ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


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.
Tags "Making a Murderer" , Brendan Dassey , documentaries , murder cases , Steven Avery , Teresa Halbach , tv shows

Reply
Old 7th January 2016, 04:26 PM   #361
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You have to be joking. Firstly JTF says the murderer of Halbach is a psychopath. How does this follow? There's no evidence that she was murdered at all. It could have been an accident, disease, who knows. Even if she was murdered, why did it have to be by a psychopath, which has a specific definition. Most murders are committed by non-psychopaths.

Not satisfied with the gross logical error, he doubles down by concluding that if you believe Avery did it, he is a psychopath, and the usual laws of evidence, motive and so on can safely be thrown out, because JTF just knows. It's not only circular it's ridiculous.

And I know about "common sense" is. It's what people use as a smokescreen when they have no evidence or rational basis for their beliefs. Common sense is ********.

That's not what he's saying. Sheesh he's already explained it two times AND pointed out that I'm interpreting him correctly and you are not.

Stop insulting people because you don't understand what they are saying.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 05:17 PM   #362
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,711
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Avery was clearly obsessed with Halbach, he lured her to his residence, and fulfilled his sick fantasies by raping, torturing, and killing her in cold blood.
I don't think that has been demonstrated in any way. The evidence for this obsession is that he asked for her to return to his premises to photograph a car as she had done before, and that he phoned her when she didn't arrive on time. Is there anything else?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 05:19 PM   #363
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,571
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You have to be joking. Firstly JTF says the murderer of Halbach is a psychopath. How does this follow? There's no evidence that she was murdered at all. It could have been an accident, disease, who knows. Even if she was murdered, why did it have to be by a psychopath, which has a specific definition. Most murders are committed by non-psychopaths.
Is this a technical objection? I mean, to resolve it would you want a death certificate that said, under manner of death, "homicide?"

It seems to me that if someone (actually two someones) was convicted of her murder, then she would, ipso facto, have been murdered.

And, if two murder trials wouldn't convince you there was a murder, a death certificate probably wouldn't either. I'm kinda wondering what would. Surely, any diagnosis of homicide would suffer the same nagging doubts about faked evidence/malfeasance.

Your ability to doubt exceeds mine.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 05:43 PM   #364
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Is this a technical objection? I mean, to resolve it would you want a death certificate that said, under manner of death, "homicide?"

It seems to me that if someone (actually two someones) was convicted of her murder, then she would, ipso facto, have been murdered.

And, if two murder trials wouldn't convince you there was a murder, a death certificate probably wouldn't either. I'm kinda wondering what would. Surely, any diagnosis of homicide would suffer the same nagging doubts about faked evidence/malfeasance.

Your ability to doubt exceeds mine.
Where was the cause of her death proven beyond reasonable doubt? As I said, there was absolutely no physical evidence of Haibach ever being in the bedroom or the garage. That's the basis of my doubt.

But even if you assume murder there is the burden of proof on the prosecution. For reasons already stated, I don't believe that the prosecution proved Avery guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The arguably biased jury nevertheless accepted evidence which was clearly tainted in my view.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 05:48 PM   #365
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Is this a technical objection? I mean, to resolve it would you want a death certificate that said, under manner of death, "homicide?"

It seems to me that if someone (actually two someones) was convicted of her murder, then she would, ipso facto, have been murdered.

And, if two murder trials wouldn't convince you there was a murder, a death certificate probably wouldn't either. I'm kinda wondering what would. Surely, any diagnosis of homicide would suffer the same nagging doubts about faked evidence/malfeasance.

Your ability to doubt exceeds mine.
To your latter point, I'm not accustomed to looking for trials so I can say "look, look, miscarriage of justice, conspiracy..."I'm naturally inclined to accept that prosecutions and trials are carried out in good faith. Those involved in this case, and the way it has been handled by police and prosecution means I have abandoned my natural inclination.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 06:05 PM   #366
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
Desperation

LK: No offense, but IMO, your recent posts smell of desperation. Prime example is your claim that "there's no evidence that she was murdered at all." Where to begin? I'll give the floor to one of the two forensic anthropologists assigned to this case who concluded that Teresa Halbach's body showed signs of mutilation. The other forensic anthropologist concluded that bevelling in the skull fragment sourced to Teresa Halbach was caused by a bullet.

