|
MORE ON THE CASE THAT WON'T GO AWAY
So Linda Fairstein finally decided to speak
out this week about the new developments in the Central Park Jogger
case. Considering that she had come out of retirement to help with the
prosecution’s review, it was only a matter of time before she commented
publicly.
Unfortunately, it looks like her words are going to come back to haunt her.
Ever since DNA tests conducted in May 2002 showed that semen found on the
victim’s clothing was consistent with having originated from Matias
Reyes–currently in jail for a series of rapes and a murder committed from June
through August of 1989–it’s been nothing but a firestorm in New York City.
Calls to set aside convictions of the teens found guilty in the summer of 1990
for the jogger’s rape and attempted murder. New waves of protests that the
group’s confessions were tricked using coercion by the NYPD and by zealous
prosecutors. Never mind that the jogger herself wants to know what really
happened, having gotten on with her life and now ready to reveal herself to the
world with her upcoming book and tour.
When the story first hit back in April 1989, news reports were quick to disclose
that police had arrested five teenagers for the crime, part of an infamous night
of “wilding”, where many other young black males were arrested for a myriad
of misdemeanors and felonies. Although 8 people were murdered that night and 28
others sexually assaulted, it was the Jogger who got most of the coverage, and
no wonder–she was beaten about the face with sticks and a large rock, so much
so that a friend of hers did not recognize her in the hospital until he saw her
distinctive rings. And that took 15 minutes. The jogger, a then-28 year old
investment banker, was in a coma for months. It was a must-solve case.
The five teens who would eventually be found guilty were actually in police
custody before the police knew about the attack. Once they found out, the
grilling began, and the accusations started flying soon after. The trial the
following year was a sea of ugliness, with chilling confessions played over and
over again, claims of coercion, and perhaps highlighted by the mother of one of
the defendants, Yusuf Islam, accusing Fairstein of lying on the stand. The
mother was escorted out, but the questions still linger. The issue was that
Islam was 15 years old at the time of the crime, and any minor under the age of
16 cannot be interrogated alone without parental permission. Mrs. Islam claimed
that when she arrived to find her son being questioned, she told Fairstein, “I
want to see Yusef alone. You don’t have my permission to speak to Yusef.”
The request was reportedly denied. Fairstein claimed no such event occurred,
leading to the outburst and Mrs. Islam being escorted out of court.
Perhaps the most disturbing revelation of the trial was the utter lack of
physical evidence. Although hired as an independent consultant, Nicholas Petraco,
a retired NYPD, testified for the prosecution that hairs found at the scene did
not match three of the suspects, and evidence found on three other suspects’
clothing may have been consistent with having originated from the jogger. At the
time, this news was played up as “crucial evidence.” In the age of DNA tests
and probability in the trillions, microscopic hair analysis seems rather quaint,
and certainly nowhere near as conclusive. In light of the new DNA evidence,
Petraco has made clear, as per a New York Times article published last month,
that the hair evidence was not a “match”, and to call it such would be
“ridiculous.”
Although the Jogger’s clothing was saturated with her own blood, as she lost
nearly three-quarters of it because of the attack, none of her blood appeared on
any of the defendants’ clothing. Even at the time, news reports cast doubt on
what little physical evidence was available. Semen found on the jogger’s sock
was never found to be consistent with belonging to any of the defendants. Other
“genetic tests” were found to be inconclusive. Thus, with a minimal of
physical evidence, a litany of inconsistencies, but a whole host of taped
confessions, the teens were found guilty and imprisoned. And so they remain,
until the hearings begin.
So what to make of Fairstein’s recent comments? If anything, they seem to
smack of stubbornness and self-delusion. She claims that on the night of the
rape, there were twenty to thirty kids taken in for questioning at the 20th
precinct station on W. 82nd street, about 20 blocks from the attack. “It
became clear as I watched and listened to these kids that a few of them knew
each other, but most of them hadn't seen each other before," she states. If
none of these teens had known each other before that night, why would a few have
come together suddenly to magically plan on raping someone? There’s crimes of
opportunity, but it seems a bit illogical to assume that kids would immediately
ferret out a secret longing in each other to rape a defenseless woman.
