• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

When They See Us - Central Park 5 Netflix Docudrama

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
If anyone has heard about the Central Park 5, then you know about the railroading those kids had done to them.

While race played a part, a fever pitch of bloodlust came over a large portion of the city and the police barely did their jobs. Coerced false confessions from a group of teenagers without parental or legal representation. Brutalized. All for "justice"... Even WHEN they had conflicting DNA evidence.

Do you think a railroading like this would happen again?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: JareBear

AfricanKing

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2017
1,426
1,117
590
Blood pressure was raised within 20 mins of watching this. Great show though. I still find it unbelievable what happened to them
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: JareBear

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
934
427
515
The five confessed to being involved in the attack, but not the rape itself. The DNA was never relevant to their guilt or innocence. The portrayal of the case is heavily dishonest.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
The five confessed to being involved in the attack, but not the rape itself. The DNA was never relevant to their guilt or innocence. The portrayal of the case is heavily dishonest.
They weren't involved in ANY of it! The actual person confessed. These kids were COERCED to confess ... Stop listening to racist arse Ann Coulter ... Balance? THESE kids were found innocent! Balance? WTH?!
 

AfricanKing

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2017
1,426
1,117
590
The five confessed to being involved in the attack, but not the rape itself. The DNA was never relevant to their guilt or innocence. The portrayal of the case is heavily dishonest.
The 5 where coerced into a confession and told to lie if they wanted to leave the police station, one of the boys was only charged because he went down to the police station to see his friend. To Interrogate 5 boys without any parental or Legal presence is one thing, not having a single shred of DNA is another and yet still continue to charge them.

The guy that admitted to it had already raped and killed multiple women in the city at that time and the investigating officer never thought to link the 2 crimes.

You have no fucking clue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cheezcake

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,237
948
1,155
USA
Go ahead and watch your propaganda film. When the music swells and justice is finally achieved, as you wipe the tears from your swollen eyes, proud of the brave young men protesting their innocence. "Orange man is indeed bad", you think to yourself, "In no way was this film made to try and damage him."

Those boys were just looking for a pickup game of stickball!

Lies on top of lies on top of a mountain of angry, soft liberal tears.
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
934
427
515
The 5 where coerced into a confession and told to lie if they wanted to leave the police station, one of the boys was only charged because he went down to the police station to see his friend. To Interrogate 5 boys without any parental or Legal presence is one thing, not having a single shred of DNA is another and yet still continue to charge them.

The guy that admitted to it had already raped and killed multiple women in the city at that time and the investigating officer never thought to link the 2 crimes.

You have no fucking clue.
Most of the five confessed with their parents there. The last guy who admitted to it was definitely guilty, but that's a separate issue from whether the original five also were (if you hold down a victim while someone else rapes her, you are guilty of rape). And, to repeat, DNA does not exonerate from doing that.

Your logic is as lacking as your civility.
 

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,237
948
1,155
USA
The difference being I at least admitted I was wrong. You gonna admit Ann Coulter is full shit?


No? I didn't think so.
Read the article and see that it is sourced. Or, conversely, watch your dumb propaganda and cry when the images moving past your eyes compel you.
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
934
427
515
I know ad hominem is easier than making arguments, but here is some of what Ann Coulter noted:

On the drive to the precinct, Raymond Santana blurted out, "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's t--s." The cops didn't even know about a rape yet........

Far from trembling and afraid, as Burns imagines, the suspects were singing the rap song "Wild Thing" for hours in the precinct house, laughing and joking about raping the jogger. One of the attackers said, "It was fun." ....

This allegation was based on Matias Reyes' confession to the attack -- and his claim that he acted alone. His DNA matched the unidentified DNA on the jogger -- proving nothing, other than that he was the one of the others who "got away." He is also the "Rudy" who stole her Walkman, as Wise said at the time. How did Wise know Reyes -- or "Rudy" -- had taken a Walkman?


Unless you can show she's wrong or lying, it's not looking good.
 

