I can't answer this with limited emojis.

By common usage of "exonerated" they were clearly exonerated.

I agree and stand corrected.

I want to point out though that my admission of that in no way excuses corpus vile of his lie.

In the other thread, he claims I kept saying they were 'exonerated' when in fact I argued against the use of that word thinking (wrongly) it was being misapplied as I saw it more as a term for someone found 'not guilty' or who may have had charges dropped when evidence was not available after initial suspicion. Those to me are exoneration.

Their case being 'vacated' is like it never happened.

And like you or I, both of whom never got accused or charged, there is no avenue for us to go seek an exoneration. Corpus and the other poster kept also repeating 'they were not found 'innocent' as well.

They interchanged these two terms to suggest if the CP5 were not 'exonerated' and not 'found innocent' then somehow that implies guilt.

My entire counter point is that is not how the US system works. People not accused of any crime and not being tried in court have no mechanism to get a 'not guilty' verdict or exoneration. So its a disingenuous smear.

The charges were vacated purely because the court had convicted Reyes on the basis of his dubious boast that he acted alone, even though, in the same interview, he said, 'There was a whole bunch of us.'

And the 'National Registry of Exonerations' is not official.

FWIW I have no problem with basically telling someone to **** off but you can't just say that without an explanation.

I'm not interested in your link the registry of exonerations always falsely proclaim vacated convictions as exonerations. I only answered you to debunk your false claim. I know you're unable to provide the court sources exonerations them because they were never exonerated. Now I'm back to ignoring you. You're a dishonest poster who fully admitted to lying about me just for the hell of it. I also withdraw my earlier apology for mistaking a different post for yours, as you don't deserve anything. You're a liar

No they weren't, their conviction was vacated which means they legally go back to pretrial status like Derek Chauvin and the McMichael's current status You don;t know what words mean.

You lied I was a racist and white supremacist, don't whinge about what you perceive to be lies. You also equated a vacated conviction as an exoneration and claimed they were coerced and then refused to discus the matter when your false coercion claim was effortlessly debunked. They are at pretrial status like Derek Chauvin.

Now, please provide evidence for coercion, state when it occurred in the video interviews thanks

They weren't found innocent or exonerated. Tell Trisha Meili it never happened. You don't understand how courts work

Trolly made a claim the cp5 were exonerated. I asked him to cite via the court sources where they were exonerated.He refused to do so providing an article by a biased film maker who did a pro documentary on the case. I asked hi again and he accused me of racism instead of supporting his position.
This is bad faith arguing, not a legit argument whose conclusion I merely disagree with but bad faith posting. It shouldn't be allowed. I request that you get him to provide evidence I'm a racist, or else withdraw his falsehood or else if not then delete his post for bad faith arguing via false claims, refusing to support false claims via primary sources and false accusation as a form of deflection to avoid supporting his false exoneration claim, so can you do something about this?

If we take exoneration to formally mean "prove you are innocent", then this has not happened. Of course "proving you are innocent" is an awkward bar to pass, which is why presumption of innocence is a common legal standard.

But in legal terms and under US law, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since verdicts have been vacated and no appeal has taken regarding said vacation, it hard to see how that presumption does not stand and will not continue to stand.

Saying you "go back to pre-trial status" is a weird argument, since there is no pre-trial, indictment or pending trial happening. Unless you are arguing for some kind of legal catch-22, whereby a vacated verdict does not imply a presumption of innocence or that you must forever be considered a suspect, even if no legal or investigative process to that effect is taking place.

Of course you may think they are guilty, which is a different debate.

A vacated conviction isn't an exoneration this is actually very simple.

I'm waiting for anyone to make a case for innocence re the CP5. Instead they seem to prefer to get bogged down in vacated conviction vs exoneration arguments. Trolly deflected from supporting his false claim via false racism accusations- again bad faith posting

To be fair, I don't think anyone would use the term "exoneration" in connection with OJ Simpson.

I agree that an vacated conviction is not what is formally called an exoneration, after having researched the issue and learned something new.

But I also hold that legally there is now a presumption of innocence, and I don't think saying "they now have pre-trial status" holds when there is no trial, indictment or formal investigation happening.

If it is your opinion that a person must prove his innocence before you personally see them as not guilty (whether in general or in this specific case), that is your prerogative. That is not relevant for a debate on a legal presumption of innocence, however.

I don't know the history of these conversations and you might have made the case for guilt already/there may be additional background I'm missing, but, the onus is on the person assuming guilt not innocence in practice & ethically right?

