kaliningrad-87345 Ken Burns is a liberal. I have to say that from the onset. Now I can say that Ken Burns is amazing when he makes documentaries about the Civil War or Mark Twain. This documentary the Central Park Five not so good. I am aghast that Mr. Burns conveniently makes these five young punks out to be the victims. No they were anything but victims. They were the aggressors all over the park that night. One of them even said that he beat a man.The five punks were on a roll in the park, and they were committing a myriad of crimes. Back then this was called "wilding".A term for punks who go around hurting citizens just because they can. I have no time for punks who attack citizens that they do not know, just because it gives them something to do. I feel for the young woman. But of course she was a white woman so she does not matter in this documentary. If you are a liberal and you feel empathy for punks running amok, then this is for you. I am on the side of no empathy for punks.I feel empathy for the woman who almost died.

Andrew Lorah Central Park Five is very interesting documentary that is about a 1989 rape case and trial that occurred in Central park where five teenage African-American and Latino boys were convicted for sexually assaulting a white woman. Having spent 6-13 years each behind bars. A serial rapist confessed to the crime. Nevertheless, these boys were falsely convicted of a crime they did not participate in, and were stripped of their lives due to the corruption of police interrogations, and racism. As I watched this film I was compelled with the amount of pathos that Ken and Sarah Burns used in the film. From all of the stories of how the kids felt when they were going through the trial and the interrogations to all the images of and footages of them in these interrogations. Watching the videos and seeing the expressions on their faces really made me feel for them. But on top of all of this, the film made me really upset with the way that the police system was at the time. Having no real evidence that the five guys were connected to this case, they were able to persuade the kids to say what the police wanted to hear. The police did the wrong thing and everybody knows it. While listening to the interviews you can tell that the stories did not line up and some of the kids were nervous enough that they were unsure of what they were saying and second-guessing themselves. On top of that the police assumed they were the guilty party when they found them. Now as the film says there were other people in and around the park at the time, but they got a party of five African American teenage guys, that were walking around. Now how does that not fit profiling? Or how about racism? That is racism mostly at its finest, they found a group of "sketchy" African Americans and arrested them, and eventually convicted them with no real proof that they all did it. This made me upset, no I'm not African American but I feel like most people that it was unjust for them to do this and racism is not right in anyway, and it would get under anybody's nerves. Luckily the right guy did come out but only 13 years after the fact. But they did give the guys money for the time spent in jail so isn't that fair for them? not at all they took away the main part of a persons life. They took away there late teens and most of the there young adult years where most people learn the most of who they are and how to live in the world. These are times that will never be able to get back and nobody will ever be able to repay them with that experience.

sbrad4510 This is a taut and suspenseful piece of documentation. It will get your dander up. Especially if you believe in the democratic principals of freedom and justice. It's about five young men whose fundamental rite of passage was stripped from them. They were forced to spend their formative years being caught up in a justice system gone awry. That precious time of life when we get to decide who we are and what we are to become. Those transformative years between 13 and 18 when we get to make the declaration of 'I Am'! If you're left wondering 'Who am I' at the end of that period something has been stolen from you that can never be replaced. That's what this documentary is ultimately about-and it will leave you questioning 'Who are we'? That boys lives can be compromised-the promise of becoming. You can almost see the direct correlation between The Central Park Five and Trayvon Martin, African and Latino American boys being denied the rite of becoming. It is a human tragedy of which we all should feel some sense of shame.

