Posted on 10/16/2002 4:20:57 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
New York Times goes wilding on Central Park jogger
By Ann Coulter
Probably feeling "humiliated," in 1989, a mob of feral beasts descended on Central Park to attack joggers and bicyclists. They brutalized a female jogger while incomprehensibly chanting "Wild Thing" in their ghetto patois. The jogger, a 110-pound, white investment banker, was beaten so badly she was declared "dead on arrival" at the hospital. Her skull was crushed and she had lost two-thirds of her blood.
Her attackers spent the night in jail joking about the attack, singing a rap song and whistling at policewomen. In his written confession, Yusef Salaam said, "It was fun."
At the onset of the first Central Park rape trial, the New American, a black newspaper in New York City, ran a front-page headline about the jogger titled: "The Truth about the Whore." (According to the New York Times, the paper referred to her with "a sexual epithet.") The article spun out the "theory" that her boyfriend had attacked her. The editor "acknowledged that the article was not based on any specific evidence. 'That's why it was called a theory,' he said. 'A theory means no evidence.'"
Recently the media have been spinning out their own theories about the attack, using the same definition of "theory."
The newsflash being billboarded across every New York news outlet right now is that prison inmate Matias Reyes has confessed to being the jogger's sole attacker. Breathless news accounts claim that the police were shocked to discover that new DNA testing has now proved Reyes alone attacked the jogger and that the others did not.
This is completely false. Liberals so long to claim that every criminal is innocent, they forget that the Central Park rape case received a lot of media attention when it happened. The facts are easily accessible on Lexis-Nexis. The media can't engage in their usual lies about a phony DNA "exoneration" this time.
In fact, it was well-known at the time that the semen found on the jogger did not match any of the defendants. Headlines proclaimed: "Semen Tested in Jogger Case Was Not That of Defendants" (New York Times); "Semen, Suspects No Match, Says DNA Expert in Jog Case" (Newsday); "DNA Expert: No Semen Links To Defendants" (Associated Press); and "Expert Says Semen on Jogger Is Not Teens'" (The Record).
Whatever evidence convinced two juries to convict the five animals, it was not DNA evidence. As usual, the media simply waited a decade, and then rushed to print with old arguments for the defense claiming it is "new evidence."
Thus, in a stunningly dishonest article, the New York Times claims "results from a battery of new DNA tests, which show that Mr. Reyes raped the jogger, have all been consistent with his version of events." The new DNA tests are consistent with precisely one part of Reyes' story: Matias Reyes raped the Central Park jogger. This is not new information. It was always known that Matias Reyes was out there; the police just didn't know his name.
Consequently, the new DNA tests are also consistent with the version of events presented in court, subjected to attack by defense counsel, and believed unanimously by two multiracial juries. In her summation to the jury, prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer told the jurors: "Others who were not caught raped her and got away." The five primitives on trial were described as among those who attacked the jogger. No new evidence contradicts the five guilty verdicts.
What convinced two juries to convict the savages was primarily their videotaped confessions. There was other evidence – such as one defendant's undershorts full of semen, dirt, grass and other debris. (According to accounts of their deliberations, one juror held up the undershorts and said: "How do you think they got this way?")
The defendants' lawyers rigorously attacked the confessions in court. They leapt in to highlight any inconsistencies or exculpatory facts now being treated like "new evidence" in the media. The jurors observed the demeanor of the defendants, the police and other witnesses. After carefully weighing all the evidence, subjected to the adversary process, the jurors decided the defendants were guilty.
Ten videotaped statements made in the presence of the suspects' parents provided graphic details about the attack, were tested in court, and were believed by unanimous juries. Now these confessions are supposed to be trumped by the untested, unchallenged jailhouse confession of a murderer and serial rapist who claims he acted alone? Providentially, our criminal justice system presupposes that juries are better positioned to evaluate the truth than New York Times reporters looking for the next Scottsboro Boys case.
In completely believable testimony, the father of defendant Antron McCray told the jury that he instructed his son to lie to the police in the post-rape interview, so the police would let him go. This is often what happens when you tell the police in graphic and gruesome detail how you gang-raped a woman. Anton's "lie" included this: "We charged her. We got her on the ground. Everybody started hitting her and stuff. She was on the ground, everybody stomping and everything. ... I grabbed one arm, some other kid grabbed one arm and we grabbed her legs and stuff. Then we all took turns getting on top of her."
The public got a glimpse of what the jurors saw when Yusef Salaam was interviewed by Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes" in 1992. Salaam said he suspected the jogger – the one declared DOA at the hospital – was "faking." He also said that even though he lied in his confession, people should believe he was telling the truth about the confession being a lie because he was a Muslim. "That's all a Muslim has," he said, explaining why he lied, "his word."
Two juries already heard all the arguments now being reported as "new evidence" in the media and unanimously rejected them. This isn't the latest Scottsboro Boys case. It's the latest Tawana Brawley case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.