Series Worth Watching - Page 32 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Series Worth Watching


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jersey Jim said:

Season 4 of Gomorrah on Sky Atlantic at the moment.

Superb viewing. 

Yup, watched the first three already, had to force myself away from the TV. Looks like that will be my weekend sorted 🙈 Thought series 3 was not as good as the first two but this one has started well. Patrizia’s continued appearance obviously helps👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jim Beem said:

Yup, watched the first three already, had to force myself away from the TV. Looks like that will be my weekend sorted 🙈 Thought series 3 was not as good as the first two but this one has started well. Patrizia’s continued appearance obviously helps👍

Disagree as I thought season 3 was the best so far,  the episode when Ciro got exiled to Bulgaria was superb.

Beforehand wasn’t  too keen on series 4 as the aforementioned Ciro was killed off, I thought he was the coolest main character ever and it was a bit like  killing off Tony in the Sopranos.

Happy to say series 4 has been excellent so far.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2019 at 11:43 AM, Fairbairn said:

Just finished watching When They See Us on Netflix.  It's a dramatisation of the true story of the "Central Park 5".  5 young Harlem kids who were bullied by cops into confessing to the rape and assault of a jogger in Central Park in 1989.  4 episodes with first 2 focusing on the events as they happened with the last 2 set 10-15 years later.  I thought it was an excellent watch with some great performances by the kids, especially the boy who played Korey Wise (the oldest of the 5 at just 16) who plays him as both boy and man.  A pretty harrowing watch at times but definitely worth checking out.

I've not watched it but I did see this...

https://vdare.com/articles/ann-coulter-on-the-central-park-rapists-who-you-gonna-believe-netflix-or-the-evidence

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

Read it this does stick out as a false axiom though. " It is absolute madness to imagine that officers did anything to coerce these confessions. "

 

Is it really "absolute madness" ? That axiom is used to then justify the next 6 paragraphs.

 

"At the risk of sounding as stupid as a liberal"- never going to see properly if your lenses are two tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phart said:

Read it this does stick out as a false axiom though. " It is absolute madness to imagine that officers did anything to coerce these confessions. "

 

Is it really "absolute madness" ? That axiom is used to then justify the next 6 paragraphs.

 

"At the risk of sounding as stupid as a liberal"- never going to see properly if your lenses are two tone.

The female prosecutor involved, Farstein or something, seems to be a right horrible cow. Involved in a few controversies I believe, funnily enough since this docu-drama was broadcast people/companies seem to be dropping her or distancing themselves form her.

I think I mentioned earlier but the actual documentary was very good. My gut feeling is she was a bitter and evil bastard    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some great archive documentaries available for a long time yet on iPlayer. I recently enjoyed watching ......

"Quatermass and the Pit" (1958-59 - every episode of the legendary sci-fi/horror serial that still holds up well today.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00trhv3/episodes/player

"Barry Norman in Celebrity City" (1982 - life in Hollywood among film and television stars. The way Barry Norman gently takes the piss out them is quite funny) 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p058d78x/tuesday-documentary-barry-norman-in-celebrity-city

"Engines Must Not Enter the Potato Siding" - (1969 - life on British Railways at a time of great change)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p012d0t5

Burke and Hare - (1979 - Magnus Magnusson recounts the infamous murderers escapades and the doctor who used their services.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02vh7gq/living-legends-6-burke-and-hare

"The Ealing Comedies" - (1970 - a history of the superb comedy films made in the forties and fifties by Ealing Studios. Includes interviews with the directors, writers, producers and actors who made these wonderful films)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02rrdyx

"Who Killed the Lindbergh Baby?" - (1982 - written and narrated by Ludovic Kennedy, he strongly questions whether Bruno Hauptman really was guilty of kidnapping and murdering the son of Charles Lindbergh. It includes interviews with a policeman who was part of the investigation, one of the trial jury, Hauptman's best friend and Hauptman's widow)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0572v6f

