Well I read it all and two things:
The NY Times lies. You can’t trust them. Hey, maybe in this case it’s all true but that’s the price you pay for being....the NY Times.
I simply do NOT believe that what? Seven men now confessed to this crime? Nah. You’re asking me to suspend my disbelief a little too much.
I’d believe maybe one...possibly two ...misfits would falsely confess although most false confessions beyond the nut cases are almost always true...this factoid is even mentioned in the article. But SEVEN guys confess to a crime they did not commit? And the reason they falsely confessed is because they were in the military and used to taking orders? So when the detective said CONFESS, they all, boom, no problem, DID?
Please stop peeing upon my feet and telling me it’s raining.
It sounds to me like they grabbed this victim all of a sudden one night and with no forethought they all morphed into a gang mentality. It sounds like everyone heard the crime in process and all the gang stopped by to join in on the fun. I’m not convinced any one of this group of thugs knows who the hell was stabbing and raping as it looks like it all came down quick. Likely they only remember their crime buddies as they were fellows standing on the corner or nearby. The scene in the apartment must have been chaotic, like a corner of hell.
The jury, as the article quotes, heard of this information, the jury knew about the DNA issues, the jury knew about all the details and questions about who was there.
I’m not about to believe the NY Times and a bunch of fellows who confessed to a crime.
Would YOU confess to a crime you did not commit?
Yeah, well the way vast majority of people wouldn’t either.
Thanks for the summary. You make some good points.
The scene in the apartment must have been chaotic, like a corner of hell.
Oh my dear Lord. It must have been for their victim.