In Need of Humanities

So Linda Fairstein is now being mobbed because of a TV series?

People definitely need more Humanities education because the incapacity to distinguish between fact and fiction is scary. It was already obvious when viewers started taking the series Making a Murderer dead in earnest.

25 thoughts on “In Need of Humanities”

  1. Yeah, she’s getting mobbed by ALL the usual left-wing professional indignation groups — by Al Sharpton on his MSNBC “news” show, by “The Nation” magazine, by the Black Law Students Association at Columbia Law School (where her teaching position has been terminated) — because of a highly fictionalized Netflix show that’s being treated as a documentary.

    The charges against the convicted “Central Park Five” teenagers were vacated in 2002 after the actual killer confessed to the crime, but Fairstein was never disciplined for any alleged prosecutorial misconduct and continues to work in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office as a prosecutor. New York City refused to settle a lawsuit from four of the convicted men until newly-elected Bill De Blasio agreed to pay them $41 million in 2014.

    So all of the current backlash is purely from the Netflix version of events!


    1. The guy who confessed is just one of the rapists. Nobody ever doubted it was a gang rape. Nobody ever doubted one of the rapists got away. In fact, it was very openly stated at the trial. There was zero new evidence found except for a statement from an incarcerated criminal in search for a transfer that he had no accomplices. Everybody knows that’s rubbish.


  2. Wrong

    In 2001, Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and serial rapist who was in prison, confessed to raping the jogger. His DNA matched samples found on and near the rape victim, and there was other confirmatory evidence. He said he committed the rape alone.[3] At the time of his confession, Reyes was already serving a life sentence for other crimes. He was not prosecuted for raping Meili, because the statute of limitations had passed by the time he confessed.


      1. DNA from semen samples found on, and close to the victim, did not match any of the accused, a fact which became known during the first trial. The

        So they all raped her without leaving any semen samples, except for the perp who later confessed. Sounds reasonable to me.


        1. Once again, you repeat exactly what I said. This fact was known at the first trial. Manson wasn’t present at the scene. Which was also known at his trial. Both juries arrived at a verdict of guilty.

          Neither ejaculation nor even penetration are necessary for a verdict of guilty in a gang rape case. Holding the victim down or groping her breasts – none of which leaves DNA that could be detected 30 years ago – still means you are just as guilty as the guy who ejaculated.

          I’m not sure what you are debating here. This is how any group crime is charged. If you are against that, fine, but according to the law as it exists, you don’t have to ejaculate or even get undressed during a gang rape to be guilty of it. Is that news to you?


            1. You seem completely unfamiliar with the facts of the crime and you are making me repeat the same thing many times, which bores me. I just told you what the five confessed and bragged to their friends about doing. It has all been extensively documented over the years. If I found it, so can you.


    1. The information that the only person whose DNA was found at the scene wasn’t being charged was presented at trial. The jury knew it.

      This happened when the use of DNA at trial was in its infancy. A minuscule amount of DNA was recovered at the scene and everybody knew it didn’t belong to the arrested suspects. But so what? Not everybody ejaculates during a gang rape. One of the suspects confessed to “just holding her leg” during the rape. According to the law, he’s just as guilty as the guy who ejaculated. Ejaculation is not a criterion used to determine if a rape was committed.


        1. In any crime committed by a group, every member of the group doesn’t need to be guilty or even have knowledge of every element of the crime to be convicted of the crime.

          An example: Charles Mason is in jail for murders for which he wasn’t even at the scene.

          Another example. A woman got the death penalty in Georgia for a murder where she wasn’t on the scene and did nothing violent at all. It’s just the law.


      1. The guy confessed to being the only perp, but somehow the DNA evidence only pointed to one person. Even without semen or pre-ejaculate fluid, there should’ve been other trace evidence to link the 5
        To the crime.


        1. If evidence that only one person’s DNA was found on the scene and that person wasn’t among the five had been concealed from the jury, that would absolutely be a miscarriage of justice and the verdict should be overturned. But it wasn’t concealed. The jury knew and still arrived at a guilty verdict based on circumstancial evidence. Are you opposed to cases being adjudicated on circumstancial evidence on principle? If not, then what are we arguing about?


            1. Are you aware that the five were apprehended because they bragged extensively about the details of the crime to numerous friends?

              As for false confessions, are you aware that Reyes confessed to being the only rapist after being incarcerated with Wise? Do you know that Wise was a member of the Bloods in that prison?


              1. Nope.

                The police were dispatched at 9:30 p.m. and responded with scooters and unmarked cars. They apprehended Raymond Santana and Kevin Richardson along with other teenagers at approximately 10:15 p.m. on Central Park West and 102nd Street.[4][10][11] Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam, and Korey Wise were not brought in for questioning until the next day, after having been identified by other youths as participants in or present at some of the attacks.[10] Korey Wise said he accompanied his friend Salaam to the station to give him support.[11]

                The five juveniles were interviewed for at least seven hours each before the detectives attempted to take their statements as video confessions,[4] and some were held longer without relief, or food or drink. Santana, McCray, and Richardson later made video statements in the presence of their respective parents,[4][2] but no parents had been present during the lengthy police interrogations prior to that.[4] Wise made a number of statements while on his own.[4][2] Salaam told the police he was 15 years old but showed them identification that said he was 16, which he said was false. If a suspect had reached 16 years of age, his parents or guardians no longer had a right to accompany him during police questioning, or to refuse to permit him to answer any questions.[2] After Salaam’s mother arrived at the station, the police stopped the questioning, but Salaam’s earlier statements were admitted into trial testimony.[2]


              2. Nope what? They didn’t brag to their friends? The friends didn’t testify at trial? This is simply factually untrue.

                As for physical evidence, there was hair consistent with the jogger’s on Lopez’s clothes. But the technology to analyze it with 100% certainty didn’t exist.

                Are you aware of any of this? Or are we debating solely the Wikipedia article?


  3. According to a 2014 article in The Daily Beast by Edward Conlon, before the raped jogger was found, one of the other boys whom the police had rounded up that night said that he “didn’t do the murder”; he was sitting in the back of a police car and named Antron McCray as the perpetrator. Kevin Richardson, who was sitting beside him, allegedly agreed, saying “Antron did it”. He also said that after Raymond Santana had been interrogated about the rape and while he was being driven to another precinct, he exclaimed: “I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel her tits.”[10][38]

    Hardly bragging about it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.