They are guilty of rape. They know it. I know it. You know it. If I see them on a street, I will spit before them and I will shout, "Rapists!".
I applaud the young woman for her incredible courage that she managed to summon to go to trial, to withstand trial for two years, to withstand millions of hurtful, misogynistic, inhumane comments in online media, and to confront her rapist. She is one tough cookie, no doubt, and I hope she gives herself all due credit. I believe that she will get better and will do good for herself.
Our jury system is flawed. It must be altered.
MORENO AND MATA ARE RAPISTS. What they did changed them, separated them from other people, they are not one of us anymore (see Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment") and it will haunt them forever.

As for this experiment and the writing, I think people hold a general
misconception that writers other than journalists just sit down and type
away. Most writers do a considerable amount of research and
investigation. This piece is neither pure memoir nor pure journalism nor
fiction based on a true story. Sometimes writing blurs the distinctions
into which we try to pigeon-hole it. If you absolutely must call this writing
something, I'd slap it with a label like "Investigative Memoir" or I
would have subtitled it "A Juror's Memoir and A Journalistic
Investigation of Jury Proceedings", thus recognizing and making clear to
the audience the dual nature of the piece.  This is more than a news
article and deserves payment if properly presented for what it is. It is
an interesting concept and perspective unworthy of a full-length book
and worthy of more than a few pages. This is not a book about the
verdict or even if the jury came to the correct one or not. It is a
glimpse inside the workings of one jury on one case in the context of
well-researched facts so far as what was made readily available.

I haven't read the piece yet (just downloaded it), but a comment on format:

Please, next time you do this, don't double-space the pdf.

There's a reason that magazines and books aren't printed double-spaced; it's not as attractive. Plus, it means that I have to scroll twice as much as I would if you printed this single-spaced.

The pdf should be designed to be as attractive as a book or magazine article. I'm not saying that you need to spend money on illustrations all over it or anything -- but double-spacing is just plain ugly.

We're working to re-paginate the PDF.  This is our first time doing it!  The Amazon and Kindle versions are properly spaced.

Thanks! If it's been re-paginated, could I please get a new copy of it? (I paid for and downloaded the original, double-spaced version.)

It is easy to judge and blame the jurors in this case for not voting "NOT GUILTY" (aka: "the public's opinion" - which was flamed by the tabloids, as usual).  I truly feel for the jurors: for taking criticism from co-workers to reporters getting their phone numbers off the Internet (privacy, anyone?) and stalking them outside their apartments (again: privacy, anyone?).  That is something I never want, nor do I wish that on anyone either.  I also agree with the author that, God forbid, I am ever on trial I hope a jury can look at my case in the manner that they did.

With that said, I really enjoyed this piece.  I enjoyed the style, the pacing, the flashbacks, the structure, the descriptions and the dialogue.   I found this to be a very real, compelling and honest account of what happened throughout the deliberation and beyond.  It was quite gripping.  I kept wanting to read it - it was very addictive.  It is rare for me to read something that takes me on a journey inside a court case or jury and take a look at what went on.  Yet, I picked this up on the suggestion of my wife and I found myself hooked.  I kept wanting more. There were times this piece reminded me of 12 Angry Men - it had that same level of excitement, with me wondering what would happen next.  And, even though I knew what would happen, it was still exciting getting there and going along for the ride.  That is a testament to the piece itself, which I think could make a compelling film.  I would pay to watch this if it were ever produced.

It is easy to judge and blame the jurors in this case for not voting "NOT GUILTY" (aka: "the public's opinion" - which was flamed by the tabloids, as usual).  I truly feel for the jurors: for taking criticism from co-workers to reporters getting their phone numbers off the Internet (privacy, anyone?) and stalking them outside their apartments (again: privacy, anyone?).  That is something I never want, nor do I wish that on anyone either.  I also agree with the author that, God forbid, I am ever on trial I hope a jury can look at my case in the manner that they did.

With that said, I really enjoyed this piece.  I enjoyed the style, the pacing, the flashbacks, the structure, the descriptions and the dialogue.   I found this to be a very real, compelling and honest account of what happened throughout the deliberation and beyond.  It was quite gripping.  I kept wanting to read it - it was very addictive.  It is rare for me to read something that takes me on a journey inside a court case or jury and take a look at what went on.  Yet, I picked this up on the suggestion of my wife and I found myself hooked.  I kept wanting more. There were times this piece reminded me of 12 Angry Men - it had that same level of excitement, with me wondering what would happen next.  And, even though I knew what would happen, it was still exciting getting there and going along for the ride.  That is a testament to the piece itself, which I think could make a compelling film.  I would pay to watch this if it were ever produced.