Considering that you continue to incorrectly interpret a singular talking point in one of my posts, I hesitate to interpret your latest train of thought, but I'll give it try. You claim that Teresa could have died of natural causes and that unnamed conspirators mutilated and burned her body. Your addendum to that thought process is that stripping, mutilating, and burning another human being does not mean that the perp is a psychopath.

Wow. If you want to fight fact with fantasy narratives, be my guest, but the evidence convinced law enforcement, a jury, and a Circuit Court that Steven Avery murdered Teresa Halbach.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 06:10 PM   #367
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
LK: No offense, but IMO, your recent posts smell of desperation. Prime example is your claim that "there's no evidence that she was murdered at all." Where to begin? I'll give the floor to one of the two forensic anthropologists assigned to this case who concluded that Teresa Halbach's body showed signs of mutilation. The other forensic anthropologist concluded that bevelling in the skull fragment sourced to Teresa Halbach was caused by a bullet.

Considering that you continue to incorrectly interpret a singular talking point in one of my posts, I hesitate to interpret your latest train of thought, but I'll give it try. You claim that Teresa could have died of natural causes and that unnamed conspirators mutilated and burned her body. Your addendum to that thought process is that stripping, mutilating, and burning another human being does not mean that the perp is a psychopath.

Wow. If you want to fight fact with fantasy narratives, be my guest, but the evidence convinced law enforcement, a jury, and a Circuit Court that Steven Avery murdered Teresa Halbach.
Be prepared for a game of semantics now. Plus the tag team game of "broad generalizations" juxtaposed with "specific semantics.'

So for example "Most murders are not committed by psychopaths." (Yeah but we're not talking about most murders which are usually crimes of passion among family members) will then be debated along side "Define Psychopaths!" And then a spin off into psychology.

In the end it will come down to the same point. You my friend are wrong wrong wrong!!!


I could just see the same type of argument being made about a dead mutilated woman who had semen on her body. Those lacking common sense and common decency have very often argued that you can't really PROVE that she was raped. Maybe she consented to have sex with the guy? You can't really prove it!!!

It's creepy.


I think that what you are trying to say is that if he killed her, the manner in which he did, is something a psychopath would do, so attempting to find a rational "motive" in it, is a waste of time.

Last edited by truethat; 7th January 2016 at 06:13 PM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 06:52 PM   #368
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
LK: No offense, but IMO, your recent posts smell of desperation. Prime example is your claim that "there's no evidence that she was murdered at all." Where to begin? I'll give the floor to one of the two forensic anthropologists assigned to this case who concluded that Teresa Halbach's body showed signs of mutilation. The other forensic anthropologist concluded that bevelling in the skull fragment sourced to Teresa Halbach was caused by a bullet.

Considering that you continue to incorrectly interpret a singular talking point in one of my posts, I hesitate to interpret your latest train of thought, but I'll give it try. You claim that Teresa could have died of natural causes and that unnamed conspirators mutilated and burned her body. Your addendum to that thought process is that stripping, mutilating, and burning another human being does not mean that the perp is a psychopath.
That's all very interesting. Where has it been shown beyond reasonable doubt that Avery did all of these things? As has been pointed out repeatedly, he was even found not guilty of mutilating a corpse (or interfering with, I can't remember the exact wording).
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:08 PM   #369
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
No he wasn't found guilty. When you burn a body it just naturally collapses into piles of charred bones, so you're right. We can't really prove that he "mutilated" the body when he set the corpse on fire in a bunch of tires. He probably treated it very respectfully while he was burning it.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:25 PM   #370
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,868
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
....There's no evidence that she was murdered at all. It could have been an accident, disease, who knows.
.....
Without even seeing the show, I'm willing to conclude that someone whose body was found incinerated in a fire pit was murdered. She certainly didn't put herself there, and someone who discovers a body deceased of natural causes wouldn't ordinarily cremate it on the spot.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:30 PM   #371
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,571
I have just seen the first episode. My skeptical nose already smells a bit of an agenda on offer.