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,237
948
1,155
USA
Here's a video about this exact topic, I watched it and enjoyed it. It's by a Youtuber by the handle, HBomberguy. Conclusion, don't work backwards from your conclusion.

 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
Most of the five confessed with their parents there. The last guy who admitted to it was definitely guilty, but that's a separate issue from whether the original five also were (if you hold down a victim while someone else rapes her, you are guilty of rape). And, to repeat, DNA does not exonerate from doing that.

Your logic is as lacking as your civility.
They didn't have their parents with them. Please stop that. Maybe one (I think it was the then 14 yr old) did but all 5? No. And the person who confessed YEARS later stated he did it alone. No coercion. No prompting.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
I know ad hominem is easier than making arguments, but here is some of what Ann Coulter noted:

On the drive to the precinct, Raymond Santana blurted out, "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's t--s." The cops didn't even know about a rape yet........

Far from trembling and afraid, as Burns imagines, the suspects were singing the rap song "Wild Thing" for hours in the precinct house, laughing and joking about raping the jogger. One of the attackers said, "It was fun." ....

This allegation was based on Matias Reyes' confession to the attack -- and his claim that he acted alone. His DNA matched the unidentified DNA on the jogger -- proving nothing, other than that he was the one of the others who "got away." He is also the "Rudy" who stole her Walkman, as Wise said at the time. How did Wise know Reyes -- or "Rudy" -- had taken a Walkman?


Unless you can show she's wrong or lying, it's not looking good.
Most what Coulter wrote is hearsay... Wise may have seen her left for dead and saw Reyes take her Walkman since he was the only one who correctly stated where she lay ... But that still doesn't mean he or ANY of them were THERE when it happened. You take the word of a known liar over DNA evidence ... None of what you have supposed makes any sense!
 

somerset

Banned
Apr 15, 2019
443
606
420
Confessions are sh-t. This has been known since the first time a statist thug extracted one many thousands of years ago.

Worse are claims by prison stoolies that some prisoner 'confessed' to a crime in 'confidence'.

The *only* acceptable use of a confession is as a mechanism to find *rock-solid* collaborating evidence on the back of the confession details, and *only* use that new evidence in court.

America has one of the most satanic 'legal' (what a joke) systems in the world, thanks to *plea bargaining*- the most evil mechanism ever invented. And of course, if you belong to that infamous religious cult, your chances of going to prison in America vanish to near zero. Conversely, if you are 'black' you may as well declare yourself guilty and save everyone's time.

PS it is like the issue of false rape claims and he said/she said court cases. Ever wonder how, given the need to find the defendent *innocent* if there is reasonable doubt, a he said/she said can ever lead to a conviction? That's how bent the US court system is. Ask Mike Tyson.

PPS the only decent moral method to deal with he said/she said rape claims is to *not* go ahead with any prosecution when a man is accused with *zero* evidence, but to record every last detail of the woman's complaint. Then if in the future another he said/she said claim is made against the same man, with matching details, then that man should be taken to court- and the likelihood of his conviction will be near 100%.

As for him getting away with the first rape if he was guilty- well sorry *any* criminal must get away with their crime if the state cannot find evidence that *could* reasonably lead to a guilty verdict that is based on the jury certain there is *not* a reasonable doubt.

It is satanic that rape cases in many nations are tried with the implicit idea that reasonable doubt is thrown in the bin. So the jury can convict just cause they like the woman more than the man- or just plain have it in for the man.

PPPS it is equally disgusting in those nations like France and Spain where a convicted rapist can get away with a slap on the wrist.

-Rape is a terrible crime.
-False allegations of rape are a crime every bit as bad, but the woman knows her chance of punishment is near zero, and even if it happens, her sentence will be laughable. Thus the incentive to commit this risk free crime is massive. Many criminologists think at least 50% of rape accusations are false, and the percentage growing.
-A failure to convict in a rape case is *never* proof of a false allegation in and of itself. Only trolls claim this.
-Allowing any form of he said/she said case go to trial is a satanic abuse of the court system by the state. Yet America loves to do this so long as the *wrong* flavour of Human is on trial.
-US TV shows, made/written by members of that religious cult, encourage ordinary Americans to think Law is a *game*, and twisting laws to gain convictions is 'good'. Thus Americans have been groomed to accept horrific abuses of the court system in the last number of decades.

