|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
5th January 2016, 07:32 PM | #121 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
5th January 2016, 07:37 PM | #122 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Again I am not on a jury.
I am not saying Avery is guilty because a body was found burned on the property. I am asking YOU how that body got there? Saying 'you don't know" isn't good enough. The obvious evidence points to the fact that he is guilty. There was corruption by the police force. However a jury can come to the conclusion of reasonable doubt even with that evidence. Only if this was an expose type of situation where the jury DID NOT KNOW that the evidence was suspected of being planted, should this conviction be overturned. They did know. So the conviction is valid. I've watched several jury discussions before. Many times they say in the jury room they set aside evidence that the prosecution thinks is very compelling. For example, they disregard the testimony of an eye witness. And then they come to the conclusion. There are four pieces of compelling evidence in this case A. The body B. That it was burned on his property and he was there when that happened. C. That he was the last person to see her alive D. The way he called the phone. As I stated earlier, sometimes juries will use the smallest piece of evidence to conclude that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the question I"m asking you is why you think the conviction should be overturned? Corruption in the cops? Yeah they told them all that. They convicted him anyway because he's very obviously guilty. If you don't think he's guilty then please explain the evidence above that has nothing to do with the police corruption. |
5th January 2016, 07:46 PM | #123 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
The problem with these frame-up cases is the amount of people who would have to be involved for it to be a complete set up. I think TrueThat is thinking along the correct lines when she states he probably did it but there's also probably some planted evidence, especially with regard to that key.
I saw the Netflix series, but I really need to read the trial transcripts to be well versed enough to commit to a theory. The series was so slanted it would be nonsensical to formulate theories based solely on that. The things we know as facts are the last time Halbach was seen alive was on Avery's property and her vehicle and bone fragments were discovered on his property. That alone is damning, but there are also many unanswered questions remaining. |
5th January 2016, 07:50 PM | #124 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
|
5th January 2016, 07:56 PM | #125 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
5th January 2016, 07:57 PM | #126 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Isn't good enough for what?
How does me not knowing in any way bolster your argument?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
B. I'm not aware that this is true. Can you provide a citation that establishes Avery was actually on the premises when the body was burned? C. I'm don't see how that points to guilt. D. They were engaged in a legitimate business transaction. I don't see why calling her is suspicious, and I certainly don't see how it is evidence of murder.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe you can explain how you can acknowledge that the police who handled this investigation were corrupt, but at the same time place faith in the evidence their investigation provided. |
5th January 2016, 08:00 PM | #127 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
|
5th January 2016, 08:03 PM | #128 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
I don't think it was a complete set up. I think it was a couple of bad actors manipulating the investigation towards someone they believed was guilty.
I don't see why it would have to be more than two people: Lenk and Colburn. Everyone else was just going along with a narrative they didn't try too hard to disbelieve. |
5th January 2016, 08:05 PM | #129 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Because my interpretation is based on Steven Avery's own statements. Like I said, go watch the interrogation. (You know the one you blithely dismissed as the statements of an innocent man.)
When they ask him questions and he's pushing the idea that the cops planted evidence which he asserts about everything, he is less precise when it's something the cops didn't do. (In my opinion) For example he's less precise about the placement of the car. He put the car there. So he's not going to say too much about it. The answers are vague with many different options etc. But he's firm, short answers and precise about the blood in the car. "They planted it, they have lots of my blood" Not...... maybe this and maybe that happened. The same with the key and the DNA on it. When he knows they planted it he's confident in the way he makes his statements. He's telling the truth. He knows they are lying because he knows what happened. I posted this before and asked you to consider it. I'm sure you didn't go back and watch his interrogations. You just dismissed it outright as me saying he's a "creepy guy." No. It's interesting to watch the interrogation. |
5th January 2016, 08:06 PM | #130 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
I think people reading this would know I was referring to Avery's trailer. I've mentioned this earlier. But whatever. Do you think these simpletons forensically cleaned up the bedroom, where the prosecution insists the sexual assault and stabbing happened (later in the trial they claimed the actual killing happened in the garage, curiously) in such a complete way that not a scrap of DNA was found despite extensive searching?
