Netflix New Limited Series...When They See Us
 

Watched this over the weekend,don't recall the actual case so can't say how many liberties were taken but overall good story,acting etc.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u3F9n_smGWY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Crazy, tragic story. My wife sobbed through a lot of it, so maybe plan to watch it during shark week or some other non-festive time as it's obviously a downer.

Watched 2 eps... definitely gotta prepare for it but it's well done so far.

Horrible story. I haven't watched this yet, but I remember when it happened and watched the PBS documentary not long ago. Everybody was against them, with some people remaining vocally so after their release. It's really sad.

How many virtue signal points do you earn by sitting through this thing?

Hey, they received $41 million. Not a bad settlement.

Enough to get free tofu at the local soy boy cafe.

At the time,Trump called for the death penalty and used many hateful words against these guys. Wonder if he ever apologized?

I'm still not convinced that they were innocent.

What would that matter?

That's the thing, people are BOTH so polarized and so addicted to narratives, that an accurate picture will never emerge without a lot of carnage.

The authorities overstepped procedurally and thus the individuals were entitled to absolution and recompense for the failures of the state in the administration of justice. But in the course of that, absolution in fact, or factual innocence, was not established as the present-day hagiographers would have people believe.

It was a group of individuals acting lawlessly in concert that resulted in some heinous crimes. The state failed to do the hard work to explicitly establish who did what and overused the acting in concert aspect to convict them all. It was sound strategy at the time, when the heinousness of the criminal acts were the focus, but it left holes in the evidentiary record when the focus shifted to racial politics and convict rights.

I'm saddened by this overall, from almost every angle.

Yep. Not guilty is not the same as innocent. Netflix et al can obscure the truth in favor of their agenda but it doesn't change a thing.

Well said.

He didn't

Just finished it last night. Then went on a an informational tear to read more about the case.

Such a sad and tragic story. Hard to watch for sure. But also very well done. It's clear that there were racial motivations for their incarceration and that the DA was more interested in a conviction than finding the truth. It's unforgivable that given the evidence and that the rapist had a recent history AND was already incarcerated, that they couldn't connect the dots.

Some of the formerly accused have used their settlement money to support others in prison, potentially wrongly accused. I think that certainly supports how deeply their self-convictions of innocence indeed are.

Even if you're not "convinced" they are innocent, the only way they should've been convicted is "beyond a shadow of a doubt" - clearly not the case.

Right on cue a piece conservative says something down playing the racism and rampant brutality towards a culture that has been facing this since the countries inception. Gfy

Reasonable doubt is the standard, but who cares anymore really?

DNA isn’t good enough for you?

If DNA isn’t good enough then we can’t convict or clear anyone in any case for anything. You can’t fake DNA.

You beat me to it. But let's not let the facts get in the way of being indoctrinated by an agenda-driven movie. That guy is exactly their target audience.

It's not even worth the time to explain to you how off base you are here.

I guess not.


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Asked by <a href="https://twitter.com/AprilDRyan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AprilDRyan</a> whether he has reconsidered his rash demand for the death penalty for the five teens who had since been exonerated of all charges in the 1989 Central Park jogger case, President Trump sided with Linda Fairstein and fellow denialists. <a href="https://t.co/tXYGsRGeWU">pic.twitter.com/tXYGsRGeWU</a></p>&mdash; Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) <a href="https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/1141086695678283776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Not surprising

yeah we know, “both sides”, right?

What both sides bullshit are you referring to

This was your summation of the matter.

Again, like vail, it is too exhausting for a largely mooted point to go through the intricacies in depth for a simple CP media center thread. But in summary, DNA didn't exonerate those accused because DNA didn't convict those accused. This was the 1980s, and DNA was in its infancy. It is possible that there was all sorts of DNA all over the scene, but the only samples retained were from the cervix and the sock of the victim.

It is undisputed that this was a gang attack, not in the sense that it was a formal gang, just that multiple people were involved, from observers to people restraining her, to people assaulting her to those who actually penetrated her.

The convictions were obtained on the basis of confessions and corroborating testimony and evidence regarding the PARTICIPATION in the joint endeavor of assaulting, restraining and raping this victim.

As DNA assessment became more refined over the years, they eventually connected the specific DNA of the eventual specific perpetrator, but the prior prosecution explicitly made no representation, let alone misrepresentations regarding that specific DNA. But once that specific perp was identified, advocate pressed their pre-existing pleadings regarding the pressure the convicted were under to confess.

The courts eventually found that the pressure to confess crossed procedural bounds sufficient to merit reversal of the convictions, and that's fine. But it's still different from exoneration, particularly exoneration on the premise that DNA proved innocence.

There are not two sides in this situation. People must be convicted based upon " beyond a reasonable doubt".
The DNA collected at the scene shows conclusively that it was not the Central Park 5's sperm, skin under her fingernails, hairs found at the scene. Later another well known rapist admits to the crime. And guess what, his DNA matches exactly to the crime. He admits the crime. No matter how you slice this new confession and DNA match, that's some serious, no way around it "reasonable doubt". Case over. release them.

Your penchant for foregoing subject knowledge in favor of transparent grabs for virtue recognition is praiseworthy in it's consistency.

So your position is that this DNA evidence establishes that this woman was in fact simply raped by a lone individual?