"The Dracula Business" - (1974 - an analysis of public fascination with vampires and Bram Stoker's creation "Dracula" in particular, presented by Stoker's great-nephew)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p027vs31

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't remember if I'd mentioned it already but just watched the last 2 episodes of The Looming Tower.  Based on the events leading up to 9/11 and the FBI/CIA hunt for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  A really interesting watch and some of the things that seem to have happened beggar belief.  And the "twist" at the end is like the unbelievable ending to a Hollywood film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fairbairn said:

Can't remember if I'd mentioned it already but just watched the last 2 episodes of The Looming Tower.  Based on the events leading up to 9/11 and the FBI/CIA hunt for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  A really interesting watch and some of the things that seem to have happened beggar belief.  And the "twist" at the end is like the unbelievable ending to a Hollywood film.

Thought Looming Tower was pretty good. There was another similar series where Harvey Keitel played the guy John O Neill. That was good as well but the name escapes me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jim Beem said:

Thought Looming Tower was pretty good. There was another similar series where Harvey Keitel played the guy John O Neill. That was good as well but the name escapes me 

Thought the ending was pretty lame in terms of outing the issues between CIA and the FBI. Was excellent up to that point though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not watched it... nor the netflix show...

...but here is one of the police interviews with one of the CP suspects in the presence of his parents.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=CyH6b_1561932579

If you spent 1.5 hours watching the netflix version of events how about 30 mins of watching the reality version?

You tell me... how do they compare?

As I say I have not watched neither.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2019 at 10:36 PM, thplinth said:

I've not watched it... nor the netflix show...

...but here is one of the police interviews with one of the CP suspects in the presence of his parents.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=CyH6b_1561932579

If you spent 1.5 hours watching the netflix version of events how about 30 mins of watching the reality version?

You tell me... how do they compare?

As I say I have not watched neither.

So I watched it... the police interview linked to above with one of the boys with his parents present.

Tdyer and Fairbairn was it I think... you have been mugged by a director with a huge chip on her shoulder no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, thplinth said:

So I watched it... the police interview linked to above with one of the boys with his parents present.

Tdyer and Fairbairn was it I think... you have been mugged by a director with a huge chip on her shoulder no?

I will watch the interview later today. Just so I know what I am responding to, is it claims that the interview process was wrong that you are disputing ( boys coerced into admission of guilt /parents not there) ,  or do you think the boys are in-fact guilty ?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

I will watch the interview later today. Just so I know what I am responding to, is it claims that the interview process was wrong that you are disputing ( boys coerced into admission of guilt /parents not there) ,  or do you think the boys are in-fact guilty ?  

Linda Fairstein's comments on it are I think fair. She agreed with the rape charges being vacated but says the other convictions should have stood.

Watch the police interview the lad admits to it all in front of his parents. They were in a large group running around CP tearing folk up and robbing.

The op ed in included in the DM article - the original in the WSJ has a pay wall.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7128615/Central-Park-Five-prosecutor-Linda-Fairstein-slams-Netflix-series-outright-fabrication.html

Quote

 

LINDA FAIRSTEIN'S OP-ED 

'At about 9 p.m. April 19, 1989, a large group of young men gathered on the corner of 110th Street and Fifth Avenue for the purpose of robbing and beating innocent people in Central Park. 

'There were more than 30 rioters, and the woman known as the “Central Park jogger,” Trisha Meili, was not their only victim. Eight others were attacked, including two men who were beaten so savagely that they required hospitalization for head injuries.

'Reporters and filmmakers have explored this story countless times from numerous perspectives, almost always focusing on five attackers and one female jogger. But each has missed the larger picture of that terrible night: a riot in the dark that resulted in the apprehension of more than 15 teenagers who set upon multiple victims. That a sociopath named Matias Reyes confessed in 2002 to the rape of Ms. Meili, and that the district attorney consequently vacated the charges against the five after they had served their sentences, has led some of these reporters and filmmakers to assume the prosecution had no basis on which to charge the five suspects in 1989. 

