[I. Preface; and
II. The Crime: April 19, 1989.]
The monstrous gang rape and savage beating of a small defenseless white woman by a roaming wolf pack of young black and Hispanic males was bad news for Harlem. Everything about the attack confirmed the darkest suspicions of many already wary New Yorkers. This particular crime raised some nasty questions about what was passing for parenting up in Harlem. Were the anti-white messages that Harlem’s parents had been communicating to their children having criminal consequences? Had black culture, from its preachers to its rap artists, created an atmosphere which encouraged Harlem’s offspring to break the rules? New York City’s black activists, its radical-left preachers and editors, felt a need to respond. Their response was the same old time-worn formula of denial and defamation. Al Sharpton rushed a busload of his standby protesters to the courthouse steps. During the trial Sharpton’s scripted foot soldiers sent down from Sharpton’s National Action Network chanted that the victim’s boyfriend had attacked her; they shouted “The boyfriend did it!” They repeatedly called the horribly brutalized victim “a whore.” The Reverend Sharpton had provided his well-rehearsed goon squad with the rape victim’s name, which these boneheads shouted countless times to the eager media camera crews. The ever-so-reverend Al Sharpton even sank so low as to deny that the little white woman, who had been battered beyond recognition, had even been raped. Proclaimed the Reverend Sharpton: “We’re not endorsing the damage to the girl . . .if there was this damage.” Sharpton was stage-directing this disgusting performance only two years after he and Alton Maddox had conspired to orchestrate publicity for Tawana Brawley’s notorious rape hoax. Sharpton was still insisting that Tawana was the victim of a sweeping cover-up by the White Power Structure. In an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the prosecution in the Central Park rape case, Sharpton brought Tawana Brawley to the courthouse for a photo-op during which Ms. Brawley shook hands with the five defendants. It was a surreal moment during which the grinning faux rape victim did her best to cast an aura of innocence over five vicious sex criminals: black solidarity trumped sisterhood as Tawana betrayed all rape victims under the approving gaze of Al Sharpton. Though the victim’s identity was known to the press, no decent reporter would publish her name. The glaring exceptions were all black-owned newspapers which made a point of splashing her name all over the place. To the black press, the thirty punks who brutalized nine innocent people in Central Park on the evening of April 19, 1989 couldn’t possibly have also attacked this one woman. She must be made to go away; she must be denounced as a whore; “the boyfriend did it!” Harlem’s response to the gang rape of this one little white woman gave the rest of America deeper insight into the black psyche and that insight wasn’t pretty. One of the black lawyers for the five confessed rapists, Michael W. Warren, disparaged the woman who was gang raped and battered as “a white woman of privilege.” In the upside-down moral universe of left-wing lawyers white girls who study hard and get good grades and become productive employees and model citizens are the moral inferiors of feral young gangsters who roam the parks beneath a full moon and swarm upon the unsuspecting, beating them with bricks and rocks and pipes, punching them and stomping them and slashing them with knives. The implication was that this “white woman of privilege” got what she deserved. What business did any white person have jogging on the sacred soil of Harlem, anyway? That the five apprehended rapists all admitted to their complicity in a vicious felony meant nothing to Rep. Charles Rangle (D-Manhattan) who attended a rally in support of the convicts at the Mount Olivet Baptist Church in Harlem and announced: “These kids were convicted long before they came into court.” In other words, they’re just racial martyrs to white racism, just like poor little Tawana Brawley. Perhaps Yusef Salaam was just joking when he said: “We hid in the trees, and we saw a female jogger coming. Kevin ran out and punched her.” Salaam’s written statement says he struck her with a pipe as she struggled to escape and “she went down.” He added: “She was still struggling so I hit her again.” Later, after being carefully coached by black lawyers and activists, Mr. Salaam denied everything in his written statement. On the witness stand he said he had no idea that roaming gangs of black teens were out to rob and beat innocent strangers. He admitted under oath that he was carrying a 12-inch iron pipe in Central Park that evening, but he said it belonged to a friend. Of course it belonged to a friend. Haven’t we all walked around at night carrying our friends’ 12-inch pieces of iron pipe? He looked sharp in his newly-purchased suit and tie. The entire defense argument sounded just this stupid. In the first trial, Yusef Salaam, Antron McCray and Raymond Santana were convicted of rape and assault but acquitted of attempted murder. They were sentenced to 5 to 10 years in prison under juvenile law. Three months later, Kevin Richardson and Kharey Wise were tried. The jury found their confessions persuasive. A blond pubic hair was found on Richardson’s shirt; a blond head hair was found on his underpants. This evidence was presented at his trial. More sophisticated DNA analytical techniques have since proven that these hairs were not from the jogger. So who were they from? Did Richardson assault another white woman that night? Blood taken from a rock near the crime scene was not the jogger’s blood. Whose blood was it? Was another white woman raped in Central Park that night, a woman who was too ashamed to admit that she was raped by a black wolf pack? Even with this evidence staring them in the face, not one news organization would even broach this question. The jury deliberated for twelve days before convicting Richardson of attempted murder and Kharey Wise of sexual abuse and assault. Richardson was sentenced as a juvenile to 5 to 10 years. Wise was given 5 to 15 years as an adult. Richardson’s lawyer, Howard Diller, admitted: “They convicted themselves with their own statements. We could not overcome them.” A month later, Steve Lopez was allowed to plead guilty to robbing a man in Central Park; he had not confessed to rape. The other seven punks who participated in the bestial gang rape of the little white woman in Central Park that evening, but had eluded apprehension, just faded back into Harlem. I. Preface
Harlem Goes Bonkers
By Thomas Clough
II. The Crime: April 19, 1989
III. Harlem Goes Bonkers
IV. Harlem Says They’re Innocent
V. The Harlem Spokesfolks Mobilize
VI. Three Detectives Remember
VII. A Prosecutor Remembers
VIII. The Star Witness
IX. His Story Stinks
X. The Confessions
XI. How Guilty is Harlem
XII. The Forgotten Victim
XIII. Update to the Central Park Rape Case
XIV. The Victim’s Doctor Breaks His Silence
XV. The Jogger Rape Saga Continues
XVI. Thursday, December 5, 2002
XVII. The Matias Reyes/Kharey Wise Connection
XVIII. Don’t Be Fooled
XIX. The End Game
XX. Here Comes the Judge
XXI. Is Nancy Ryan Trustworthy?
XXII. Nancy Ryan’s Twisted Vision
XXIII. Twisted Justice
Additional Material
Stix: “‘It Was Fun’—Robert K. Tanenbaum vs. the Central Park Five, 25 Years Later”; and
Stix: “Ken Burns’ The Central Park Five: The New To Kill a Mockingbird—Fiction Designed to Induce White Guilt.”
(N.S.: These were not the first reports I wrote on the Central Park Jogger case. I’d already written many, going back at least to 2000.)
“The Report That Ken Burns Doesn’t Want You to Read: The Armstrong Report on the Central Park Five’s Many Violent Crimes, and Matias Reyes”
1 comment:
On the Charles Rangel "martyrdom" analogy:
Point to any black on a street and he's likely guilty of "a crime"--we just don't know,specifically,which one at that moment.
--GRA
Post a Comment