Disgusting.  The author and Gothamist should be ashamed of themselves.  NOTHING excuses or explains this verdict.  Everyone on that jury knows those cops raped that woman, just as everyone in the city knows it.  The stories of the cops do not add up, they were caught in lies, they were not believable witnesses, THE GUY ADMITTED TO IT.  This blind assumption that "no DNA, can't convict" is *wrong* and the best evidence for why a "jury of your peers" all too often translates into "the stupidest people the defense can get past the prosecution."  The jury knows it, which is why so many of them are trying to justify their verdict via the media (Melissa Hernandez, et al.).  They know deep down they let two rapists off the hook.  SHAME ON YOU.  I refuse to pay money to further this money-grubbing excuse for journalism, just as I will never pay money to see any movie of Roman Polanski's.

One reason the victim's lawyer refused your interview is because--and this is something that a privileged person who will never, ever have to worry about getting raped cannot understand--is how profoundly offensive and infuriating it is to have your tragedy be reduced to "he said, she said."  Victims of rape are constantly being pushed into that "hey, two sides to every story" corner.  She doesn't want to be "the other side of the story."  Because there is no other side.  She. Was. Raped.  There is no other side.  Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata are rapists.  Thank God the public saw through their lies.  Thank God their own *neighbors* put up those posters shaming them on the streets of Brooklyn.  Thank God the NYPD fired their raping asses and yanked their pensions.  Those jurors will never have the respectability they obviously crave--as soon as they reveal they served on that jury, they will be shunned.

Jurors are bound by the instructions of the court and must set personal feelings aside. A juror explaining how the process worked and why something happened does not mean that the juror did or didn't believe in the man's innocence. Thankfully, when justice fails in one area, it is often carried out in another. I don't believe every shred of evidence and argument is available to the public, so I don't feel justified in casting my verdict. However based ONLY on my understanding of the facts I DO know, I would not be lead to acquit. Your response suggests you've been a victim too. Such events can be strong triggers. I pray you find serenity.

Obviously, you didn't read the entire piece - possibly only parts taken out of context.  However, before you make these accusations, you really should read it first.  This was not an article about the guilt or inocence of the cops or the "victim".  In fact, there was absolutely nothing in the entire piece that showded any disrespect to the young lady.  This article is the inside story of the PROCESS of trying to follow the law and the instruction of the judge through 25 counts.  It is extremely interesting how it shows that, in our system of justice, you ARE innocent until proven guilty, and how, in this case, the jurors just couldn't get there beyond a reasonable doubt.  Whether you believe they are guilty or not, we do have laws that a jury must follow - and that's the story of this article.  It is not to justify or deny they are guilty - they just couldn't do it without the law of reasonable doubt. It is an amazing story and well worth the $1.99 to read it.  It may give you and others information about our jury system that you didn't know.

It is people like you why we have juries who rule with the pretense of "reasonable doubt." God forbid mob rule determines a person's guilt, or then we're all effed up.

I agree with you, I believe those cops did it.  Though what we believe based on what we read and what is provable guilt in a court room are different things.  The defense was able to poke a lot of holes in the DA's arguments that created a lot of doubt in terms of what constituted establishing what exactly happened in that apartment, apart from something seriously wrong happening there.  Sadly a good defense lawyer was able to exploit rules that exist to prevent the falsely accused from being railroaded.  You can't just change those rules for everyone just because an awful few slip through them.   An acquittal does not equate innocence here.
As for the admission you pointed out, the problem was that was an admission gained through coercion and therefore another example of doubt cast on the DA's argument.  Look at it this way, no confession gained by a cop, who questioned a suspect, who denies something 20 times and then finally admits it on the 21st time, would even be admissible in a trial.  It's a coerced confession.  The judge helped the DA by allowing it to be admitted and they still failed to make their case.   A jury is not supposed to compensate for a bad DA and fill in those gaps that they failed to.  The DA failed to translate what we all sensed from the accounts into provable guilt.