'So it is with filmmaker Ava DuVernay in the Netflix miniseries “When They See Us,” a series so full of distortions and falsehoods as to be an outright fabrication.

'It shouldn’t have been hard for Ms. DuVernay to discover the truth. 

'The facts of the original case are documented in a 117-page decision by New York State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Galligan, in sworn testimony given in two trials and affirmed by two appellate courts, and in sworn depositions of more than 95 witnesses—including the five themselves. Instead she has written an utterly false narrative involving an evil mastermind (me) and the falsely accused (the five).

'I was one of the supervisors who oversaw the team that prosecuted the teenagers apprehended after that horrific night of violence. Ms. DuVernay’s film attempts to portray me as an overzealous prosecutor and a bigot, the police as incompetent or worse, and the five suspects as innocent of all charges against them. None of this is true.

'Consider the film’s most egregious falsehoods. “When They See Us” repeatedly portrays the suspects as being held without food, deprived of their parents’ company and advice, and not even allowed to use the bathroom. If that had been true, surely they would have brought those issues up and prevailed in pretrial hearings on the voluntariness of their statements, as well as in their lawsuit against the city. They didn’t, because it never happened.

'In the first episode, the film portrays me at the precinct station house before dawn on April 20, the day after the attacks, unethically engineering the police investigation and making racist remarks. In reality, I didn’t arrive until 8 p.m., 22 hours after the police investigation began, did not run the investigation, and never made any of the comments the screenwriter attributes to me.

'Ms. DuVernay depicts suspects Yusef Salaam and Korey Wise being arrested on the street. In fact, two detectives went to the door of the Salaam apartment on the night of the 20th because both had been named by other rioters as attackers in multiple assaults.

'The film claims that when Mr. Salaam’s mother arrived and told police her son was only 15—meaning they could not question him without a parent in the room—I tried to stop her, demanding to see a birth certificate. The truth is that Mr. Salaam himself claimed to be 16 and even had a forged bus pass to “prove” it. When I heard his mother say he was 15, I immediately halted his questioning. This is all supported by sworn testimony.

'Ms. DuVernay would have you believe the only evidence against the suspects was their allegedly forced confessions. That is not true. There is, for example, the African-American woman who testified at the trial—and again during the 2002 re-investigation—that when Korey Wise called her brother, he told her that he had held the jogger down and felt her breasts while others attacked her. There were blood stains and dirt on clothing of some of the five. And then there are the statements of more than a dozen of the other kids who participated in the park rampage. 

'Although none of the others admitted joining in the rape of Trisha Meili, they admitted attacking male victims and a couple on a tandem bike, and each of them named some or all of the five as joining them.

'Nor does the film note that Mr. Salaam took the stand at his trial, represented by a lawyer chosen and paid for by his mother, and testified that he had gone into the park carrying a 14-inch metal pipe—the same type of weapon that was used to bludgeon both a male schoolteacher and Ms. Meili.   

'Mr. Reyes’s confession changed none of this. He admitted being the man whose DNA had been left in the jogger’s body and on her clothing, but the two juries that heard those facts knew the main assailant in the rape had not been caught.

'The five were charged as accomplices, as persons “acting in concert” with each other and with the then-unknown man who raped the jogger, not as those who actually performed the act. 

'In their original confessions—later recanted—they admitted to grabbing her breasts and legs, and two of them admitted to climbing on top of her and simulating intercourse. Semen was found on the inside of their clothing, corroborating those confessions.

'Mr. Reyes’s confession, DNA match and claim that he acted alone required that the rape charges against the five be vacated. I agreed with that decision, and still do. 