Mainstream media has always got off on the sexual aspects of the worst crimes. American press moreso than that of other nations. And they do so to *play* the American people. Justice vanishes- for the American elite always consider themselves above the law- the law is for the little people, and others who have fallen when useless, stupid, unfortunate, or out of favour.

This is not to say the poor and disaffected don't sometimes carry out horrific crimes- for indeed they do since life tends to be cheap at the bottom. But to reverse this knowledge, and then attempt to reapply it is where these terrible miscarriages of justice come from.

But then this is the same America where the left wanted to elect a female monster who spent much of her life protecting her serial rapist husband. It is very common for powerful men like Clinton to enjoy rape far more than money. It is common for their ideal wife to like the fact that hubby is a rapist. An age old psychology of ultimate power being represented from being above the judgement of all other men. America is a very sick society politically, and it is all the worse since this sickness is not hidden from ordinary voters. So the voters have no excuse.

Every decent Human should want their investigating officers to be about a search for the truth, and nothing else. Yet OJ got off cos it was proven beyond a doubt that officers faked evidence against him, as SOP in that city and state. I watched every day of that trial, and was disgusted at the in-your-face corruption of the police and prosecution. And the *racists* who claimed the corruption was fine, cos they're only setting up people who are guilty anyway.

There can be no justice when police plant guns and blood evidence, as they do in every major US city daily. But in the UK as well, every major boss of britain's crime forensic lab across the years has been caught faking evidence to assist the prosecution, so seeing this proved in the OJ case with the slime who supposedly collected the blood evidence is just what sadly happens everywhere. And then racists called the jury that aquited OJ "dumb". No- they actually paid attention to what went down in court.

DNA evidence? Junk when it is part of a process of intentional corruption. The easiest thing to fake in the world, once you have the suspect in custody *forced* to give DNA samples. Only if DNA is collected *before* there is a suspect, and that DNA evidence registered with third-parties unconnected to any prosecutoral body that are paid to be neutral can DNA be trusted. And that never happens.

Only if the entire point of the court system is to be honest above everything else, and corrupt prosecutors, police, forensic investigators etc sent to prison for *decades* if discovered, can we possibly trust the system. But even when their is rock solid evidence of corruption, and a conviction for corruption, the official is unlikely to lose his pension, let alone go to prison. Like for convicted killer cops, prison for bent state enforcers is just not an option.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jolof96

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
934
427
515
They didn't have their parents with them. Please stop that. Maybe one (I think it was the then 14 yr old) did but all 5? No. And the person who confessed YEARS later stated he did it alone. No coercion. No prompting.
Even the Wikipedia article states that 4 of the 5 confessed on video with a parent or guardian present. You're just wrong. There are allegations (and assumptions) that the confessions were coerced, but I haven't seen any proof.

The person who confessed years later simply had nothing to lose, as the statute of limitations had passed and he was already serving a life sentence. You'd take the word of a convicted serial rapist? Again, no one doubts that guy was guilty. The DNA is irrelevant as to whether the others held her down or otherwise participated. Can we move on to the issues that are actually in question instead of talking about those for a 4th and 5th time?

Most what Coulter wrote is hearsay... Wise may have seen her left for dead and saw Reyes take her Walkman since he was the only one who correctly stated where she lay ... But that still doesn't mean he or ANY of them were THERE when it happened. You take the word of a known liar over DNA evidence ... None of what you have supposed makes any sense!
The Armstrong Report reviewed the evidence concluded that the five were there at the time of the attack, and most likely participated. This is a lesser standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but to take that as "They were totally exonerated, clearly innocent, anyone saying otherwise is racist, and this is evidence that the system is unjust" is a huge stretch.
 
