Yet another reason I hate the NY Times

[B-Man]

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.

[John Cole]

B-man,

Perhaps you might want to read the actual Times article; you'll certainly question who's "breathless," to use Coulter's word. If I had the time, I'd look a bit more closely at Coulter's writing to show how she distorts and uses various claims to really attack what she seems to believe is the "liberal menace." Of course, I know that Coulter's raison is simply to stir up [censored], and she'd be pretty good at it if her writing were not laughable. For example, she says the police always knew Reyes was "out there" (yes, those are her words, and I cannot trust any writer who would use that phrase--out where?) but that they didn't know who he was. She also claims that liberals "so long to claim that every criminal is innocent." Again, note the writing problems--the use of "so" as a modifier, the unsubstantiated claim. Do not trust this writer with a word processor.

John

[B-Man]

She may not be the world's greatest writer, but she raises some valid points in the column. Do you have any substantive criticisms, or do you simply dislike her writing style?

I have no idea why you "cannot trust any writer who uses that phrase." Why not? Is there something inherently untrustworthy about the phrase "out there" which I am unaware of?

[John Cole]

B-man,

You're right; I don't like her style. However, she uses her column to attack liberals, and this seems to be her purpose. Of course, liberals, like any other group, are fair targets, but, for Coulter, liberals are a homogeneous bunch who favor the exoneration of all criminals. Writers who wish to make valid points do so by defining, analyzing, and arguing according to some sort of logical procedure. I see little exactness in her piece. Rather than relying on logical analysis, Coulter uses whatever material is at hand to build a soapbox to promote her conservative views. But, she can't even do this well, since her conservatism is merely a reaction to what she sets up as liberal lunacy.

After reading a few articles about Matias Reyes, I believe that his case will, for some, be a ripe area for serious exploration and analysis. Coulter, however, sees only opportunity.

BTW, it's just me. I hear and read cliches such as "out there" too often, and I'd rather not see stuff like this appear in writing. Just don't get me going on what somebody "brings to the table" or "has on his plate."

John

[HDPM]

I tried to read "Slander" while drinking coffee at a bookstore. While I am inclined to agree w/ Coulter on a lot of stuff, I had to stop reading and put the book back. I won't buy the book because it is a disjointed series of insults. A lot of which were funny. But the book was almost incoherent, even if it was funny and often accurate. [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

Using the terms "savages" and "animals" is something the early European settlers did in the New World. While rapists and muggers deserve whatever punishment the law allows and more, when Coulter uses these terms and points out that the culprits had a "ghetto patois" and sang rap songs, it comes across that the reason she thinks they're savages and animals has at least something to do with the fact that they had a ghetto patois and sang rap songs.

[HDPM]

Yeah, good point. Although my guess is that the savagtes and animals tag came more from the gang rape than her beliefs about the local culture. She should not have added the ghetto patois bit in the context.

[B-Man]

Perhaps I am ignorant, I have no idea what "ghetto patois" means. But I don't think she is out of line to call anyone that would commit such a crime a savage or an animal, regardless of their race, economic situation, etc. She is often inflammatory, but if read you through the rhetoric she makes some good points.

[brad]

gee i had to look up 'patois', but lets face it, there are segments of american society that might as well be aliens from mars.

sure theyre nonwhite, but the main thing is that they look, talk, act, and think in an almost alien way.

i mean, i live in arizona and the only real (non-political) personal gripe i have with all the mexican (illegal) immigrants is that they dont speak english and so i cant even communicate. but at least i recognize that they are speaking a language, etc.

but those guys and that sub-culture in new york, what language is that? really i think the term 'animal' is actually somewhat appropriate since how else can a normal person like you or i (or that unfortunate jogger) relate to them? (at least when theyre in their 'pack')

[andyfox]

Our country has always been a place where different subcultures have existed. I'm sure the area where my father grew up in New York was looked upon by people outside of the culture as Martian. It is an unfortunate attitude.

By relating to a person as an animal, I think we're succombing to the basest instincts we have, the same thing that allowed the rapists to be rapists to begin with. I'd rather relate to people who are criminals and people who are criminals.