'But the other charges, for crimes against other victims, should not have been vacated. Nothing Mr. Reyes said exonerated these five of those attacks. And there was certainly more than enough evidence to support those convictions of first-degree assault, robbery, riot and other charges.

'It is a wonderful thing that these five men have taken themselves to responsible positions and community respect. 

'That Ms. DuVernay ignored so much of the truth about the gang of 30 and about the suffering of their victims—and that her film includes so many falsehoods—is nonetheless an outrage.

'Ms. DuVernay does not define me, and her film does not speak the truth.

 

Why would you trust this film so much? The director looks like she has massive chips on her shoulders for a start.

As I say watch the police interview - it is only 29 mins long - come back and tell me you think he is innocent after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thplinth said:

Linda Fairstein's comments on it are I think fair. She agreed with the rape charges being vacated but says the other convictions should have stood.

Watch the police interview the lad admits to it all in front of his parents. They were in a large group running around CP tearing folk up and robbing.

The op ed in included in the DM article - the original in the WSJ has a pay wall.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7128615/Central-Park-Five-prosecutor-Linda-Fairstein-slams-Netflix-series-outright-fabrication.html

Why would you trust this film so much? The director looks like she has massive chips on her shoulders for a start.

As I say watch the police interview - it is only 29 mins long - come back and tell me you think he is innocent after that.

Innocent of rape or the other offences  ? ( I am not sure which so will assume it is the other offences ) 

 I don't think anyone really believes the boys are as innocent as the programme presents, nor do I underestimate the pressure the police were under at that time to secure convictions for all the crimes that were taking place.  

I doubt any of them were angels and if they were involved in the other offences then they should have been charged for that,  but that does not make them rapists. 

This is a Netflix dramatisation  that is focusing on wrongful convictions for rape. There will be a lot of poetic licence for sure and they will be playing down everything else that went on that night.   I doubt there would be as much sympathy for the boys  if they were  portraying them as criminals , albeit for lesser offences.    

The interview you posted was that of Antron McCray. In the ‘When they see us’ dramatisation his parents were in the interview , his dad had encouraged  him to be interviewed and tell the police what they wanted to as they were led to believe it would get him released and home. 

Antron was offered a lawyer in the video , why would his parents not accept this if they thought he going to be accused of rape ?  Is it beyond the realms of possibility  he really could have been told he will get home if he goes along with a story ? We do not know what happened before or after the interview . There are thousands of hours of interrogation. 

Antron says they all thought the jogger was a man yet she was a tall leggy blonde with a ponytail.  He doesn't sound very convincing . The interviewer is almost putting words into his mouth in parts. 

He says they were all taking turns on top of the victim ( though he didnt penetrate) yet none of their DNA was found . The only conclusive DNA was of the guy who admitted it. 

Farstein has only very recently admitted the rape charges be vacated. In 2002 when the charges were overturned she  insisted they were guilty and that the guy who admitted to the rape ran in the same pack as the kids, that he had been with them that night  and he probably stayed on to rape her after the rest had gone. To my knowledge some of the boys didnt even know each other at the time of the rape,  never mind know the rapist.  

My take on the whole thing is that they were probably far from innocent and if so deserved punishment,  but instead were wrongfully convicted of rape. I still cannot understand why the police did not check the real rapists DNA when he was caught for multiple rapes only  4 months after the Central Park rape. After all the furore around the case ( the boys claiming they were innocent ) you would have thought the police would have cross checked his DNA since no DNA  was matched to the boys. Could they have known they would be crucified if it was found the boys had been wrongfully imprisoned ?  

