Brilliant interview. Can't wait to read the book!

The Central Park Five is not a good example. Yes, while one of them was in jail, he spoke to Matthias Reyes, who confessed to the crime and the DNA evidence matched up. However, they knew too much about the crime to have had nothing to do with it.

Former prosecutor Michael Armstrong, who co-authored the report, said Ryan erred in dismissing the boys' confessions entirely.

'It seems impossible to say that they weren't there at all, because they knew too much,' he said in an interview.

Thank you so much, Suzanne -- that means a lot, coming from you!

Patrick, here's Morganthau:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case

District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau's office wrote:

A comparison of the statements reveals troubling discrepancies. ... The accounts given by the five defendants differed from one another on the specific details of virtually every major aspect of the crime—who initiated the attack, who knocked the victim down, who undressed her, who struck her, who held her, who raped her, what weapons were used in the course of the assault, and when in the sequence of events the attack took place. ... In many other respects the defendants' statements were not corroborated by, consistent with, or explanatory of objective, independent evidence. And some of what they said was simply contrary to established fact.[26]

“A comparison of the statements reveals troubling discrepancies. ... The accounts given by the five defendants differed from one another on the specific details of virtually every major aspect of the crime—who initiated the attack, who knocked the victim down, who undressed her, who struck her, who held her, who raped her, what weapons were used in the course of the assault, and when in the sequence of events the attack took place. ... In many other respects the defendants' statements were not corroborated by, consistent with, or explanatory of objective, independent evidence. And some of what they said was simply contrary to established fact.[26]”

Sounds like polical butt covering to me.

This kind of fiction is pretty much what you get when five guys are lying their asses off trying to exonerate themselves and pin the crime on someone else.

However it falls far short of being evidence of actual innocence.

Evidence of actual innocence is something like “I was across town buying donuts at the time and I can prove it. “

How about the Scottsboro Boys?

http://famous-trials.com/scottsboroboys

No crime in American history-- let alone a crime that never occurred-- produced as many trials, convictions, reversals, and retrials as did an alleged gang rape of two white girls by nine black teenagers on the Southern Railroad freight run from Chattanooga to Memphis on March 25, 1931.

I'd give the Devil the benefit of law for my own safety's sake!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=NUqytjlHNIM

She’s a hypnotherapist.
https://www.risingstarhypnosis.com/about-1

I'd give the Devil the benefit of law for my own safety's sake! ~ Snoopy at January 9, 2018 6:45 AM

Great movie, Snoopy. Bit dialogue-heavy, as befits a movie adapted from a stage play, but well worth the watching.

Perhaps if we had more movies like this instead of "I am the law!" Stallone shoot-em-ups, we'd have a higher level of political discourse and candidates whose bona fides included some actual accomplishments.

Good reference, Snoopy. And while Conan suggests that more movies like A Man For All Seasons might help elevate American politics, I am less certain that such is the case. I think it just as likely that, instead of everyone understanding the point the Sir Thomas More was trying to make, some percentage of the audience, not a great percentage, maybe, but not zero either, would find themselves unable to understand why Sir Thomas wants to let the Devil go free, merely because the laws says so.

And what's worse, some members of the audience will understand what both More and William Roper (the character who said that he would "cut down every law in England" to get after the Devil) were arguing, but would still find themselves agreeing with Roper. As the "kangaroo court" proceedings of university sexual assault tribunals indicate, the intellectual heirs of William Roper are legion.

However it falls far short of being evidence of actual innocence.

Evidence of actual innocence is something like “I was across town buying donuts at the time and I can prove it. “

____________________________

One doesn't have to prove they are innocent when accused. They don't have to say a word one way or the other, or provide any evidence at all. It's up to the prosecution (and the accuser) to provide evidence of guilt and prove the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's a very simple concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial

There are 2 central principles of law that these "ruin them" cases violate: knowing what is illegal and proportionality.
When you rob a store, everyone knows that is illegal. When most people find a nice feather on the ground and pick it up or rescue a baby bird they do not know that is illegal. The legal code is so long and complex that it is impossible to know all the laws, even for a cop or lawyer. This is unjust. In the case of the sexual harassment hysteria, it is even worse because things that are NOT illegal, or that were merely humorous yesterday are suddenly retroactively a crime.
The proportionality issue comes in when a guy is fired for simply asking someone out in his company who he has no power over, and who stopped bugging her when she said no, simply because it made her feel "uncomfortable" or the college student who changed her mind 6 months later about the sex she had with the guy she texted 500 times. These are not and were not crimes but now lives are ruined over them as if they were felonies.
A comparable issue where the shoe is on the other foot: if a high school student accuses a female teacher of inappropriate behavior with him, should any evidence be required? If he simply says she made him "uncomfortable" should she be fired? Jailed? Should she be unable to cross-examine witnesses or consult a lawyer like male college students are? Oh, this is different? I see.

Oh, this is different? I see.

Of course! As I've said before, it is better that 99 innocents be punished rather than let one offender escape.

Additionally, it is about gaining unearned power, both over others (men) and on behalf of others (women). When you can claim to speak on behalf of a large group, politicians tend to listen to what you have to say.

One doesn't have to prove they are innocent when accused.

Confession is considered the most powerful evidence there is. And they did confess.

Now, these confessions might have been made under duress. They were very young, interrogated all night and didn't have their parents present. But what my source pointed out is that they knew too much about the crime itself to have not been there all.

On the other hand, being present at a crime doesn't make you guilty of one. If I witness a woman being raped, that doesn't make me guilty of anything.

"Then I looked up some of her other "opinions" #Fail #Ithrewupinmymouth"

What's up with the scare quotes around "Opinion"?

I could understand if someone didn't agree with another opinion; but, opinion is just that an opinion. There is no need for "opinion."

It seems to me she thinks that adding scare quotes is a way of saying that whatever you put them around isn't valid.

and that "#Ithrewupinmymouth"? Yep, that sounds so much like a wimp - get physically ill over someone who thinks differently than you do.

She needs to go sit in a corner and cry.

"Evidence of actual innocence is something like “I was across town buying donuts at the time and I can prove it. “

The inimitable Mitch Hedberg on documenting the sale of a donut.

"She needs to go sit in a corner and cry."

Not happening. Her ten cats provide her self-satisfaction.

Ladies, if you presume guilt, you better be used to being alone.

"Evidence of actual innocence is something like 'I was across town buying donuts at the time and I can prove it. '"

That's what saved the Duke Lacrosse players -- several of them were able to provide concrete alibis. I don't recall all of them now, but one of them had a record of using an ATM across town, and another subpoenaed Duke building access records, which showed him to be in his dorm at the time of the alleged rape.