‘Central Park Five’ members sue Trump for defamation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He will have Presidential immunity while in the office so they may have to wait a long time for a decision at the trial court level.

And then the appeals will take at least 5 to 10 years.

As another PP pointed out, this is a civil case and SCOTUS is fine with civil cases proceeding against a sitting president. Ask Paula Jones.

The case just survived Trump’s motion to dismiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.

They were teenage kids, who were coerced into "confessions" by lengthy, aggressive police interrogation while being denied access to legal counsel. They were kids who weren't even allowed to speak to their parents. Their "confessions" did not align with any of the forensic evidence, and NONE of their DNA matched DNA found at the scene.

Many years later, the ACTUAL rapist was caught and convicted. His DNA DID match.

And at the time, Trump was leading the charge of falsely convicting them in the court of public opinion, and took out a full page ad calling for them to be put to death, like a modern-day lynching. Yet we know now they didn't do it. It was a disgraceful, racist episode, and Trump was at the epicenter of it.

They arrested, falsely convicted, and falsely imprisoned the wrong people.

The jury at the time knew their DNA was not found on the body. They were convicted of holding her down and hitting her her while the one guy (not one of the five, and not known at that time) raped her.

Their "confessions" were coerced through hours and hours of aggressive police questioning, during which they were denied access to legal counsel - but even then their confessions made no sense, were inconsistent with forensic evidence, were inconsistent from each others' "confessions," were inconsistent with the victims' statements. They were railroaded.

They confessed to things the police didn't know about. The woman's body had not been found when one of them brought it up and said he just held her arms down.
While at the police station, the woman was still alive. How are the police coercing a confession when they don't know if the woman will wake up and say it was someone else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.

They were teenage kids, who were coerced into "confessions" by lengthy, aggressive police interrogation while being denied access to legal counsel. They were kids who weren't even allowed to speak to their parents. Their "confessions" did not align with any of the forensic evidence, and NONE of their DNA matched DNA found at the scene.

Many years later, the ACTUAL rapist was caught and convicted. His DNA DID match.

And at the time, Trump was leading the charge of falsely convicting them in the court of public opinion, and took out a full page ad calling for them to be put to death, like a modern-day lynching. Yet we know now they didn't do it. It was a disgraceful, racist episode, and Trump was at the epicenter of it.

They arrested, falsely convicted, and falsely imprisoned the wrong people.

The jury at the time knew their DNA was not found on the body. They were convicted of holding her down and hitting her her while the one guy (not one of the five, and not known at that time) raped her.

Their "confessions" were coerced through hours and hours of aggressive police questioning, during which they were denied access to legal counsel - but even then their confessions made no sense, were inconsistent with forensic evidence, were inconsistent from each others' "confessions," were inconsistent with the victims' statements. They were railroaded.

They confessed to things the police didn't know about. The woman's body had not been found when one of them brought it up and said he just held her arms down.
While at the police station, the woman was still alive. How are the police coercing a confession when they don't know if the woman will wake up and say it was someone else?

Trump said they killed someone and that they pled guilty. Both those statements are false and defamatory.

[Anonymous]

For the record, the victim is STILL alive and has regained her health.

The person convicted of her assault, rape, and attempted murder, is a DNA match with the semen found in the victim. He also confessed to the murder. He also tied up the victim’s arms in a t shirt in a distinctive way that was identical to how he tied up his other known victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the victim is STILL alive and has regained her health.

The person convicted of her assault, rape, and attempted murder, is a DNA match with the semen found in the victim. He also confessed to the murder. He also tied up the victim’s arms in a t shirt in a distinctive way that was identical to how he tied up his other known victims.

How did he confess to a murder if the victim is still alive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the victim is STILL alive and has regained her health.

The person convicted of her assault, rape, and attempted murder, is a DNA match with the semen found in the victim. He also confessed to the murder. He also tied up the victim’s arms in a t shirt in a distinctive way that was identical to how he tied up his other known victims.

How did he confess to a murder if the victim is still alive?

Have you ever seen Knives Out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.

This. He misspoke. He meant they admitted to their crime, which involved a woman being raped and beaten nearly to death. He misspoke and said they pled guilty and someone was killed.

One of them confessed before the cops even knew about the crime.

Who? And what did he confess to?

Raymond Santana “I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman’s t*ts.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the victim is STILL alive and has regained her health.

The person convicted of her assault, rape, and attempted murder, is a DNA match with the semen found in the victim. He also confessed to the murder. He also tied up the victim’s arms in a t shirt in a distinctive way that was identical to how he tied up his other known victims.

How did he confess to a murder if the victim is still alive?

Have you ever seen Knives Out?

Yes, but the confession here is much later.

[Anonymous]

Wise's confession included that someone named Rudy took the girl's Walkman. Police didn't know about this, until Reyes's confession that he acted alone.

How did Wise know about this Walkman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the victim is STILL alive and has regained her health.

The person convicted of her assault, rape, and attempted murder, is a DNA match with the semen found in the victim. He also confessed to the murder. He also tied up the victim’s arms in a t shirt in a distinctive way that was identical to how he tied up his other known victims.

How did he confess to a murder if the victim is still alive?

Gosh, EXCELLENT point. He confessed to her ATTEMPTED murder. ~ blushing wildly here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.

They were teenage kids, who were coerced into "confessions" by lengthy, aggressive police interrogation while being denied access to legal counsel. They were kids who weren't even allowed to speak to their parents. Their "confessions" did not align with any of the forensic evidence, and NONE of their DNA matched DNA found at the scene.

Many years later, the ACTUAL rapist was caught and convicted. His DNA DID match.