This alone doesn't prove innocence, but, with other evidence and lack of such I believe there is ample reason for reasonable doubt. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
5th January 2016, 08:08 PM | #131 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
5th January 2016, 08:17 PM | #132 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Well FWIW I didn't read this thread from the beginning. I started at the next to last page figuring that would be enough for me to get on board with what was being discussed. I probably missed the previous mention of the trailer.
No, I don't think these dolts would be able to clean up an inside murder scene in a bedroom if the murder happened there. On the other hand, I'm not sure we know exactly where the murder took place. My money is on either the garage or outside somewhere. |
5th January 2016, 08:23 PM | #133 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
5th January 2016, 08:43 PM | #134 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
|
5th January 2016, 08:49 PM | #135 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
The reason I asked is that the police and prosecution made it clear that the sexual assault and the stabbing at least occurred in Avery's bedroom. There should have been DNA everywhere.
If you want to ignore me that's fine. I have not and will not personally attack you. I will question your posts though if I see fit and if it's on topic. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
5th January 2016, 09:03 PM | #136 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
I speculate he may have used a sweaty shirt to wipe everything down. As he wiped, it got bloody, and transferred some of that blood.
Originally Posted by bobdroege7
The problem of course is simple: if the cops planted or tampered with even one shred of evidence, they may have planted -or tampered with- any part of, or even all of the evidence. So while they may have *known* for a fact he was guilty, if they weren't able to prove the case without tampering, then they either weren't very good investigators or just really didn't care if he was convicted or not. Of course, if they did not have any idea who did it, but used fabricated evidence to build any case for any reason, they need to lose their jobs immediately. Either way, the conviction is tainted. I don't know enough about the law to say if it should be overturned, or if another court should investigate, but I do believe it warrants a closer, impartial look. |
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499 “She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One |
|
5th January 2016, 09:15 PM | #137 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Yes, but that doesn't mean it really did happen in the bedroom. I was under the impression that came from Brendan's interview when they made him draw her chained to the bed. They fed that to him. I was operating under the assumption it did not occur in there because I don't believe it did. There certainly would have been forensic evidence had a bloody murder occurred in a bedroom.
|
5th January 2016, 09:21 PM | #138 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
5th January 2016, 09:38 PM | #139 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Yes, it raises huge doubt... for Dassey. I believe the way he was interviewed was a travesty. Both by the detectives interviewing him and pushing him to give them the answers they wanted and also by Dassey's lawyer who let the kid be interviewed without the lawyer present because... wait for it... he had a National Guard exercise the next day and it was 8:45 at night when he got the call. He just couldn't go there to be present with his client on the evening before his National Guard obligation.
I have less sympathy for Avery, but I haven't read his trial transcripts so I am not sure one way or the other. |
6th January 2016, 12:27 AM | #140 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
6th January 2016, 12:32 AM | #141 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
6th January 2016, 12:33 AM | #142 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
6th January 2016, 12:49 AM | #143 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Agreed. If it happened as the prosecution said it did, and he spent days cleaning up the house and the garage, why not spend a few more minutes cleaning the car, getting rid of the stuff in the burn barrels and burying the ashes/bones from the fire pit.
I know criminals often trip up over one little detail or three, but those are some pretty big "details" for a guy who was supposedly capable of being so thorough. |
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499 “She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One |
|
6th January 2016, 12:51 AM | #144 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
6th January 2016, 12:54 AM | #145 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,741
|
Seconded, A great point. I'm really trying believe here.
|
6th January 2016, 01:00 AM | #146 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
6th January 2016, 01:03 AM | #147 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,741
|
Why would he buy leg Irons though? That seems very strange. He says it was for his girlfriend, but I'm not sure I buy that.
|
6th January 2016, 02:17 AM | #148 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
I think we all agree that Dassey's version of what happened is contrived. I feel sorry for that kid.
