Talk:Central Park jogger case: Difference between revisions

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

New York City B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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

Technically the convictions were vacated because the court accepted new evidence namely the admission by Matias Reyes after statue of limitations had expired. A new trial was not sought by the District Attorney and there has never been a rexamination of the evidence by the court of the 1990 trial although the New York Police Department conducted their own review and concluded that the five were probably guilty as charged. [1] patsw 03:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Reyes' admission of guilt did not count as "new evidence." Police had always possessed the evidence in question -- Reyes' semen on the Jogger's sock -- and had said from the beginning (1989) that they did not have all of the attackers, including the owner of the semen. Second, the court did not "accept" anything; it merely acted on DA Morgenthau's request. The courts do not re-examine evidence; they either admit it or reject it for use in an adversarial proceeding. [The following passage was on 20:05 19 January 2007 deleted by User:130.156.30.57, in violation of Wikipedia rules, which prohibit editors from deleting material from talk pages.] And if anything, Morgenthau was guilty of obstruction of justice for hamstringing the NYPD's new investigation of the case (Morgenthau's ADAs told prisoners who knew Reyes not to cooperate with NYPD investigators, etc.). [End of restored section.] 70.23.177.216 01:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC) 70.23.199.239 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us, Nick, what evidence, if any, you have for your claims of possible obstruction of justice. For example, you've stated as fact that Assistant District Attorneys instructed inmates not to cooperate with police department officials. Where is this documented? Were any complaints filed as a result of these alleged activities? Were any investigations done? What was the outcome of these investigations? As I explain here, accusing law enforcement officials of BREAKING the law themselves is a serious allegation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Highway_Traffic_Safety_Administration&diff=129283875&oldid=129042147

130.156.29.61 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(:::Such evidence was in this article, but in repeated acts of vandalism, the previous poster, User:130.156.29.61, aka the Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster, aka various IP aliases, has censored it. Now, he acts as though the evidence were never provided, and demands to see it. Nice try.

71.247.249.236 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Note that the Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster (User:130.156.30.59, aka User:130.156.29.61, User:130.156.29.134, User:130.156.29.251, User:130.156.30.57, User:130.156.30.176, User:130.156.31.113, User:130.156.31.143 and User:130.156.31.225) vandalized the preceding passage yet again (17:07 24 January 2007, as User:130.156.30.59; previously on 20:05 19 January 2007 as User:130.156.30.57), and has repeatedly vandalized talk pages and violated the WP:3RR (on 23 January 2007 and 24 January 2007, respectively) without penalty. Meanwhile, some of us get blocked merely for disagreeing with people. (‘Having the right politics? Priceless.’)

70.23.199.239 06:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of payment and/or moral reparations did the wrongly imprisoned group receive after they were freed? I think it is very important to describe this in the article since the whole story is not finished until the wronged ones are compensated!

This is a good point. There was no suit filed against the city for improper prosecution of the case. In the trial the defendants failed to show that their confessions were coereced. In a case against the city they would have to prove, sucessfully this time, that their confessions were coerced.

On the other hand, the defendants would have an excellent case if they sued Matias Reyes. However, it is doubtful they would receive large monetary damages from Reyes. patsw 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the men who were originally convicted have not been found to have been wrongfully convicted. Instead, their convictions were "vacated" in light of this other fellow's claim that he alone did the crime and that there is probable cause to believe he might have done it. None of these men have been exonerated and all of them can be seen on videotape joking about the jogger's injuries and describing in detail how their friends raped and abused her. It is not for any of us to know whether they are innocent or wrongfully convicted. Only they can know that. They're convictions were vacated in light of the new evidence and the DA decided against re-trial. There is some evidence that fellow who has confessed to the crime is mentally incompetant and that he did so to earn protection in prison or as a favor to one or more of the original defendants. I can't say whether that is true or not. All I do know is that the final truth on all of this will never be known. Let's hope Trisha lives a long and peaceful life and that the boys who have been released do the same.

How is Trisha Meili doing now? This article talks about her attack in Central park, but how is she doing now?

