Moderation Questions and General Chat Thread
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic failed, and it became a general discussion thread with almost no moderation related posts at all. And those that were posted were so buried in non-mod posts that it became a huge time drain on the mods to sort through them. Then, when off topic posts were deleted posters complained about that.
This led to the closing of the mod discussion thread, replaced by the post report/pm approach. This has filtered out lots of noise, but has resulted at times in the General Discussion Thread turning into a quasi-mod thread. This is not desirable, but going back to the old mod thread is also not a workable option.
Therefore, I have created this new moderation thread, but with a different purpose and ground rules than previous mod threads. The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for posters to pose questions to the mods about how policies are applied; to bring to the mods attention posts they think are inappropriate and reach the level of requiring mod action; and for mods to communicate to posters things like changes or clarifications to policies, bannings, etc.
Now let me tell you what this thread is NOT a place for. It is not for nonmoderation related posts, even if the discussion originates from a comment in in a mod related post. It is not for posters to post their opinions about other posters or whether a poster should be banned. It is not to rehash past grievances about mod decisions from months or years ago. The focus of this thread will be recent posts that require action now. Or questions about current policies and enforcement.
So basically, this is a thread to ask mods questions. Which means, pretty much that only mods should be answering those questions. If a poster asks why a particular post was deleted or allowed, only a mod can answer that. Everyone else who wants to jump in with their opinion or their mod war story needs to stay out of it. It just increases the noise to signal ratio and does nothing to answer the question.
Everyone needs to understand that this thread has very different rules than the old mod thread and any other thread. Any non-moderation post will be deleted on sight. Not moved to the appropriate thread, just deleted. So don't waste your time crafting a masterpiece post about wars or transgender issues or the presidential election and then post it in this thread. It will be gone. Also, this isnt a thread for general commentary about our mods performance. Posting "browser sucks as a mod" or any such posts that don't actually ask about a policy or request a mod action will be deleted. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about the moderation of this forum. But this thread isnt for complaining about mods. You are free to go to the ATF forum and make your concerns about modding in this forum there.
So with that intro, this thread is open for those who need to bring questions about mod policies or bring inappropriate posts to the mods attention. Again, it is NOT a thread for group discussions about other posters or for other posters to answer questions directed to mods.
We'll see how this goes. If you have what you feel is an open issue raised in the General Discussion Thread, please copy that post or otherwise reintroduce the issue here.
Thanks.
It's relatively standard practice to go forward with prosecutions when you have confessions to the police. It isn't as if the office went forward with the prosecutions in the first instance in the face of someone else confessing to the crime.
Well, all I can say is I have a hard time believing the DA didn't know what the cops were getting up to with this case. If everyone really did follow the rules, the rules are kind of ****ed, no?
For somebody that thinks so highly of himself, you sure don't have a problem with making yourself look stupid.
Do these kinds of personal attacks work in the courtroom? They aren't helping you here.
Well, because
"District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's office was notified of the confession in 2002.[11] Morgenthau appointed a team led by Assistant District Attorneys Nancy Ryan and Peter Casolaro to investigate the case, based on Reyes's confession and a review of evidence.[29] Reyes provided officials with a detailed account of the attack, details of which were corroborated by other evidence which the police held. In addition, his DNA matched the DNA evidence at the scene, confirming that he was the sole source of the semen found in and on the victim "to a factor of one in 6,000,000,000 people".[11] Reyes' DNA matched the semen found on Meili, and he provided other confirmatory evidence.[63][84] In announcing these facts, Morgenthau also said that the perpetrator had tied up Meili with her T-shirt in a distinctive fashion that Reyes used again on later victims in crimes for which he was convicted.[11]
Based on interviews and other evidence, the team believed that Reyes had acted alone: The rape appeared to have taken place in the North Woods area after the main body of the thirty teenagers had moved well to the south, and the timeline reconstruction of events made it unlikely that he was joined by any of the defendants. In addition, Reyes was not known to have been associated with any of the six indicted defendants. He lived at 102nd Street, in what locals considered another neighborhood. None of the six defendants in the rape mentioned him by name in association with the rape.[11] "
Their convictions were vacated in 2002, statutes of limitations on rape was five years, extended to 20 in 2019, after their vacated convictions
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/18/us/ne...
Besides all had already served their full terms so nothing would have come of it anyway even if they could be charged again.
I am 99% certain that the SoLs were tolled for the period that the convictions were on the books and restarted when the convictions were vacated.
Where did I say that it was undisputed that they are innocent or that they had been exonerated in a court proceeding?
Let's recap:
Trolly claimed innocence and exoneration
I said he provided no evidence for this in the cp 5 thread.
You said the facts were undisputed, you didn't specify which facts. It's not an undisputed fact that they were blatantly railroaded as trolly claimed.
I think they're guilty based on the evidence.
I know for a fact they weren't exonerated.
It's an undisputed fact there were multiple attackers.
So I'm not opining this due to wanting to execute black teenagers or whatever other bullshit trolly pulls outa his arse.
I didn't bring this topic up, victor did, I merely responded to him and it already had its very own thread anyway.
If anyone wishes to think they're innocent then okay. But I stand by my opinion.
We leave it at that.
You didnt know?
Word is they extorted him to take the Fall.
because he had nothing to lose being in jail for life no matter what...for killing a pregnant mother with her 3 children right next to it. And for being a serial rapist. He was an evil Person. But they could have made his life in prison a living hell. Bc you know...gangs in prison.
Well, all I can say is I have a hard time believing the DA didn't know what the cops were getting up to with this case. If everyone really did follow the rules, the rules are kind of ****ed, no?