One thing I learned was that Avery had a 70 IQ. I'm not sure why it seems important, but it does.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:34 PM   #372
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Prime example is your claim that "there's no evidence that she was murdered at all." Where to begin? I'll give the floor to one of the two forensic anthropologists assigned to this case who concluded that Teresa Halbach's body showed signs of mutilation. The other forensic anthropologist concluded that bevelling in the skull fragment sourced to Teresa Halbach was caused by a bullet.
It was all the same forensic anthropologist, Leslie Eisenberg.

The evidence for mutilation? Must have been pretty convincing. Avery was acquitted on that charge.

The evidence for murder? Inconclusive. The beveling on the skull fragments indicated they were caused by a bullet. Eisenberg was unable to conclusively say whether or not it was the cause of death, admitting it may have happened post-mortem.

And while we're on the subject, here's some tidbits from the testimony:
Quote:
Dean Strang (defense attorney): Mr. Ertl, showing you exhibit number 160, can you identify that, please?

Leslie Eisenberg (forensic anthropologist): It's an email to and from Tom Fassbender and myself.

Strang: All right. And in this email, you state, "In regards to the burn pit, our involvement began with a request to use our sifting equipment. The scene had obviously been altered at that point." Is that right?

Eisenberg: Correct.

Strang: And then would you go on and read the next sentence, please?

Eisenberg: "Had we been working any of these scenes from start to finish, there would likely have been more thorough photo record done by us. However, under the circumstances, we were merely able to provide technical assistance rather than complete scene processing."

Strang: OK. More typically, if you're called to the scene to process potential evidence, you're able to do so from start to finish, right?

Eisenberg: I'd say in the majority of cases, when we arrive at the scene... we are given over control and we take the lead.

Strang: To your knowledge, did Ms. Fassbender call a forensic anthropologist out to the scene of the burn pit?

Eisenberg: Not to my knowledge.
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.o...?f=524&t=24360

So... inconclusive evidence taken from a compromised crime scene. What a shocker.

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 07:51 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:38 PM   #373
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by marplots View Post

One thing I learned was that Avery had a 70 IQ. I'm not sure why it seems important, but it does.
And Dassey has the same. It's not consistent with the forensic cleaning of the alleged crime scene. No fingerprints in the SUV yet a smudge of blood allegedly from Avery's cut finger. This level of attention to detail is simple not in Avery's make-up.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:38 PM   #374
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Without even seeing the show, I'm willing to conclude that someone whose body was found incinerated in a fire pit was murdered. She certainly didn't put herself there, and someone who discovers a body deceased of natural causes wouldn't ordinarily cremate it on the spot.
The theory would be the body was burned post-mortem by those seeking to frame Avery to hide the true cause of death, which might not have been murder.

Planting evidence and coercing confessions I can wrap my head around, but believing that someone would actually burn the body as part of a setup... it's just too awful to even consider.

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 07:40 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:43 PM   #375
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Some interesting information here:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ery-again.html

I recommend watching the imbedded interview with Kratz and Strang.

I particularly enjoyed the part where Kratz explained that his unethical behavior and abuse of power didn't occur until after the Avery trial and he's got that all under control now, so he's totally trustworthy.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:45 PM   #376
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Also, these "leg irons" everyone is going on about?

Not only were that not included in Avery's trial as evidence (they were used during Massey's trial), but this is them:

https://imgur.com/Yji2IKs

Note that unethical scumbag Ken Kratz didn't bother to mention they were of the playful fuzzy pink variety when whining to every available media outlet about all the devastating evidence the documentary left out.

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 07:49 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:52 PM   #377
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,868
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I have just seen the first episode. My skeptical nose already smells a bit of an agenda on offer.

One thing I learned was that Avery had a 70 IQ. I'm not sure why it seems important, but it does.
It's important in cases like this because such a person is easily manipulated, and often gets through life by trying to please others. It might make him willing to help commit murder, maybe without even fully understanding what he's doing; or it might make him eager to agree with whatever lines the cops feed him, especially if they intimidate or threaten him.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:53 PM   #378
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Without even seeing the show, I'm willing to conclude that someone whose body was found incinerated in a fire pit was murdered. She certainly didn't put herself there, and someone who discovers a body deceased of natural causes wouldn't ordinarily cremate it on the spot.
It's the how and the why of the murder that's critical. Halbach was allegedly raped and had her throat in the Avery's bedroom. And murdered in the garage. No physical evidence at all. It's the involvement of police who were told not to be involved. Police who framed Avery in the past and put him away for 18 years. It's the dubious propriety of two pieces of evidence, Halbach's keys which had Avery's DNA on it, but not hers, and the magic bullet which was contaminated with DNA from the lab, yet was still admitted despite of a 10% chance Avery's DNA reading was wrong. Both pieces of evidence found "suddenly" after days and days of searching in exactly the areas they were found.