Last edited:

merlinevo

Member
Apr 28, 2019
163
278
250
I know ad hominem is easier than making arguments, but here is some of what Ann Coulter noted:

On the drive to the precinct, Raymond Santana blurted out, "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's t--s." The cops didn't even know about a rape yet........

Far from trembling and afraid, as Burns imagines, the suspects were singing the rap song "Wild Thing" for hours in the precinct house, laughing and joking about raping the jogger. One of the attackers said, "It was fun." ....

This allegation was based on Matias Reyes' confession to the attack -- and his claim that he acted alone. His DNA matched the unidentified DNA on the jogger -- proving nothing, other than that he was the one of the others who "got away." He is also the "Rudy" who stole her Walkman, as Wise said at the time. How did Wise know Reyes -- or "Rudy" -- had taken a Walkman?


Unless you can show she's wrong or lying, it's not looking good.


No sympathy for these criminals. Just because they did not penetrate her, the mere fact that they watch, held or cheer on the act makes them just as culpable. Make no mistake, these guys were no angels, they were self admitted thugs and gang members who committed various other crimes that night. The idea that they should be cleared because they were teenagers or that there is not enough evidence is an injustice to the victim.
 
Last edited:

AfricanKing

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2017
1,426
1,117
590
Most of the five confessed with their parents there. The last guy who admitted to it was definitely guilty, but that's a separate issue from whether the original five also were (if you hold down a victim while someone else rapes her, you are guilty of rape). And, to repeat, DNA does not exonerate from doing that.

Your logic is as lacking as your civility.
Her head got smashed in TWICE and not a single shred of evidence or DNA came from any of the 5 boys. Her blood was everywhere and not a single ATOM of DNA can point to the boys apart from the Man who actually did it. Your talking the most rubbish right now
 

TrainedRage

Member
Feb 3, 2018
4,133
4,537
670
33
USA
So, Making a Murder but with black guys and rape? I have never looked into the story so maybe I will give it a watch.
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
934
427
515
Her head got smashed in TWICE and not a single shred of evidence or DNA came from any of the 5 boys. Her blood was everywhere and not a single ATOM of DNA can point to the boys apart from the Man who actually did it. Your talking the most rubbish right now
This was 1989. They didn't collect DNA evidence from all over the place - only the rape kit. The case against the five never relied on DNA evidence, and they were not convicted of the actual penetration. You're continuing to miss the point and make invalid arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConnorDuffy1977

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
This was 1989. They didn't collect DNA evidence from all over the place - only the rape kit. The case against the five never relied on DNA evidence, and they were not convicted of the actual penetration. You're continuing to miss the point and make invalid arguments.
Ok... What was the evidence that they were THERE? Not counting their COERCED confessions... What evidence WAS THERE?!
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
934
427
515
Ok... What was the evidence that they were THERE? Not counting their COERCED confessions... What evidence WAS THERE?!
Knowing where the body was, knowing that she'd had a walkman that got stolen, knowing that she'd been raped, saying to other people besides the interrogating cops that they'd done it, being picked up in the vicinity while in the middle of committing other crimes. All stuff I've mentioned in this thread already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ConnorDuffy1977

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
Knowing where the body was, knowing that she'd had a walkman that got stolen, knowing that she'd been raped, saying to other people besides the interrogating cops that they'd done it, being picked up in the vicinity while in the middle of committing other crimes. All stuff I've mentioned in this thread already.
I think I'm not being clear... HOW did the police center on these kids? What evidence was there that POINTED to them? Other than them being black and brown boys and tying the attack to a bigger group of teenagers harassing and assaulting park goers ... WHAT pointed to this specific group of kids?
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
934
427
515
I think I'm not being clear... HOW did the police center on these kids? What evidence was there that POINTED to them? Other than them being black and brown boys and tying the attack to a bigger group of teenagers harassing and assaulting park goers ... WHAT pointed to this specific group of kids?
From the wikipedia article: At 9 p.m. on the night of April 19, 1989, a group of over 30 teenagers who lived in East Harlem entered Manhattan's Central Park at an entrance in Harlem, near Central Park North.[4] They committed several attacks, assaults, and robberies in the northernmost part of the park.[5][6] .....The police were dispatched at 9:30 p.m. and responded with scooters and unmarked cars. They apprehended Raymond Santana and Kevin Richardson along with other teenagers at approximately 10:15 p.m. on Central Park West and 102nd Street.[4][10][11] Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam, and Korey Wise were brought in for questioning later, after having been identified by other youths as participants in or present at some of the attacks.