Her main claim, repeated by other law enforcement types, is that "...Reyes
ran with that pack of kids. He stayed longer when the others moved on. He
completed the assault. I don't think there is a question in the minds of anyone
present during the interrogation process that these five men were participants,
not only in the other attacks that night but in the attack on the jogger.”
For that to have happened, Reyes would have had to alter his M.O. in a major
way. In all the other crimes he committed, he acted alone, and acted savagely at
that, often stabbing his victims’ eyes, telling them that he’d have to blind
them or kill them, and damaging the victims’ faces beyond recognition.
Although unnamed medical and law enforcement types claim that the jogger’s
attack could not have been committed by a lone person, there is no evidence to
suggest this could not have occurred. Never mind that these unnamed sources are
not forensic experts and thus have no business making claims that would never
hold up in court. Reyes was a predator–if he were to be released from jail, he
would continue to be a predator. Most tellingly, when two of the convicted teens
were re-interviewed earlier this year and shown a picture of Reyes, not one
identified him. None of them knew who he was, and during the original
confessions, no one had mentioned any ringleader. If he had actually been
involved, why never name him but finger each other as being involved? What
purpose would there have been to protect Reyes for 13 years?
Even more shockingly, two days before the jogger was raped, an eerily similar
attack in the park occured. The victim was also in her mid-20s, jogging the same
transverse pathway when she was beaten and raped. DNA evidence ties this attack
to Reyes as well. Granted, this other attack took place when rape was, sadly, a
far more commonplace crime in New York City. But how was the similarity of the
two attacks not noted, not picked up by prosecutors? If Reyes committed this
first attack alone, why would he have suddenly made an about-face and teamed up
with younger boys he’d never met before to rape another woman who had fit his
victim type?
So why would Fairstein make such public statements when they can be refuted so
easily? In truth, it would hardly be expected for her to make an about-face at
this point. She had a lot invested in the outcome of the Jogger case; it was
another success story for her, case closed, even if the evidence seemed rather
flimsy. It’s safer for her to stick to the same story, especially if a
reprimand, or worse, disbarment, looms in the horizon. And even if previous
actions speak far louder than her words. Fairstein and her good friend, Patricia
Cornwell, had been slated to appear on a series of crime specials for ABC–the
same network that aired Reyes’ interview in October on the program
“Primetime Live.” Upon getting word of this, Fairstein sent off angry
missives accusing ABC of lacking ethics. The result is that Cornwell will be
doing these specials solo, and Fairstein’s future in television is cloudy at
best.
The truth will likely come out sooner rather than later, and there will be a lot
of casualties. I suspect Linda Fairstein will be one of them, especially if her
former boss, Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau, takes the increasingly vocal calls
to resign and retires gracefully from the position. At 83, I can’t see him
sticking around to take the criticism. If he wants to be like Don Hewitt and
stay until he’s pried out in an ugly manner, then so be it, but it wouldn’t
look good for anyone. Because whoever is elected in Morgenthau’s stead will
want to clean up the mess left behind. Which means actively distancing his or
herself from previous mistakes, like what the Jogger case is shaping up to be.
It’s a sad thing though; there is absolutely no question that Fairstein was
one of the most accomplished, tireless prosecutors in the country. Without her,
prosecutions of sexual assaults would remain in the dark ages. I believe she
thought she was doing the best job possible and was an advocate for the Jogger.
Unfortunately, in trying to close a case that was growing into an increasingly
hot political potato, it seems as if she–along with many NYPD officers,
prosecutors, and others–obscured the path of justice.
And I guess that means that her upcoming book tour’s going to be awfully
interesting. Fairstein’s fifth book, THE BONE VAULT, is a January 2003 release
from Scribner, with a major book tour to follow. She’ll be signing at the
Upper West Side Barnes &Noble on January 21, with other drop-ins scheduled
at local independent mystery bookstores. The last time I walked past that
particular B&N, angry firefighters were picketing a signing by an author
whose book claimed that FDNY stole items from Ground Zero soon after the World
Trade Center fell.
It looks like I’d better be getting used to seeing the picket signs on a
regular basis.
Sarah Weinman
27 November 2002
|