I look forward to seeing you rip my Miss Marple conclusions to shreds 🙄

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Assault on Trisha Meili

Trisha Meili was going for a regular run in Central Park shortly before 9 p.m.[9][6] While jogging in the park, she was knocked down, dragged nearly 300 feet (91 m) off the roadway,[10] and violently assaulted.[4] She was raped and almost beaten to death.[11] About four hours later at 1:30 am, she was found naked, gagged, and tied, and covered in mud and blood, in a shallow ravine in a wooded area of the park about 300 feet north of the path called the 102nd Street Crossing.[4][11][7] The first policeman who saw her said: "She was beaten as badly as anybody I've ever seen beaten. She looked like she was tortured."[12]

Meili was comatose for 12 days. She suffered severe hypothermia, severe brain damage, severe hemorrhagic shock, loss of 75–80 percent of her blood, and internal bleeding.[13][14][15][16] Her skull had been fractured so badly that her left eye was dislodged from its socket, which in turn was fractured in 21 places, and she suffered as well from facial fractures.[13][14]

The initial medical prognosis was that Meili would die of her injuries.[13] She was given last rites.[11] Because of this, the police treated the attack as a probable homicide. Alternatively, doctors thought that she might remain in a permanent coma due to her injuries. She came out of her coma after 12 days. She was then treated for seven weeks in Metropolitan Hospital in East Harlem. When Meili first emerged from her coma, she was unable to talk, read, or walk.[14][11] In early June, Meili was transferred to Gaylord Hospital, a long-term acute care center in Wallingford, Connecticut, where she spent six months in rehabilitation.[13][17][15] She did not walk until mid-July 1989.[18] She returned to work eight months after the attack.[19] She largely recovered, with some lingering disabilities related to balance and loss of vision. As a result of the severe trauma, she had no memory of the attack or of any events up to an hour before the assault, nor of the six weeks following the attack.[18]

At a time of concerns about crime in general in the city, which was suffering high rates of assaults, rapes and homicides, these attacks provoked great outrage, particularly the brutal rape of the female jogger. It took place in the public park that is "mythologized as the city’s verdant, democratic refuge".[7] It was used by many different groups and individuals, and was central to New York's idea of itself as a city. Issues of race, class and gender were inflamed by the media, which emphasized the police theory of a gang attack of the female jogger. New York Governor Mario Cuomo told the New York Post: "This is the ultimate shriek of alarm."[20]

 

Quite honestly the rape was the least of the crimes that women suffered that night and that boy in the interview was up to his neck in all of it.

They saw her running the circuit and then waited in the bushes for her to circle back around. He then with his pals rushed her and participated in beating her to a pulp and then some other guy hanging with them rapes her while he does 'nothing' and you think that makes this cunt innocent of the rape... ehhh ok then.

Maybe had she not been smashed to bits before hand by this guy and his pals she could have avoided the rape. What do you think? Whatever you say this boy is not innocent in the rape of this women even if he did not rape her himself. To me that is like saying I only held her down while someone else raped her so that makes me innocent. FFS...

You ask about DNA. I guess you did not read what Coulter said in her article. I am not relying this stuff second hand. DNA testing was not there at that point. 5 years later it was still not there when they tried OJ Simpson.

The real crime was what happened to the people in the park and especially Trisha Meili .

Yet you seem to think this cunt getting collared wrongly for the rape is the real problem. I don't. You fly with the crows you are likely to get shot. Him and his scummy pals deserved every fucking minute of jail time and longer.

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to derail the thread but I'll just add this before I leave it. Here are the other victims of your boy and his gang that night.

Quote

 

Other victims and chronology


As identified by the Morgenthau report and The New York Times in a 2002 review of the case, these were:[6][4]

  • Michael Vigna, a competitive bike rider hassled about 9:05 pm by the group, one of whom tried to punch him.
  • Antonio Diaz, a 52-year-old man walking in the park near 105th Street, was knocked to the ground by teenagers about 9:15 pm, who stole his bag of food and bottle of beer. He was left unconscious but soon found by a policeman.
  • Gerald Malone and Patricia Dean, riding on a tandem bike, were attacked on East Drive south of 102nd Street about 9:15 pm by boys who tried to stop them and grab Dean; the couple called police after reaching a call box.