And at the time, Trump was leading the charge of falsely convicting them in the court of public opinion, and took out a full page ad calling for them to be put to death, like a modern-day lynching. Yet we know now they didn't do it. It was a disgraceful, racist episode, and Trump was at the epicenter of it.

They arrested, falsely convicted, and falsely imprisoned the wrong people.

The jury at the time knew their DNA was not found on the body. They were convicted of holding her down and hitting her her while the one guy (not one of the five, and not known at that time) raped her.

Their "confessions" were coerced through hours and hours of aggressive police questioning, during which they were denied access to legal counsel - but even then their confessions made no sense, were inconsistent with forensic evidence, were inconsistent from each others' "confessions," were inconsistent with the victims' statements. They were railroaded.

They confessed to things the police didn't know about. The woman's body had not been found when one of them brought it up and said he just held her arms down.
While at the police station, the woman was still alive. How are the police coercing a confession when they don't know if the woman will wake up and say it was someone else?

I'll bet anything they also "confessed" to details that didn't even happen. Holding someone's arms down isn't a compelling detail anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/21/politics/central-park-five-trump-defamation/index.html

The five men claim in a federal lawsuit that Trump knew he was acting with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he said during the September debate with Vice President Kamala Harris that they pleaded guilty to crimes connected to the beating and raping a woman in New York City, and that the five teenagers “badly hurt a person, killed a person” in the attack.

“Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects,” attorneys for the men, now all in their 50s, wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Philadelphia. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.”

“None of the victims of the Central Park assaults were killed,” the lawyers for Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, Kevin Richardson, Antron Brown and Korey Wise wrote.

Isn't this well over the statute of limitations?

The statements by Trump were made last month.

"Continuing Tort" Although (NAL) I think there can be arguments whether the statute runs from when he started defaming them or can still be raised. Maybe if he had not commented on them being actually guilty (or if before he acknowledged the victim was not killed) since they were exonerated?

Would his defense be that people already know they were exonerated so he can lie about them without damaging their reputations, and invoke his own reputation for lying? (Hasn't he done something like that before? Or am I thinking of a Rudy defense that his claims were obviously ridiculous re 2020 election)?

He said they plead guilty when they never did, and he said someone died when no one did.

False isn’t enough. You have to prove reckless disregard and intent.

Given his history with the Central Park Five, it shouldn't be too hard. This is not a case of him mis-speaking, or misunderstanding. He has always maintained that they were guilty, even after they were released, and the city paid them for their mistake.

I don’t think it will be that easy.

They confessed at the time. He said they pled guilty. In the fluster of a high powered debate, that can be explained as a mistake made in a stressful situation in terms of wording.

They were teenage kids, who were coerced into "confessions" by lengthy, aggressive police interrogation while being denied access to legal counsel. They were kids who weren't even allowed to speak to their parents. Their "confessions" did not align with any of the forensic evidence, and NONE of their DNA matched DNA found at the scene.

Many years later, the ACTUAL rapist was caught and convicted. His DNA DID match.

And at the time, Trump was leading the charge of falsely convicting them in the court of public opinion, and took out a full page ad calling for them to be put to death, like a modern-day lynching. Yet we know now they didn't do it. It was a disgraceful, racist episode, and Trump was at the epicenter of it.

They arrested, falsely convicted, and falsely imprisoned the wrong people.

The jury at the time knew their DNA was not found on the body. They were convicted of holding her down and hitting her her while the one guy (not one of the five, and not known at that time) raped her.

Their "confessions" were coerced through hours and hours of aggressive police questioning, during which they were denied access to legal counsel - but even then their confessions made no sense, were inconsistent with forensic evidence, were inconsistent from each others' "confessions," were inconsistent with the victims' statements. They were railroaded.

They confessed to things the police didn't know about. The woman's body had not been found when one of them brought it up and said he just held her arms down.
While at the police station, the woman was still alive. How are the police coercing a confession when they don't know if the woman will wake up and say it was someone else?

Yeah, well, a guy recently confessed to murdering his father who had actually gone on a short trip. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/05/us/fontana-pressured-murder-confession/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the victim is STILL alive and has regained her health.

The person convicted of her assault, rape, and attempted murder, is a DNA match with the semen found in the victim. He also confessed to the murder. He also tied up the victim’s arms in a t shirt in a distinctive way that was identical to how he tied up his other known victims.

How did he confess to a murder if the victim is still alive?

Gosh, EXCELLENT point. He confessed to her ATTEMPTED murder. ~ blushing wildly here

OK. I was confused since your post was the first I'd heard the woman was alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the victim is STILL alive and has regained her health.

The person convicted of her assault, rape, and attempted murder, is a DNA match with the semen found in the victim. He also confessed to the murder. He also tied up the victim’s arms in a t shirt in a distinctive way that was identical to how he tied up his other known victims.

How did he confess to a murder if the victim is still alive?

Gosh, EXCELLENT point. He confessed to her ATTEMPTED murder. ~ blushing wildly here

OK. I was confused since your post was the first I'd heard the woman was alive.

This is why he should be sued for defamation. He’s been lying about them for decades so the casual observer isn’t aware of the basic facts of the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record, the victim is STILL alive and has regained her health.

The person convicted of her assault, rape, and attempted murder, is a DNA match with the semen found in the victim. He also confessed to the murder. He also tied up the victim’s arms in a t shirt in a distinctive way that was identical to how he tied up his other known victims.

How did he confess to a murder if the victim is still alive?

Gosh, EXCELLENT point. He confessed to her ATTEMPTED murder. ~ blushing wildly here

OK. I was confused since your post was the first I'd heard the woman was alive.

The woman has been alive since the attack which happened in 1989. Get your facts straight!