny just like Americans loved Freedom.

Reagan's idea, that victory over Liberal Despotism was not possible but desirable, was very provocative.

Of course, the libs were full of shit, the people of Eastern Europe were no different that Americans, and loved freedom too.

And let's face it, the libs here, many, if not most, were somewhat sympathetic to the Soviet Union, so they took Reagan's prediction as a personal insult.


They "knew" that the nature "progress" of mankind would be to the Left, and that Reagan was an old fool.


That history proved him right, and them wrong, is what still burns them to this day. They hate him more than anyone, because of that.

comedy gold from you as always liar.LOL

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Republicans don’t mind when people refer to black people as monkeys

They think it is funny

I know, it's hilarious. I go through life waiting for the moment someone calls a black person a monkey.

Not just any black people. UN members. He's right. He was right then and right today.