Excellent. This article is typical of Wikipedia's deficiencies. It is about a criminal case, with almost nothing about the person whose name heads the article. I even remember more about her from newspaper articles years ago, when her identity was revealed. Articles like these make Wikipedia's name a joke. 66.108.4.183 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we have an article is because of the attack so it's not too surprising. It's really none of our business how she's doing nor is it likely to be of great interest of our readers and most importantly it probably hasn't been covered in a reliable source. This is an encylopedia. You could ask wikinews to try and interview her of course. If she had been notable after the event for example as a campaigner against violence against women for example then perhaps things would be different. But she's not Nil Einne 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had Nil Einne (11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)), at all familiarized himself/herself with this case, he/she would not have written the preceding paragraph. Ms. Meili instituted a foundation to help victims of violence, and often speaks on their behalf. To claim that Wikipedia readers would not be interested in the fate of a woman who was raped, beaten so badly as to lose over 70 percent of her blood, and left for dead, is presumptuous at best. That Einne is indifferent or contemptuous of the victim’s fate is bad enough; to project that indifference or contempt onto most Wikipedia readers is bloodcurdlingly cold. And that Einne would deny that readers of an encyclopedia would want, ahem, encyclopedic information, is unwittingly comical.

“…and most importantly it probably hasn't been covered in a reliable source.”

But of course she was covered by “reliable sources.” When Ms. Meili revealed herself to whites in early April 2003, she was written up by every major newspaper in New York, and interviewed and profiled on national TV. (From the start, as part of a racist hate campaign, black media had constantly publicized the victims her name to their audience.)

Einne is clearly hostile towards the victim, but is not very good at rationalizing his/her hostility.

70.23.177.216 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)24 November 2006 7:32 p.m.[reply]

"revealed herself to whites"? Dybryd 16:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

)

It is by no means certain that the youths used the word "wilding." See this. It has always been my understanding that media haze created the word, too. 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added info here and in Wiktionary citing that the suspects used that word itself. patsw 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NY Chief of Detectives, the suspects used the word. According to several journalists, the detectives misunderstood the suspects when they said that they were "doing the wild thing," quoting the lyrics to a then-popular song. The article in the Village Voice went on:

"The strange thing is, the kids I spoke to uptown in El Barrio [the neighborhood in which the suspects lived] said there's no such word as 'wilding.' When I asked them about it, they laughed at me, looked at me as if I was on the pipe. 'Wilding?' one asked me with his eyebrow cocked. 'I ain't never heard of that.' ... Kareem from Tres Unidos said 'I've heard people say, "Yo, I'm going to do the wild thing," like the from Tone Lōc song, which could mean a guy going to have sex with his girl, or just have a good time. ... But I never heard of [wilding] until I saw it in the headlines.'" — Malik Shabazz | Talk 20:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:130.156.30.59 made four separate reverts on this article today.

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trisha_Meili&diff=prev&oldid=102929576

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trisha_Meili&diff=prev&oldid=102929676

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trisha_Meili&diff=prev&oldid=102930024

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trisha_Meili&diff=prev&oldid=102930245

User:130.156.30.59 is also known as the Bloomfield College sockpuppets User:130.156.31.143, User:130.156.29.61 ), User:130.156.30.57 and User:130.156.29.134. 70.23.199.239 02:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the phrase 'for the sole purpose of attacking whites' from this section. The NYPD review of the case states that the motives for the crime were assault AND robbery. Indeed, many indictments and convictions for the latter were obtained. Also, neither the NYPD review or the DA office's Affirmation in Response to Motion to Vacate mention bias as being a motive, or even whether or not all the victims were white. See the two documents mentioned above, particulary the Summary of Events of April 19th section of the NYPD Review and the History of the Prosecution section of the DA office's Affirmation. Both documents appear in the External Links section of the main article. BaldPete 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dybryd did a drive-by addition of an NPOV tag [2] on 2007-01-21 without starting a discussion here. I do not see an NPOV issue, so I am removing the tag. If you want to add the tag back, give your reasons here. patsw 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, I am going to request we reinsert this tag until Nick documents his comments in the "Convictions Vacated" section, to which I have inserted citation requests.130.156.29.61 19:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:130.156.29.61, aka the Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster, has repeatedly vandalized this article and this talk page, as can be readily ascertained by a study of the diff histories for both. He has removed evidence contradicting his political position from the article, and then complained that the article lacks such evidence. He has also vandalized this talk page dozens of times, censoring both factual statements contradicting his political position, and discussions of the history of his vandalism and other abuses.71.247.249.236 (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So no citations, huh Nick? Not even a link to one of your VDARE articles? 130.156.31.250 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: [3] 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.

