Talk:Central Park jogger case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Naming the Article[edit]

central park jogger gives 11,000 hits. Trisha Meili 1,000. So it should be moved back. BL 05:33, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. The current name conforms to our naming conventions. The Google Test is not the be all and end all of these things. Martin 20:25, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A&E Television American Justice Analysis of the case[edit]

Thursday, April 19 11:00am ET 2007 Thursday, April 19 5:00pm ET 2007 An examination of the case that has rocked the justice system in New York for over a decade. Five black teenagers were convicted of the 1989 rape of a white investment banker, then exonerated in 2002 when another man confessed to committing the crime alone. But some believe the teens were still involved. Includes interviews with three of the accused whose convictions were vacated after spending years in jail.

http://www.aetv.com/american_justice/aj_episode_guide.jsp?episode=135432

Crime Statistics[edit]

I added the word 'City' to the sentence "The crime, one of 3,254 rapes reported in New York City that year," because I think it is important to make a distinction between crime statistics for the City and for the State. In 1989 there were 5,242 forcible rapes reported state wide. Of those 3,254 (62.1%) were committed in the City of New York. Reference for state statistic: [1] I do not know the source for the statistic used in the article for the city rape statistic, as I can't find an exact number on-line. The estimates all seem to put it at around 3,200, so I am giving the author the benefit of the doubt that his number is accurate.

Paragraph removed[edit]

I have removed the following paragraph as dubious and unsourced. Although a ref tag is included, it simply goes to another Wikipedia article which does not mention Meili. Someone may want to find an actual third-party source and also provide an argument for the relevance of this digression about one particular unsuccessful defense argument.

[I am removing the deleted paragraph from talk. I believe that it was low-profile trolling with borderline BLP problems, so as no one seemed inclined to defend it, I prefer not to have it preserved on the talk page any more than in the article.]

Were The Confessions The Only Evidence?[edit]

I'm confused. There are two statements in the article (both referenced, but only one reference seems to support the statement) that seem to contradict each other. They are as follows:
Under "Arrests, interrogations and confessions", "No DNA evidence tied the suspects to the crime, so the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the confessions."
Under "Trials and sentences", "Jurors interviewed after the trial stated that they were not convinced by the confessions but were impressed by the physical evidence introduced by the prosecutors..."
The former leads me to believe that the only evidence the prosecutors had were the confessions (never mind the fact that DNA evidence was really just beginning to be used and wasn't relied on as much as it seems it is now). The latter sounds like there was plenty of physical evidence and the jurors didn't consider the confessions at all. So, which is the case? 70.94.119.177 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There was blood and semen on the boys, and a witness who was killed before the trial. The police questioned 37 youths who were in the park that night and charged these five. The documentary omits anything that makes them look remotely guilty.74.139.104.130 (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
There was NO DNA evidence linking the five with the jogger, and I'm sure the DA and police would like to hear about this dead witness and how it relates to the case. 107.188.17.205 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Up above, 74.139.104.130 typed: "There was blood and semen on the boys, and a witness who was killed before the trial." There is no such claim entered into the article. It seems to me that this would be important information, but only if verified by reliable sources. IS this verifiable? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It's been many years since I last researched the case, but the key evidence against the teenagers was the videotaped confessions. If there was blood on them, it was not the jogger's blood. (They, along with dozens or hundreds of other teenagers, had assaulted other people in Central Park that night.) I don't know anything about semen found on them; the important thing is that their semen was not found in/on the jogger, although the jury was told the DNA in the semen found in/on her was consistent with theirs. (To be fair, DNA testing was fairly primitive at the time.) The IP editor is the only place I've ever heard about a murdered witness. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Central Park jogger case. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the following a BLP violation?[edit]