I believe the system is really flawed, like with the pressure to plea bargain and poor people's struggle to make bail. However, it seems like whenever there's one huge case that turns into a huge deal, it turns out to be really dubious. If I were on the jury, I don't know if I could have convicted those five for this specific attack beyond a reasonable doubt, but the people pushing their innocence are really misleading. That's what I'm taking issue with. They probably did it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: finowns

LegendOfKage

Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,336
3,206
660
I think I'm not being clear... HOW did the police center on these kids? What evidence was there that POINTED to them?
I would guess this:

being picked up in the vicinity while in the middle of committing other crimes.
It seems reasonable that if you have people committing crimes near a crime scene, you're going to want to question them.

On the drive to the precinct, Raymond Santana blurted out, "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's t--s." The cops didn't even know about a rape yet.
Now if this part is true, at the very least you have sexual assault, and either being an accomplice or not reporting a serious crime.

Knowing where the body was, knowing that she'd had a walkman that got stolen, knowing that she'd been raped, saying to other people besides the interrogating cops that they'd done it
And if this part is true, that would explain the police pushing for a confession.

I believe the system is really flawed, like with the pressure to plea bargain and poor people's struggle to make bail. However, it seems like whenever there's one huge case that turns into a huge deal, it turns out to be really dubious. If I were on the jury, I don't know if I could have convicted those five for this specific attack beyond a reasonable doubt, but the people pushing their innocence are really misleading. That's what I'm taking issue with. They probably did it.
Well said, although I wouldn't even go with "probably did it" as that's a really harmful label to live with that can ruin your life just as a prison sentence can. Also, these are five individuals, so judging them as a group is also unfair. For instance, ONE of them allegedly confessed to sexual assault. That doesn't mean the rest of them are guilty of that action.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Oner

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,424
4,198
375
Hmm it must be election season.

I find this thread to be very funny considering the complete about face turn from how certain people here were acting regarding Kavanaugh.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Zangiefy360

LegendOfKage

Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,336
3,206
660
Hmm it must be election season.

I find this thread to be very funny considering the complete about face turn from how certain people here were acting regarding Kavanaugh.
The difference, and what makes this event perfect for the progressive "I believe survivors" crowd, is the woman who went through this doesn't remember anything that happened to her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,244
798
395
deaftourette.com
The difference, and what makes this event perfect for the progressive "I believe survivors" crowd, is the woman who went through this doesn't remember anything that happened to her.
Not only that... But things happened relatively swiftly after she was found near death in the park... AND that there was absolute proof she was sexually assaulted.

The other difference is that there is actual DNA evidence tying one man to the actual assault. There was none of that in the Kavanaugh incident. Just one woman's memory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

cheezcake

Member
Feb 21, 2013
3,759
14
450
I know ad hominem is easier than making arguments, but here is some of what Ann Coulter noted:

On the drive to the precinct, Raymond Santana blurted out, "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman's t--s." The cops didn't even know about a rape yet........

Far from trembling and afraid, as Burns imagines, the suspects were singing the rap song "Wild Thing" for hours in the precinct house, laughing and joking about raping the jogger. One of the attackers said, "It was fun." ....

This allegation was based on Matias Reyes' confession to the attack -- and his claim that he acted alone. His DNA matched the unidentified DNA on the jogger -- proving nothing, other than that he was the one of the others who "got away." He is also the "Rudy" who stole her Walkman, as Wise said at the time. How did Wise know Reyes -- or "Rudy" -- had taken a Walkman?