Avery may very well have been the murderer. I don't care. You know the quote "better that 100 guilty men escape than one innocent suffer". It was an unsafe conviction supported by tainted evidence. That's why Avery should go free. It doesn't matter that he's a "creep"; it doesn't even matter if he did it.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 7th January 2016 at 07:55 PM.
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:54 PM   #379
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
It's important in cases like this because such a person is easily manipulated, and often gets through life by trying to please others. It might make him willing to help commit murder, maybe without even fully understanding what he's doing; or it might make him eager to agree with whatever lines the cops feed him, especially if they intimidate or threaten him.
Yes, and for everything I've said about Avery being freed, it goes tenfold for Dassey. The police behaviour in Dassey's interviews was shameful.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 08:14 PM   #380
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,144
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Also, these "leg irons" everyone is going on about?

Not only were that not included in Avery's trial as evidence (they were used during Massey's trial), but this is them:

https://imgur.com/Yji2IKs

Note that unethical scumbag Ken Kratz didn't bother to mention they were of the playful fuzzy pink variety when whining to every available media outlet about all the devastating evidence the documentary left out.
Sheesh, those chains don't look like they could hold anybody. Calling those "leg irons" is simply lying.
Modified is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 08:26 PM   #381
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 737
Lacking Merit

Claims are not evidence. Beliefs are not knowledge. Opinion is not fact. All of the arguments from Avery's supporters are classic examples of begging the question. For claims to have merit, they need to be supported by concrete evidence. The content from Avery's supporters consists entirely of speculation and inference based on dodgy assumptions. In the end, it's this type of nonsensical analysis that was rejected by the trial jury and the appellate courts.

Last edited by JTF; 7th January 2016 at 08:28 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 08:26 PM   #382
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,190
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
It's important in cases like this because such a person is easily manipulated, and often gets through life by trying to please others. It might make him willing to help commit murder, maybe without even fully understanding what he's doing; or it might make him eager to agree with whatever lines the cops feed him, especially if they intimidate or threaten him.

Yes, think of poor Gary Ridgway with an IQ of only 82. Look how he was molded by the cops to confess to the killing of 49 (confirmed so far) women...
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 08:27 PM   #383
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Johnny karate, I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.

From what I understood in the film they asked an outside investigator to come in when they were investigating Avery and they basically kicked him out of his house for several days to search it.

I know that they are saying that people are coming from the "same office" as the Police Officers that suddenly found the key. But is the exact same guys that were named in the lawsuit? Or is it just people from the same office.

Either way it is wrong, but if they allowed the exact people that he's suing onto the property then that is really crystal clear bias that no one should have a hard time understanding.

Was it the exact same officer who found the key? Or just someone from the same office?

I'm sorry I'm not clear on who is who.
Missed this post from earlier.

Avery was suing Manitowoc County. Named as individuals in that lawsuit were Manitowoc County Sheriff Thomas Kocourek and former District Attorney Denis Vogel.

Manitowoc County Sheriff's department officers Lenk and Colborn were not named in the lawsuit, despite my earlier claim that they were. They were merely deposed as part of the lawsuit, as they both played a role in Avery's 1985 wrongful conviction.

The documentary indicated that the county's insurer would deny coverage if Avery won the case (because Avery was alleging deliberate and intentional civil rights violations). This put the county on the hook for the entire $36 million if they lost, and the potential for Kocourek and Vogel to be held personally liable.

Aside from that, the lawsuit could possibly reveal evidence that reflected poorly on the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department. Already brought to light was the fact that Colborn took a call from another law enforcement agency in 1995 informing him they might have the wrong person in prison for the crime Avery was convicted. There was no indication any followup was performed by Colborn after receiving this call.

