Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Robert DeLong

I believe the issue here is that the punks who were “wrongfully” convicted in this case were complicit in the attack even if that Reyes dude was the one who actually raped her. They were convicted because there was overwhelming evidence against them — including their descriptions to the police of the events that night (which included information that they would not have known unless they were there).


14 posted on 12/07/2014 6:40:24 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("The ship be sinking.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child
According to Reyes he acted alone, and never knew or met any of these guys.

It is a well known fact that interrogators often supply facts about the case to suspects over the course of lengthy interrogations. I'm not saying that is the case here, just a possibility as to how they knew information that make them appear to be at the scene.

My point was that we cannot make a blanket claim that these boys, who are now men, were involved in any way shape or form. Nor can we say they are guilty as sin. Especially since the DNA evidence clearly puts Reyes at the scene while there is no DNA evidence putting the ones originally convicted at the scene.

So do I think they need to win more money? No. They have been fairly compensated.

People confessing to crimes they didn't commit requires Understanding the Mystery of False Confessions.

17 posted on 12/07/2014 7:57:09 AM PST by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson