Hesitation
I'm not sure how to react to this. From The New York Times:
Likely U-Turn by Prosecutors in 1989 AttackA sweeping re-investigation of the 1989 Central Park jogger attack, including new DNA tests and admissions from a murderer never suspected in the crime, has persuaded senior prosecutors and detectives in Manhattan that the convictions of five Harlem teenagers cannot stand, according to three officials involved in the inquiries.
In an interview yesterday, the Manhattan district attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, stressed that he had not yet made up his mind about the case but said that if the claims of the murderer, Matias Reyes, continued to hold up, he would go along with a request by defense lawyers to vacate the convictions. The jogger, a 28-year-old investment banker, was beaten, raped and left for dead in the park on a night when other runners and bicyclists were being attacked and robbed by bands of youths.
"We always knew there was someone else out there, but I didn't expect this," Mr. Morgenthau said. "If the facts require us to consent, we're going to do that. We won't hesitate."
Of course they won't. Didn't fucking hesitate during the original prosecution, after all.
How anyone could interpret this as showing that "the system works" is a mystery to me. This must be a lack of imagination on my part.
Right, sorry, NYT requires registration. There's a series of articles at Eyewitness 7Online, the local ABC affiliate's site.
They may have been innocent. That is the fear one juror in the trial of three teenagers convicted of brutally attacking and raping a jogger in Central Park in 1989 now has according to a published report.Harold Brueland told the Daily News, "It's beginning to look like words were put in their mouths. If it turns out that they (the prosecutors) were manipulating us to convict kids with confessions that were obtained fraudulently, it's terrible. I'll feel awful."
Not sure how to react to that either. I'd look for statements made by jurors at the time of the trial, but kind'a doubt they'd improve my mood.
On the other hand, they'd probably be full of certainty. Or passionate intensity. Or something.
Comments
The system works, alright. It's not lack of imagination on your part, it's lack of affiliation with who the system for.
Posted by: drublood | October 11, 2002 11:45 PM
"Works" is such an indefinite word. I've noticed, for instance, that "The Lord works in mysterious ways" and "Your alternator no longer works" seem to be referring to very different phenomena. Ditto with "that works for me" as opposed to "when it works, it's great, when it doesn't..."
I suspect this thing about "the system works" must necessarily be another in that nebula of possible meanings.
Posted by: hanne | October 12, 2002 9:53 AM
um...that should be with who the system WORKS for. I guess I was feeling so self conscious about my lack of appropriate grammar usage that I forgot a vital word in that sentence.
Thanks for not ridiculing me.
Posted by: drublood | October 12, 2002 10:53 AM
Dru, I can register as a Republican, if you think that'll help. Or is this not what you meant by affiliation?
Me ridiculing someone else's grammar would be like, um, me ridiculing anyone for anything, really.
Hanne, this is why I prefer unambiguous sentences, like "The fucking fucker's fucked."
Well, it usually works in context. . .
Like, if we were discussing the American justice system, and I said that. Which I just did.
Posted by: Aaron | October 12, 2002 11:05 AM
I like your way better. You linguists are really good at simple, effective declarative statements. I appreciate that.
Posted by: hanne | October 12, 2002 4:19 PM
Um, Hanne?
True, that's the Chomskybot, but the style is distressingly accurate.
This is also how I talk when I'm really, really drunk.
Not write.
Talk.
Posted by: Aaron | October 12, 2002 5:25 PM
I look forward to tapin-- er, experiencing this someday for myself, in that case.
Posted by: hanne | October 12, 2002 9:16 PM
I don't have time to worry about the central park jogger case. Haven't you heard? There's a suspicious white man on the loose.
What do you mean they said suspicious white "van"?
Don't all vans look alike?
Posted by: Jason | October 12, 2002 10:44 PM
Jason, that's racist!
Hanne, if I stop making fun of your driving, will you stop mentioning me and the concepts "drunk" and "taping" in the same sentence?
I frighten easily, you know.
Posted by: Aaron | October 13, 2002 12:52 AM