The remaining victims were attacked by members of the large group while jogging near the reservoir:

  • David Lewis, banker, attacked and robbed about 9:25–9:40
  • Robert Garner, attacked about 9:30 pm.
  • David Good, attacked about 9:47 pm.
  • John Loughlin, 40-year-old teacher, severely beaten and kicked about 9:40–9:50 pm near the reservoir and left unconscious. He was also robbed of a Walkman and other items.

 

So what do you think would have happened to Patricia Dean had she not been able to get away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

Quite honestly the rape was the least of the crimes that women suffered that night and that boy in the interview was up to his neck in all of it.

They saw her running the circuit and then waited in the bushes for her to circle back around. He then with his pals rushed her and participated in beating her to a pulp and then some other guy hanging with them rapes her while he does 'nothing' and you think that makes this cunt innocent of the rape... ehhh ok then.

 

For avoidance of doubt when I use the word ‘rape’ it covers the violence that goes with it, not just the act itself. I would also suggest that no woman would ever describe being raped as ‘ the least of the crimes’ . 

I said I wasn't convinced he was telling the truth in the interview, by that I meant I am not convinced he was involved at all in the rape/ violent attack on the jogger. The other offences I was referring to were the other attacks that took place that night ( which you detailed)  not the other violent injuries to the jogger.  Of course I wouldnt think he was innocent if he was involved in every aspect of the attack apart from the act of rape itself. 

 Is there any reason you are focusing on this particular boy and not the other 4 ?

4 hours ago, thplinth said:

 

You ask about DNA. I guess you did not read what Coulter said in her article. I am not relying this stuff second hand. DNA testing was not there at that point. 5 years later it was still not there when they tried OJ Simpson.

The real crime was what happened to the people in the park and especially Trisha Meili .

Yet you seem to think this cunt getting collared wrongly for the rape is the real problem. I don't. You fly with the crows you are likely to get shot. Him and his scummy pals deserved every fucking minute of jail time and longer.

 I read what Coulter said, why should I believe what she is saying  ?  I have read 58 pages of the motion to vacate the conviction and , IMO, there are sufficient  grounds for reasonable doubt that they were involved. Whether we like it or not is this not what the law is about? 

Neither of us know for sure , only those 5 men know. If they are guilty then I hope Scotty is correct and they burn in hell forever. It was an atrocious crime. 

Here is the motion, though I suspect you have read it.  

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/c7ba1e71-fc62-4169-a008-bcc8938ff808/note/6e97303c-37a7-44b2-aa42-c0992729cdee.pdf#page=1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, thplinth said:

I don't want to derail the thread but I'll just add this before I leave it. Here are the other victims of your boy and his gang that night.

So what do you think would have happened to Patricia Dean had she not been able to get away?

My boy and his gang? 😕

I assume this was a rhetorical question . 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TDYER63 said:

For avoidance of doubt when I use the word ‘rape’ it covers the violence that goes with it, not just the act itself. I would also suggest that no woman would ever describe being raped as ‘ the least of the crimes’ . 

I am glad you have remembered you are a woman. I was starting to wonder if I was the only one between us who gave a shit about what happened to the real victim in all of this. Maybe fight her cause before taking up the one of this piece of shit who pulverized her to the point the plastic surgeon who rebuilt her face who said it was the worst case he had ever seen.

I am talking about this one of the five because that is the police interview I am able to link to and watch. Post the other police interviews if you can find them...

You seem unwilling to acknowledge a single thing he says in the interview that is incriminating despite his interview being massively damning.

You say...

"I said I wasn't convinced he was telling the truth in the interview, by that I meant I am not convinced he was involved at all in the rape/ violent attack on the jogger. "

The rape ok but are you honestly saying you do not think he violently attacked the jogger?!

Why should you believe Coulter? Because maybe in this instance she is correct.

TIME say the same thing in their brief history of DNA testing...

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1905706,00.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...