I've been re-researching this case over the last few days, but am going to wait to insert the information and links, in the hopes that in the meantime, the Bloomfield College sockpuppeteer will be blocked. At present, he is up to four IPs:

User: 130.156.30.57

User: 130.156.29.61

User: 130.156.29.134

User: 130.156.31.143

70.23.199.239 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This entire section has repeatedly been deleted, along with other sections detailing abuses by the Bloomfield College Sockpuppeteer, by BCS, in the course of his vandalism attacks. 71.247.249.236 (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Vandalism attacks"? Those words wouldn't come from the Nick I know. Neither would the "nice try" in this edit. Nick's a writer. Not an objective one, but still a writer. He must be having his kid post for him now! 130.156.31.250 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gang of 30 non-white youths seem to have had no alibis at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Too bad our justice system doesn't work on the "They must have been guilty of SOMETHING" principle, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.55.181 (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is much talk in the main article about the origins of the word "wilding" and about Salaam's mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.223.218 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A correction to the [[4]] cited in foot note [9] (McFadden, Robert D. (28 January 2003). "Boys' Guilt Likely in Rape of Jogger, Police Panel Says", New York Times.) states:

"A front-page headline yesterday about a police panel's report on the 1989 Central Park jogger case referred imprecisely to its conclusions about the guilt of five defendants whose convictions were overturned after a serial rapist, Matias Reyes, confessed that he had acted alone in the attack. The report said the five were most likely guilty of having started an attack with sexual overtones on the jogger, who was later raped and beaten by Mr. Reyes. It did not say they were most likely guilty in the rape itself."

The section on convictions vacated should be updated to reflect this. It's late here so I won't atempt it now but I will try to get round to it it the next few days Tallus (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the quotes from the "confessions" add anything to Meili's biography. The quote from the cop is superfluous because the article already says that detectives continue to believe the original defendants are guilty. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 19:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the quotes are misplaced and I don't want an edit war. However the reference is missing many important bits of information, such as, the sentences, the interview evidence is important, also the reaction of the police, the police review of the case, perhaps the trial itself, and importantly the fall-out, the issue of compensation, support for the boys from Human rights groups, and perhaps a section on the boys right to sue the proven rapist for damages, but their extraordinary decision to let him away with it !!! Currently I do think the page is lobsidded, it gives an impression the boys were wrongly convicted, while in fact the case was vacated and the police review supports their conviction. So if you want to assist me, lets work on it together, I do think the quotes make astonishing reading, perhaps there is similar quotes from the boys. Tommyxx (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of that belongs in Central Park Five. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, there too, I am only new to the case so I am not professing to be an expert, it is interesting that two of the boys secured degrees while in jail, and perhaps the article could mention the racial dimension including Donald Trump's hate-filled advertisments. Overall there is a lot to do and write on this, could take some time, the police's hiding or should I say ignoring of DNA evidence is also a feture. Food for thought until tomorrow. Tommyxx (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

One defense was that the injuries inflicted on Meili were somewhat consensual; that Meili had willingly engaged in a violent sex act with an unidentified boyfriend and the erotic roleplay had simply gotten out of hand. Therefore, no crime had been committed at all. With Meili unable to recall any events prior to the attack, she could not testify otherwise. A similar argument would be made in the Louise Ogborn case in 2006.^[1]