Turfseer 'The Central Park Five' is noted documentarian Ken Burns' take on the infamous arrest, subsequent trial and eventual legal exoneration of five minority youths accused in the assault and rape of a Central Park jogger in 1989. It's Burns' position that in a haste to make arrests, the investigating detectives and representatives from the NYC DA's office, 'force fed' their own versions of events and 'coerced' the youths to make statements implicating themselves, both in written and (in some of the defendants' cases) videotaped confessions. Burns is also satisfied with the confession of serial killer Matias Reyes, who claimed he acted alone and whose DNA was linked directly to the Central Park jogger.For those looking for easy answers, 'The Central Park Five' upon first glance seems to tie things up quite nicely, making the case that the five youths were victims not only of a police and DA's office 'rush to judgment', but of being victims of the racism endemic in society as a whole. Burns trots out the five victims who all seem fairly articulate and reasonable as they recount their stories from their perspective as adults.One of the problems that Burns fails to explore in enough detail is that the Central Park Five (CPF) were not only convicted of rape (in most cases) but also assaulting other people in the park that night. Burns and the CPF want you to believe that they merely observed two serious assaults in the park and acted 'shocked' by the brutality of the mob. The CPF all insisted during the documentary, that they were not guilty and that's why they all refused to accept a plea bargain from the DA's office prior to trial. Nonetheless, on February 9, 1994, at his PAROLE HEARING, Raymond Santana (one of the CPF) denied the rape but READILY ADMITTED that he and seven or eight of his friends planned to go to the park to rob and assault people. He also admitted that they let one man go because he was with his girlfriend and also admitted (he himself) had beat a man.When Anton McCray went before the parole board, in November 1994, he also admitted all the crimes in the park except the rape. In 2002, Kevin Richardson and Santana were interviewed by detectives and they both admitted their participation in the assaults but the not the rapes. Just as an example, 23 people were identified as participating on the assault of a victim, Antonio Diaz in the park. Numerous accomplices implicated all five defendants; both Richardson and McCray admitted participation and Salaam and Wise, admitted being present and Santana observed some "commotion" in the distance.Another fact about the case that Burns conveniently ignores is that only two of the CPF, Richardson and Santana, were actually arrested in the park. How is it, that the other three were eventually linked to the two found in the park? Long before the alleged 'coercion' during the DA interviews, there was obvious PROBABLE CAUSE to arrest the other three. That's because when police initially encountered the mob of kids, only Santana (and separately charged Stephen Lopez), remained at the scene. They were observed to be 'wide-eyed' and in 'shock'. Richardson fled and was apprehended. On the way to the precinct, Richardson (and another youth, Clarence Thomas) both fingered McCray as the 'murderer'. Statements by Richardson and others implicated both Santana and Lopez as being part of the mob. Later, the other three were linked by Richardson and Santana, as well as other witnesses, to each other.In watching 'The Central Park Five', you'll get the distinct impression that the defendants were 'railroaded'; that there was no opportunity for them to dispute their allegations that the initial arrest was invalid, their statements were obtained by trickery or outright deception, the Family Court Act and Criminal Procedure Law provisions mandating parental notification and presence during questioning were not followed, false promises were made that they would be released, physical force was used and they were deprived of food and sleep. In reality, there was a six week pre-trial hearing involving testimony from twenty-nine prosecution witnesses, testimony from Wise, Richardson, Santana and Salaam, Lopez, parents, siblings, relatives and friends of the defendants. Judge Galligan found, except for one instance, there were no grounds to suppress any of the statements or evidence taken from the statements. You can read about all the motions the defense submitted in their attempt to suppress evidence and why almost all of their motions failed. It's chronicled in this special report at Findlaw.com commissioned by the Police Commissioner for the purpose of determining whether the new evidence indicated that police supervisors or officers acted improperly or incorrectly: news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cpjgr/nypd12703jgrrpt.pdf.Despite all the claims during the documentary that the CPF were "coerced", only Kharey Wise claimed he was "fed" answers. As the prosecutor pointed out during the trial, "McCray testified that the police said he should put himself in it, and that was all the information that was given to Antron McCray about what he was supposed to put in his statement." If Burns is guilty of the sin of omission, he's on far shakier ground when he asserts as fact, that there was some kind of 'time line' that contradicted the police and DA version of events. The Findlaw report concluded otherwise: "In fact, no accurate time line can be constructed because the evidence regarding the timing of the various events and the individuals who participated in them is not sufficiently precise to allow any exact conclusion." 'The Central Park Five' is the 'Mickey Mouse' version of what happened. In reality, the entire story is extremely complex. Read the Findlaw report if you're interested in DETAILS. Otherwise, watch Burns' sanitized version. A civil lawsuit is still pending, with all defendants seeking compensation. If they can prove their case, they deserve all the compensation in the world. Let the chips fall where they may.