This is just straight up false. Chauvin has been charged with a crime and is awaiting trial. As far as the law is concerned the CP5 have not been charged with the crime at all. They are as much "at pretrial status" as you are.

https://www.amny.com/news/central-park-five-1-19884350/

"The Central Park Five are exonerated

Twelve years after they were found guilty, Richardson, McCray, Salaam, Santana and Wise were vindicated.

Following a lengthy investigation into the convictions, then-Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau recommended in December 2002 that all charges against the Central Park Five be thrown out. Later that month, a judge set aside the verdicts.

It was a stunning turn of events that was denounced by police officials who were critical of the findings in the district attorney’s second investigation but hailed by criminal justice advocates who had supported the Central Park Five’s innocence.

In his ruling, State Supreme Court Justice Charles J. Tejada said Reyes’ confession, corroborated by his DNA match from the crime scene, created “the probability that … the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendants.”

Tejada did allow for a new trial against the Central Park Five, but the district attorney’s office instead decided to dismiss the original indictments.

Richardson, McCray, Salaam, Santana and Wise had already completed their sentences before their convictions were vacated.

In 2014, the Central Park Five settled a civil lawsuit against the city for $41 million."

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex.../glossary.aspx

" Exoneration—A person has been exonerated if he or she was convicted of a crime and, following a post-conviction re-examination of the evidence in the case, was either: (1) declared to be factually innocent by a government official or agency with the authority to make that declaration; or (2) relieved of all the consequences of the criminal conviction by a government official or body with the authority to take that action. The official action may be: (i) a complete pardon by a governor or other competent authority, whether or not the pardon is designated as based on innocence; (ii) an acquittal of all charges factually related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted; or (iii) a dismissal of all charges related to the crime for which the person was originally convicted, by a court or by a prosecutor with the authority to enter that dismissal. The pardon, acquittal, or dismissal must have been the result, at least in part, of evidence of innocence that either (i) was not presented at the trial at which the person was convicted; or (ii) if the person pled guilty, was not known to the defendant and the defense attorney, and to the court, at the time the plea was entered. The evidence of innocence need not be an explicit basis for the official action that exonerated the person. A person who otherwise qualifies has not been exonerated if there is unexplained physical evidence of that person's guilt."

Interesting, so the DA dismissing the original charges based on new evidence after the verdict was vacated means that it was an exoneration?

There is a learning curve here. Where is Slighted when we need him?

Well, someone else admitted to doing the crime, which was confirmed by DNA evidence. And then NYC exonerated the CP5. I'm sure that will be enough to satisfy your weird-ass obsession.

Bad faith.




Reminder that the corpus vile first began his voluminous posting about CP5 during his tireless attempt to whitewash away Trump's racism.

You are such a coward and a liar.

I am formally asking the mods to remove your constant stream of lies and to let the poster know that if he cannot provide a single instance to warn him to stop.

There is not one instance in this thread or any other where I even suggest he was exonerated let alone stated.

In every instance where 'exoneration' is brought up I say 'not only was he not exonerated, there is no mechanism to exonerate him as the charges were vacated and people not accused or charged cannot be exonerated of anything'.

You then keep lying as the coward you are by repeating 'you kept arguing he was exonerated'.

NO. YOU serial liar. I have never argued that, not a single time. And no, i have no desire to discuss this case with you or any other race baiter who has no interest in honest debate.

This thread has run its course.

This may be an old thread, but I wanted to comment on the bolded. There was no official finding that the CP5 were innocent. For that matter, an acquittal at trial, or a directed verdict after the prosecution rested, would not have been an affirmative finding that the CP5 were innocent.

That said, the bolded is a wild mischaracterization. In the real world, the level of countervailing evidence required to get a criminal sentence vacated is a million times greater than the level of countervailing evidence required to avoid getting prosecuted in the first place.

They also successfully settled their civil suit against NYC to the tune of 41 million dollars.

Who are you arguing against?

Again more distortions and lies by you.

Not once, suggested or said by me did I say they found 'innocent' or 'exonerated'.

In every instance, EVERY SINGLE ONE, I said it was not possible to find them innocent of exonerated them as they were not accused or charged by the State. The charges were vacated.

It was you and one other poster who kept repeating this dishonest line 'they were NOT found innocent', 'they were NOT exonerated' as if I was arguing they were. I WAS NOT.

I said then as I do now people not accused or charged, whether that be you, myself or any one else CANNOT be found innocent or get exonerated as we ARE NOT accuses or charged. There is no mechanism in law then to get 'exonerated' or 'a not guilty' verdict.

Again Mod's please demand this liar provide a single instance.

If he is allowed to continue with this overt and blatant lie nothing I say about him in future posting will be factual or true. We will simply have a full on lie wa where I simply make up anything I want as he is now doing with me.