Does response 1 answer the question 1. What arguments would you make if one of the males now says he had nothing to do with the alleged crime, and another man confessed? Use concepts from chapter 2 and explain your discussion statements. If one of the defendants in the Central Park 5 case came forward and stated that he had nothing to do with the rape of the jogger on the night of April 19, 1989, I would present a couple of arguments to this individual. The first thing I would ask is, 'Why would you confess to such a brutal crime if you did not commit it?' Confessing to a first-degree offense is serious and can ruin your entire life, so why would you do that if you were innocent? Additionally, this case involves transferred intent; the boys entered the park intending to harass and assault others, but I don't believe they collectively intended to rape a female jogger. Another argument that applies here is the 'but for' rule. If those forty young individuals hadn't decided to go into the park and rough up random people, the harm to the jogger would never have occurred. A further argument is one of causation. We can use proximate cause to analyze the events in this case: if the boys hadn't gone into Central Park and caused chaos, the chain of events that led to multiple people, including the female jogger, being viciously attacked would not have unfolded