Despite having been a victim more than once, I stand by our justice system in general but something is lacking in the system when a victim in circumstances like this cannot prove she was violated. On the flip side, I've also been falsely accused of things. It didn't involve a legal issue, but doubt was cast on my credibility, professionalism and integrity - things I esteem. Someone in my workplace had repeatedly lied about me, but I didn't know who. I found out the likely culprit later and the likely motivation (religious prejudice, you might say), but at the time I quit because I couldn't bear the stress of feeling like I was walking on egg shells, afraid at any moment I'd be fired for something wholly untrue. Nothing run by imperfect people can be perfect. My heart goes out to any and all victims in this case and all like them.

And I totally agree with you.  She admitted she didn't even read the piece.  This article is not about guilt or innocence of the cops.  It is the story of the PROCESS that the jury went through for 25 counts and our system of laws that require the jury find without a reasonable doubt.   I thought it was an amazing story and  I wish more people would read the article before they bash the author.

I've been reading Mr Kirkland's account with great interest! I'm very glad he wrote it and that is has been distributed in this way.

I have to say I *really* have trouble getting past the question of consent, and even after reading about these discussions I feel very troubled about the ultimate verdict. It's a catch-22 for the victim: she was too drunk to remember what happened, and so can't be a very credible witness. BUT drunk people can't legally give consent.

It's amazing to think that anyone reports being raped at all!

Sooooooooooooooo true. Assaulted more than once; saw no way to prove my word against the perpetrator's and while violated, I wasn't penetrated (leaving no solid physical evidence) in the two cases in which I had the emotional fortitude to press charges. Even with evidence, the victim is usually blamed somehow. In my case..."Why did you put yourself in a dangerous situation like that? You should have known better." Of that particular situation, I went alone to a man's house to provide a clothed bodywork treatment and guidance in effective stretching. The perpetrator was known to me (for months) and was a person in a perceived position of authority who bore an air of trust-worthiness by reputation.

That is terrible, I am sorry IM_js.

I appreciate the empathy. In this United States, 1 in 4 women is sexually assaulted at least once in her lifetime. One in six women is assaulted before the age of 25 and is sexually assaulted more than once. Remarkably, 1 in 8 men are sexually assaulted at least once in their life. (Sadly, the numbers are even higher in many other countries.) In all cases though, the perpetrator is most often a heterosexual male.[I'm reporting this from memory, but, please, anyone, feel free to provide a citation of current statistics if you want.]

Sexual assault is driven to some extent by lust, but the primary motivator is control - not so often to gain control over a particular person but over any person, i.e. to feel "in control and powerful". Sexual assault becomes a particularly effective tool for doing so because the taboo nature of sex does much to naturally enforce silence. A perpetrator revels in his private mastery of someone's spirit, but besides wanting to avoid prosecution, is often fearful that others would know his need to exert power in order to feel in control. That insight I gained from my experience as co-leader for a recovery group of male domestic violence abusers (many of whom had committed marital rape). I think it is transferable to the larger population.   

I remember a few years ago there was a spate of scholarly papers & other writings being offered online & through Amazon for $6.99 to about $50 bucks or more.  I'm not sure this is the best way to go.

As for juries, there is far too much interference by judges & lawyers causing jury nullification.  

Maybe juries should be divided into smaller groups and take a cumulative, blind vote. With professional moderators. Justice via a dysfunctional family of strangers is a scary proposition.

Cops should be kept on a tighter leash while on duty. They shouldn't have time for this shit. Deriliction of duty and fraternizing with those you respond to while they are drunk should be really, really heavy charges in their own right - not just cooking the books. 

People should keep their emotions in check if they ultimately want to equip society with the tools to seek better justice and prevent future rapes. Just imagine if feminism wasn't increasingly trapped up in an ivory tower. Attack the merits of the account, but don't accuse it of being apologetic of rape. Its too humble and full of self doubt for that. 

Gothamist shouldn't censor featured content- it becomes a partial paywall, a half-job NYT, a tabloid without the comments...and those media's are all dying. People read Gothamist because of the comments, why take that away? "That's right, defend rape apoligists. You f********** scumbag"
@google-a4e7f93e5a1de66a29b61b6e1181dc82:disqus  4:16 PM was the only thing that pissed me off enough to actually get to the most informative part of the article.