Because of the obvious conflict of interest this lawsuit presented, the investigation was handed over to Calumet County, and this is what Calumet County Sheriff Jerry Pagel said during a press conference:
Quote:
I want to emphasize that the investigation is being conducted by the Calumet County Sheriff's Department, the State of Wisconsin, Division of Criminal Investigation, and the FBI is also going to be assisting us. The Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department's role in this investigation was to provide resources for us when they were needed. As we needed items on the property to conduct searches, they provided that piece of equipment and that's their role and their only role in this investigation.
Despite this assurance, Manitowoc County officers were allowed to take part in the investigation time and time again, and were involved in the discovery of key pieces of evidence. Both Lenk and Colborn were involved in the multiple searches of Avery's trailer. It was Lenk who found the key after other multiple, fruitless searches. The bullet fragment was found after multiple, fruitless searches only after Lenk had been in the garage. Lenk was allowed access to Halbach's vehicle after it was discovered in the Avery salvage yard.

Once Avery was charged with Halbach's murder (which was just a few weeks after both Lenk and Colborn were deposed), he quickly settled for $400,000 to cover his legal fees.

Anyone else, please feel free to add details or correct any I might have gotten wrong.

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 08:36 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 08:52 PM   #384
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,571
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
(much snipped)
Once Avery was charged with Halbach's murder (which was just a few weeks after both Lenk and Colborn were deposed), he quickly settled for $400,000 to cover his legal fees.
This bit to me sounds critical to the case for malfeasance, tantamount to a "theory of the case." I would like to outline what I believe the claim to be:

1) Cops and county are sued.
2) The case is so strong against them that they will likely have to pay many millions of dollars if it goes to trial.
3) To get Avery to settle, they set him up for this crime.

Does that sound like the theory on offer, or is it too strawmannish?
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 09:11 PM   #385
Bob001
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,868
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Yes, think of poor Gary Ridgway with an IQ of only 82. Look how he was molded by the cops to confess to the killing of 49 (confirmed so far) women...
Stupid people can be evil, too, and that certainly includes him. But note that an IQ of 82 is considerably "smarter" than 70. 82 is at the 11th percentile, "smarter" than 10 percent of the population; 70 is at the second percentile (meaning the lowest two percent). At some point -- and 70 is pretty close -- people are not capable of exercising much judgment.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx
https://www.easycalculation.com/medi...core-table.php

Last edited by Bob001; 7th January 2016 at 09:13 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 09:16 PM   #386
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
This bit to me sounds critical to the case for malfeasance, tantamount to a "theory of the case." I would like to outline what I believe the claim to be:

1) Cops and county are sued.
2) The case is so strong against them that they will likely have to pay many millions of dollars if it goes to trial.
3) To get Avery to settle, they set him up for this crime.

Does that sound like the theory on offer, or is it too strawmannish?
A bit strawmannish for me. I believe that the cops, pissed off at Avery for being exonerated for a crime they framed him for, were determined to get Avery whatever it took. As Johnny Karate pointed out, Lenk for one wasn't being directly sued, so I don't think the planting of evidence, the disgraceful interrogation of Dassey etc was directly related to the law suit at all (although I'm certain the cops were delighted with the outcome of the suit).

No, it was more straightforward corruption. Planting evidence and coercing statements out of incompetent people.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 09:22 PM   #387
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,571
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
A bit strawmannish for me. I believe that the cops, pissed off at Avery for being exonerated for a crime they framed him for, were determined to get Avery whatever it took. As Johnny Karate pointed out, Lenk for one wasn't being directly sued, so I don't think the planting of evidence, the disgraceful interrogation of Dassey etc was directly related to the law suit at all (although I'm certain the cops were delighted with the outcome of the suit).

No, it was more straightforward corruption. Planting evidence and coercing statements out of incompetent people.
Does it matter that many/most of the people involved in getting the first conviction are no longer serving? In the documentary they play some of the deposition tapes and when identifying the speakers put their title and dates of service on the screen. I didn't keep close track, but after 20 years it seemed like many/most were retired or had moved on to other positions.