Unless you can show she's wrong or lying, it's not looking good.
You’re logic is just fundamentally wrong. It is on Ann Coulter to show that what she says is true, not on everyone else to show that she is wrong. She is the one making the claims so the burden of proof is on her.

Given that I see exactly 0 sources for any of her claims in that article, on top of the well known fact that she she’s a shameless opportunist who flips her position as the wind blows, I’d say there’s nothing of merit in that article to the rational person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

merlinevo

Member
Apr 28, 2019
163
278
250
The difference, and what makes this event perfect for the progressive "I believe survivors" crowd, is the woman who went through this doesn't remember anything that happened to her.
There's a huge difference between being kidnap and beaten to near death than being indignant or embarrassed that a date went wrong. The difference being one case is clear cut while the other is a contradictory hearsay that often times draw more questions into the supposed victim's willingness. The feminist crowd like to blur the distinction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danielberg

Barsinister

Member
Jan 16, 2008
1,237
948
1,155
USA
I think I'm not being clear... HOW did the police center on these kids? What evidence was there that POINTED to them? Other than them being black and brown boys and tying the attack to a bigger group of teenagers harassing and assaulting park goers ... WHAT pointed to this specific group of kids?
This quote to me is astounding in it's total lack of awareness. What evidence other than the fact that they were harassing and assaulting park goers as part of a larger group? No, no, it was definitely racism. It's almost like you need it to be true, that a racist hides in every bush.

I don't like to ascribe motives to other's actions, like I'm some kind of psychologist, but....You know what? I wish you well. Maybe one day we could meet for a beer or something.
 

12Goblins

Member
Mar 1, 2017
892
685
355
Saw a really good doc on this a few years ago on HBO I believe, so I'm not sure I can go through this again. Absolutely tragic and enfuriating story. Can't imagine what those teens went through. Heart breaking seeing that kind of slow guy essentially having his life taken away before him. Cases like this and the west Memphis three are important to remember so we avoid mistakes in the future. Even then, with everything we know it sounds like people still think they are guilty? Shame on you honestly

Edit: hm tbh I did not know about the armstrong report
 
Last edited:

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
934
427
515
You’re logic is just fundamentally wrong. It is on Ann Coulter to show that what she says is true, not on everyone else to show that she is wrong. She is the one making the claims so the burden of proof is on her.

Given that I see exactly 0 sources for any of her claims in that article, on top of the well known fact that she she’s a shameless opportunist who flips her position as the wind blows, I’d say there’s nothing of merit in that article to the rational person.
How about the 42 page executive summary of the Armstrong Report. Looks like everything Ann Coulter noted was accurate. It even goes into further detail about how the allegations of mistreatment during interrogations were fully investigated and found to be without merit. It also outlines their participation in other crimes that night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

LegendOfKage

Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,336
3,206
660
Saw a really good doc on this a few years ago on HBO I believe, so I'm not sure I can go through this again. Absolutely tragic and enfuriating story. Can't imagine what those teens went through. Heart breaking seeing that kind of slow guy essentially having his life taken away before him. Cases like this and the west Memphis three are important to remember so we avoid mistakes in the future. Even then, with everything we know it sounds like people still think they are guilty? Shame on you honestly

Edit: hm tbh I did not know about the armstrong report
Cheers to you for the edit. I think in cases like these, it's best for all not involved to admit to themselves and others that it's impossible to know what happened. I said things defending the accused above, but I also presented the case against them. It's always good to look at all sides of an issue like this, and not to rush to judgement in any direction. Though I have to think Netflix probably treated the matter with all the impartiality of Mr. Burns explaining why he hit Bart with his car.

 

Cucked SoyBoy

Member
Dec 18, 2018
330
444
250
For those repeating over and over that "the real rapist confessed that he acted alone!"...Matias Reyes' "confession" is worthless.

I mean, the guy was already serving a life sentence for other crimes, so there's no downside for him in stating this. Why not make some shit up and get your buddies out of jail? Plus the lawyers for the other goons may have offered him something in exchange.