I agree that it happened outside. I rewatched that part yesterday and I was interested in how the documentary hovered on that scene with the Defense confronting the man. You could tell that the cop on the stand was not "squirming awkwardly" he said he called in the plates because they had been given to him by the other cop about the missing woman. But it seemed like through the whole defense his attorneys were acting like they were dropping "bombshells" that would sway the jury. The jury heard it all and they didn't buy into it. This is why it's a fair conviction IMO the jury heard the defenses position that the entire thing was a set up. They didn't believe it. It doesn't mean that they believed all of it, but they tried to play the whole thing as a set up because it's the only thing they could do. I am more curious why the key and the blood were allowed in as evidence. |
6th January 2016, 02:49 AM | #149 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
This is a great question! And why I encourage you to set aside the police set up, the fake confession and just look at the evidence.
I don't think I'd be able to make a conviction myself just based on the police set up. It'd be a mistrial. However, if I had to either convict him or let him go free, I'd convict. I can see that the reason he was set up was that they knew he did it. Maybe, the cops considered him the scum of the earth all along (including the first conviction) and took it like "Let's get this guy off the streets" and they frame him for the first attack. Then he gets out and does what they thought he would do all along. So when he kills someone they say "Let's make sure this time he can't get out of it, DNA got him out last time, so let's make sure there's lots of DNA" So he's not "Framed" per se, but they plant extra evidence to ensure a conviction. Then they get busted for it. A jury has the ability to see it for what it was. Some would argue that he should walk because of this. Others would say that you should punish the cops but not let him walk. It's an interesting discussion. |
6th January 2016, 04:59 AM | #150 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
Me too! I mean, to vote not guilty would be tantamount to saying you believed the cops planted evidence. And one of those cops just told you that it would be easier to kill someone than to plant evidence! So if I'm going to go on record as saying they already did the difficult thing of planting evidence, what's to stop them doing the comparatively easy thing of killing me?
Kratz told the jury that if they vote not guilty, they have to believe the police are capable of murder. That's quite the threat! |
6th January 2016, 06:04 AM | #151 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
That's actually an interesting point. Are people expecting us to believe that in order to frame him, they killed an innocent person and set to work planting evidence all over his property on the hope that he would get convicted as opposed to ........just killing him. He works in a junk yard. How hard would it have been for a couple of cops to have just shot him up with a heroin overdose and called him a junky who blew his chance at freedom by doing heroin. Or just tossed him in the automobile crusher and called it a tragic accident. It'd end the lawsuit pretty much and end the story. The idea that they killed her and burned her body and planted it on his property to get a conviction, instead of just killing him is absurd. |
6th January 2016, 07:53 AM | #152 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
|
|
6th January 2016, 07:58 AM | #153 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
So they found a dead body that just happened to be connected to him and mutilated the body and dumped her on his land?
|
6th January 2016, 07:58 AM | #154 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,693
|
How many times did they search the trailer before they found the key?
|
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug Graduate of a liberal arts college! Faster play faster faster play faster |
|
6th January 2016, 08:06 AM | #155 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
|
|
6th January 2016, 08:15 AM | #156 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
|
6th January 2016, 08:15 AM | #157 |
Quixoticist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 5,480
|
We'll never know who else might've killed her, because the investigation began and ended with Avery. Anyone could've followed her to the junk yard and killed her, or known she'd be there and intercepted her when she left, or even simply saw her leaving.
Due to the poor performance of the police and prosecution, the killer of Halbach will most likely never be discovered. If it was in fact Avery who killed her, the evidence has been so badly tainted that it should be thrown out. In any case, it's a huge failure. |
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde |
|
6th January 2016, 08:50 AM | #158 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Someday girl covered this in a previous post.
|
6th January 2016, 09:03 AM | #159 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
6th January 2016, 09:06 AM | #160 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
And this is exactly the point.
Above and beyond any malice or malfeasance, had the police actually done their jobs and eliminated other plausible suspects - like the ex-boyfriend, like Brendan Massey's stepfather and older brother - it would be that much easier for me to believe Avery did it. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|