• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Curiously, Reyes remembered raping the jogger with Technicolor clarity. But he couldn’t remember another brutal rape he committed a mere two days before the attack on the jogger.

Regarding the earlier attack, he said he vaguely recalled accosting a woman in Central Park, but he wasn’t sure if he had actually raped her. The DA investigated and determined that on April 17, 1989—two days before the attack on the jogger—Reyes had “in fact attacked, beaten, raped, and robbed a twenty-six-year-old white woman who had been exercising in the park.… The victim was badly beaten about the head. She had a large hematoma on her forehead, abrasions to both knees, bite marks on her left upper arm and neck, scratches over her neck, face, knees and back, and multiple bruises. In addition her right eye was bruised and shows subconjunctival hemorrhages.”27

Reyes couldn’t remember that. But he remembered amazing details about his alleged solo rape of the jogger, occurring just two days later. Reyes knew, for example, the exact point on the trail where the jogger was first assaulted, which side of the jogger’s head had been bashed, where the blood was on her shirt, and what she was wearing. You know, the sort of details that only someone with access to a newspaper would know.

If Reyes had been facing a criminal penalty for being the sole rapist, liberals would have been denouncing his confession as obvious hokum. But the DA’s report cited Reyes’s freakish accuracy about details of the jogger’s attack as proof of his credibility, rather than as what it was: evidence that he had been coached.

Indeed, the DA’s report even made excuses for Reyes’s failure to remember raping the first woman, claiming that it “may be explained by the fact that, according to the victim, he apparently did not ejaculate.”28 Not ejaculating explains why the five defendants did not leave semen on the jogger—a possibility ignored by the Show Trial tribunal. There is no scientific study suggesting that a failure to ejaculate affects memory of a rape, but this was the scientific theory invented on the spot by Morgenthau’s office.

By contrast, the DA was suddenly shocked to discover minor discrepancies in the confessions of the five who had been convicted of the attack. The alleged discrepancies consisted of things like the defendants’ inability to uniformly agree about who hit the jogger first. This was a mob attack in a dark wooded area, after 9 p.m. at night in April. After everything we’ve heard about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, it defies reason that predators in a gang attack would give identically worded, play-by-play accounts of a wilding.

Maybe next time, the wolf pack should assign one member to take detailed meeting minutes of the rape, so they can get the order right. “Yusef, could you read that back to me please? I want to make sure there’s no confusion about who grabbed her breasts and who hit her with the pipe.”

Honest eyewitness accounts are never perfectly consistent in all respects. That’s why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John give slightly different versions of the same story. It’s identical statements that ring false—such as liberals all claiming at the exact same moment that Clinton’s impeachment was a “rush to judgment.” An eyewitness who happens to remember that the victim was wearing colored contacts and Fruit of the Loom underwear and was humming a Backstreet Boys song at the time of the attack seems to be drawing on something other than his memory.

But the DA’s report complains that, “on the issue of who actually knocked the jogger to the ground, Kevin Richardson said Antron, Raymond and Steve did it; Antron McCray said everyone charged her; Raymond Santana said Kevin did it; Yusef Salaam said he did it; Kharey Wise first named Raymond, and then named Steve.”29

Again, it would be more suspicious if all the suspects named the exact same person.

In the very next breath, the DA’s report cited the defendants’ consistency as proof that they were lying: All the defendants except