"Despite the analysis conducted by the District Attorney's Office, New York City detectives maintained that the defendants had "most likely" been Reyes' accomplices in the assault and rape of Meili." It sure seems close.144.35.45.54 (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
No, not by a long shot. Unless you think the article is smearing the New York detectives who refuse to believe the evidence. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hell no, I think the opinions of the unnamed detectives who elicited the false confessions should not be aired here on wikipedia!!144.35.45.37 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no evidence that they elicited "false confessions". Four of the five boys confessed in the presence of their parents, who had no objections at the time to their treatment. Unschool 04:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A comparison of the statements reveals troubling discrepancies. ... The accounts given by the five defendants differed from one another on the specific details of virtually every major aspect of the crime—who initiated the attack, who knocked the victim down, who undressed her, who struck her, who held her, who raped her, what weapons were used in the course of the assault, and when in the sequence of events the attack took place. ... In many other respects the defendants' statements were not corroborated by, consistent with, or explanatory of objective, independent evidence. And some of what they said was simply contrary to established fact.[1]

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Confusion.[edit]

Portions of this article is very confusing to me.

  • There are places in the article where authors don't seem to differentiate between the whole gang who entered the Park and the kids arrested for the Central Park Jogger portion of the evening's crimes. A little more differentiation would be helpful.
  • Regarding the Armstrong Report, you wrote: "The report concluded that the five men whose convictions had been vacated had "most likely" participated in the beating and rape of the jogger and that the "most likely scenario" was that "both the defendants and Reyes assaulted her, perhaps successively."". The 5 were not charged with nor tried for any supporting roles in that crime. So, not innocent until proved guilty in a court of law? Also, if they did participate so intimately in the Jogger's assault, would there not be blood on them and their semen on the woman or their fingerprints somewhere? An IP above claims there was blood and semen on their clothing, but offers no source and neither was it entered into the article. if the case was so strong that they assisted in the Jogger attack or any of the others that evening, they would not be given such settlement or removed from the New York State's sex offender registry, no?
  • Due to these points in the Armstrong Report, was there no reaction towards it? No agreements, no denials, no critiques, no rebuttals?
  • Were the CP5 ever charged with any of the other crimes that occurred in the Park that evening? Was there any vetting of the eyewitnesses who claimed they had seen the CP5 committing the attack on the Jogger, or on anybody else? Was anybody charged with any of the other crimes that were perpetrated that night? If so, were there any convictions?
  • Given the explosive news coverage, the spilling of the younger boy's names in the press, and those Trump ads calling for a return to the death penalty, was there no motion to move the trial elsewhere? There's nothing here about the jury selection process - any difficulties finding non-prejudiced jurors on that score?

If those of you who are knowledgeable about this case have any answers to clear my confusion, I will be grateful. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Daily Beast Source Reliable?[edit]

I'm a little concerned looking at a source from the daily beast. There seems like there might be two significant issues with this source. 1) It appears to offer quotes from individuals which aren't presented in other sources, and 2) it seems to be written by a former detective whose articles all seem to involve a pro-police perspective. I'm concerned there may be WP:N issues with this source and would like to blank all the content we have which is solely attributed to it. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Long time no see. It looks to me like an opinion column, not a news source, and it should be used as a reliable source only for Edward Conlon's opinion per WP:RSOPINION.
Having said that, I would err on the side of caution before blanking anything sourced solely to Conlon. It may have been used for convenience by a Wikipedia editor who thought it was a reliable source for facts, and it may (or may not) be relatively easy to find alternate sources for some of the statements in the article that cite Conlon as the source. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
It's been too long Malik Shabazz.
Concur re "opinion column".
As I see it, the content is problematic, b/c it seems to purports to relay fairly incriminating confessions made by the former suspects. Oddly, if you look for other sources to corroborate some of the statements supposedly made, you'll find more opinion pieces/3rd rate journalism. I'm concerned, b/c I get the sense some of what is being relayed is heresy.
For instance, I tried to verify the "Antron did it" confession in other sources. I can't find sources prior to 2002 which note this statement. Extremely odd that one of the suspects would have said something like this, but it didn't get reported until 10 years after the fact?
While I take your point re "convenience", I also think that we shouldn't be relying on "convenient" sources for material which could potentially be quite controversial. NickCT (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ten or Eleven Total?[edit]

The article claims six others were arrested and convicted, citing Reference 28, but that source asserts that the total number arrested and convicted was ten. Lewis Goudy (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central Park jogger case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Central Park jogger case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)