Talk:The Central Park Five (film)

Untitled
This should be called The Central Park Five (film), and there should be another article called The Central Park Five. The fact that the base article does not exist is a fact to be pondered over. ( Martin | talk • contribs 23:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC))


 * I agree. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

maybe worth to mention
--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * http://lawanddisorder.org/2016/01/law-and-disorder-january-18-2016/


 * It's not clear that this relates to teaching from the documentary.Parkwells (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing Facts from this "Encyclopedic" Entry
Sorry to rain on the dogmatic "progressive" parade of making Wikipedia conform to leftist political agendas, but. ..

On February 9, 1994, at his PAROLE HEARING, Raymond Santana (one of the CPF) denied the rape but READILY ADMITTED that he and seven or eight of his friends planned to go to the park to rob and assault people. (!) He also admitted that they let one man go because he was with his girlfriend and also admitted (he himself) had beat a man. (!)

When Anton McCray went before the parole board, in November 1994, he also admitted all the crimes in the park except the rape. In 2002, Kevin Richardson and Santana were interviewed by detectives and they both admitted their participation in the assaults but the not the rapes. Just as an example, 23 people were identified as participating on the assault of a victim, Antonio Diaz in the park. Numerous accomplices implicated all five defendants; both Richardson and McCray admitted participation and Salaam and Wise, admitted being present and Santana observed some "commotion" in the distance.

Another fact about the case that Burns conveniently ignores is that only two of the CPF, Richardson and Santana, were actually arrested in the park. How is it, that the other three were eventually linked to the two found in the park? Long before the alleged 'coercion' during the DA interviews, there was obvious PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest the other three. That's because when police initially encountered the mob of kids, only Santana (and separately charged Stephen Lopez), remained at the scene. They were observed to be 'wide-eyed' and in 'shock'. Richardson fled and was apprehended. On the way to the precinct, Richardson (and another youth, Clarence Thomas) both fingered McCray as the 'murderer'. Statements by Richardson and others implicated both Santana and Lopez as being part of the mob. Later, the other three were linked by Richardson and Santana, as well as other witnesses, to each other.

In watching 'The Central Park Five', you'll get the distinct impression that the defendants were 'railroaded'; that there was no opportunity for them to dispute their allegations that the initial arrest was invalid, their statements were obtained by trickery or outright deception, the Family Court Act and Criminal Procedure Law provisions mandating parental notification and presence during questioning were not followed, false promises were made that they would be released, physical force was used and they were deprived of food and sleep. In reality, there was a six week pre-trial hearing involving testimony from twenty-nine prosecution witnesses, testimony from Wise, Richardson, Santana and Salaam, Lopez, parents, siblings, relatives and friends of the defendants. Judge Galligan found, except for one instance, there were no grounds to suppress any of the statements or evidence taken from the statements. You can read about all the motions the defense submitted in their attempt to suppress evidence and why almost all of their motions failed. It's chronicled in this special report at Findlaw.com commissioned by the Police Commissioner for the purpose of determining whether the new evidence indicated that police supervisors or officers acted improperly or incorrectly:



Despite all the claims during the documentary that the CPF were "coerced", only Kharey Wise claimed he was "fed" answers. As the prosecutor pointed out during the trial, "McCray testified that the police said he should put himself in it, and that was all the information that was given to Antron McCray about what he was supposed to put in his statement." If Burns is guilty of the sin of omission, he's on far shakier ground when he asserts as fact, that there was some kind of 'time line' that contradicted the police and DA version of events. The Findlaw report concluded otherwise: "In fact, no accurate time line can be constructed because the evidence regarding the timing of the various events and the individuals who participated in them is not sufficiently precise to allow any exact conclusion." 96.250.66.61 (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC) .  Malik Shabazz (talk  | contribs)  21:36, 6 December 2017


 * Nice of you to compliment in a so blatantly an unbiased manner upon another editor’s, perhaps strongly pointed, call for fair and balanced reporting, despite them citing the issues they wish some other potential editor(s) ought to look into and providing a reference to the committee’s executive summary which contains statements in nontrivial support thereof. And then you obfuscate and denigrate their statement behind a judiciously prejudicial ban banner, knowing full well that your bias and the extra click to see what you hid will, sadly, impede the majority of (lazy) readers —-  Kettle, black much?    WurmWoode  T   18:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Added content for context
Added content about the 8 assaults and activities of the large group of teenagers in the park, of which the jogger rape case was considered to be part. This is also needed, as the five who were subjects of the film were convicted also on charges related to assault & robbery of a male jogger, in the context of the multiple attacks by the group. Also added more content on Reyes from the Morgenthau report for context. Added some details (referred to by Dargis in his review) on the Village Voice source for the discussion of other info reported on one or more of the five youths from neighbors at the Schomburg. That article is not among those available at teh Village Voice archive. Parkwells (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)