You act like false confessions are an easy problem for the legal system to deal with. In the overwhelming majority of cases, people who confess do so because they are factually guilty. And confessions are incredibly persuasive to juries.
But we've known since the 1980s that false confessions occur. They aren't at all common, but they occur.
You can refine police interrogation methods, and you can build in additional guardrails for minors and people with limited capacity, but no matter what you do, it's a tough problem to solve. I also suspect that you are significantly overestimating your own ability to distinguish true confessions from false confessions.
The markers of a false confession usually appear much more glaring after you have compelling evidence (e.g., conlusive DNA evidence) that a confession was false.
What in the world are you talking about. I specifically enumerated the facts that I said were undisputed:
Someone else confessed to the crime. The DA announced that there was DNA evidence tying that person to the crime. The DA stated that the office believed that the confessor likely acted alone.
I am 99% certain that the SoLs were tolled for the period that the convictions were on the books and restarted when the convictions were vacated.
Which still would have been five years in 2002. It's why Reyes didn't face any charges when he confessed. And again they'd already served their term. There's lots reasons DA's don't decide to retry. anyway. Has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, generally speaking. And the main issue is their guilt or innocence. And again based on the evidence I reckon they did it. Again if pothers disagree then okay.
You didnt know?
Word is they extorted him to take the Fall.
because he had nothing to lose being in jail for life no matter what...for killing a pregnant mother with her 3 children right next to it. And for being a serial rapist. He was an evil Person. But they could have made his life in prison a living hell. Bc you know...gangs in prison.
"Extorted" him how? And for what purpose?
The only thing that is undisputed is that there was one person's semen on and in the victim. That there was only one person's semen was not disputed back when the trials were held in 1990
Wow. I had no idea about this case or that it's something from 35 years ago. I've only ever even heard about it from this forum and just figured I was out of the country and not paying attention to the news or something when it happened- not that I was still a kid riding my bike and playing in the creek,
Which still would have been five years in 2002. It's why Reyes didn't face any charges when he confessed. And again they'd already served their term. There's lots reasons DA's don't decide to retry. anyway. Has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, generally speaking. And the main issue is their guilt or innocence. And again based on the evidence I reckon they did it. Again if pothers disagree then okay.
I don't think you know what I mean when I say that the SoLs were tolled for the period that the convictions were on the books.
What in the world are you talking about. I specifically enumerated the facts that I said were undisputed:
It's not an undisputed fact that Reyes acted alone regardless of what the office believed disregarding forensic evidence in the process. There were multiple handprint bruises on Trisha Melli and Cody Wise confessed to his friend Melanie Jackson on a phone convo from prison. And I'm not getting into this bloody topic again. Think what you like that's your prerogative just as it's mine to opine guilt.
Reyes was probably extorted by one of the cp5's prison mates to confess he did it alone. (I think it was Cody Wise but would need to go over the case again which I'm not inclined to do). This is also covered in the earlier linked Armstrong report.
Here is a link to the DA"s motion to vacate. It lays out in excruciating detail the evidence used in the original trial, the problems with inconsistencies in the statements, the complete lack of any forensic evidence supporting the prosecution, and the investigation and collaboration of the actual rapists claims.
At the end the DA recommends the convictions be vacated, all charges dismissed, and states the the DA office sees no point ever retrying these cases. It's impossible for any reasonable person to read this document and come away with any conclusion otherthan that the DA office was certain the evidence exonerated the five defendants..
It's not an undisputed fact that Reyes acted alone regardless of what the office believed disregarding forensic evidence in the process. There were multiple handprint bruises on Trisha Melli and Cody Wise confessed to his friend Melanie Jackson on a phone convo from prison. And I'm not getting into this bloody topic again. Think what you like that's your prerogative just as it's mine to opine guilt.
You are having a reading comprehension problem. I never said that it was an undisputed fact that Reyes acted alone.
I don't know enough about the case to know who is right or wrong here, but I know CV is a true crime buff and "executing black teenagers" has absolutely **** all to do with his view on this or any case. Generally, this sort of appeal to ideology only serves to undermine your point, not strengthen it. Argue the case on its merits or don't argue it at all, IMO.
Also, although it's perfectly possible to be right on one example of your chosen specialised subject and wrong on another but, although it pains me to admit this of a blackguard, cheat, bully and cry baby, he was on the right side about Amanda Knox.
You are having a reading comprehension problem. I never said that it was an undisputed fact that Reyes acted alone.
Originally Posted by corpus vile
You provided zero evidence for your innocence claim and your mere repetition of your tired bullshit doesn't magically give it gravitas.
CV, I don't think it is incumbent on someone to provide links to support undisputed facts. Someone else confessed to the crime. The DA announced that there was DNA evidence tying that person to the crime. The DA stated that the office believed that the confessor likely acted alone.
These facts are undispute. You can't make them go away with some sort of "fake news" routine.
If you want to argue that the DA's office was wrong or went in t
Don't play word games with me mate. You were clearly implying it was an undisputed fact Reyes acted alone and don't even think of denying it as you'll be laughed at.
Stop trying to drag me back into this topic.
Also, although it's perfectly possible to be right on one example of your chosen specialised subject and wrong on another but, although it pains me to admit this of a blackguard, cheat, bully and cry baby, he was on the right side about Amanda Knox.
Eh? 
I'm none of these things, use the ig function if I upset you that much.
Don't play word games with me mate. You were clearly implying it was an undisputed fact Reyes acted alone and don't even think of denying it as you'll be laughed at.
Stop trying to drag me back into this topic.
You are free to quit posting on this topic whenever you want. I wasn't trying to imply anything more than exactly what I wrote, and I was intentionally careful about what I wrote.