Do we only get to select our conspirators from the pool of those who were still around after 20 years? If not, what motivates the others to commit felonies?

I would like a guess as to who would have to be involved to pull this off and why they, specifically, would be motivated to risk so much.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 10:02 PM   #388
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
This bit to me sounds critical to the case for malfeasance, tantamount to a "theory of the case." I would like to outline what I believe the claim to be:

1) Cops and county are sued.
2) The case is so strong against them that they will likely have to pay many millions of dollars if it goes to trial.
3) To get Avery to settle, they set him up for this crime.

Does that sound like the theory on offer, or is it too strawmannish?
My claim is not and never was that Avery was being framed or set up.

My claim is that this case was so outrageously compromised from the beginning of the investigation to the jury deliberations, that Steven Avery was not afforded due process, regardless of his guilt or innocence.

As I've stated many times, I have no idea if Avery is guilty or not. He very well could have committed this murder. But the way the investigation was handled and both trials conducted are travesties of justice.

That is what the documentary is about, and that is what I think is the most important aspect of this case above and beyond who killed Teresa Halbach and for what reasons.

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 10:16 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 10:14 PM   #389
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Does it matter that many/most of the people involved in getting the first conviction are no longer serving? In the documentary they play some of the deposition tapes and when identifying the speakers put their title and dates of service on the screen. I didn't keep close track, but after 20 years it seemed like many/most were retired or had moved on to other positions.

Do we only get to select our conspirators from the pool of those who were still around after 20 years? If not, what motivates the others to commit felonies?

I would like a guess as to who would have to be involved to pull this off and why they, specifically, would be motivated to risk so much.
It's not about proving a conspiracy or who did what. It's about demonstrating a clear conflict of interest, and how blatantly and egregiously that conflict of interest compromised the investigation.

But you should probably just finish watching the series. A lot of your questions will be answered.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 10:17 PM   #390
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,571
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
My claim is not and never was that Avery was being framed or set up.

My claim is that this case was so blatantly compromised from the beginning of the investigation to the jury deliberations, that Steven Avery was not afforded due process, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
What would you see as an alternative to malfeasance then, simple incompetence?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "blatantly compromised" without a frame job being the intent. For example, if it is bad form to have someone on the jury who has a relative in the police force, wouldn't the reason be because that person has a motive to find him guilty when the evidence didn't support that ruling? Without acting with ill intent, where's the problem?

I hope the objections aren't based on some imagined ideal of a pristine legal process.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 10:29 PM   #391
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,711
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
All of the arguments from Avery's supporters are classic examples of begging the question. For claims to have merit, they need to be supported by concrete evidence.
The only question begging I've seen has been from Avery's detractors, who insist that he was a psychopath because he committed a horrible murder.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 10:39 PM   #392
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by marplots View Post

I hope the objections aren't based on some imagined ideal of a pristine legal process.
I'm obviously only speaking for me. I've worked in the system in Australia, both legal and policing. I do not expect a pristine legal process. It is reasonable, though, to expect it not to be corrupt and to not allow blatant miscarriages of justice, as I believe we are seeing here.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 7th January 2016 at 10:40 PM.
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 10:46 PM   #393
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
What would you see as an alternative to malfeasance then, simple incompetence?
It's not "simple incompetence" to announce to the world that a sheriff's department with a conflict of interest will not be taking part in an investigation, and then allowing them to take part in the investigation.

That's blatant malfeasance.

Quote:
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "blatantly compromised" without a frame job being the intent.For example, if it is bad form to have someone on the jury who has a relative in the police force, wouldn't the reason be because that person has a motive to find him guilty when the evidence didn't support that ruling? Without acting with ill intent, where's the problem?
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this line of questioning. Are you saying conflicts of interests in the criminal justice system such as this one are okay as long as we can assume no one is acting with ill intent? Because that seems like a bizarrely naive position to take.

Personally, I take the position that it is best to avoid these conflicts of interest in the first place, and not worry about intent.

Quote:
I hope the objections aren't based on some imagined ideal of a pristine legal process.
My objections are based on the idea that a law enforcement agency with a very big axe to grind against someone shouldn't also be allowed to investigate them.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 11:36 PM   #394
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post

My objections are based on the idea that a law enforcement agency with a very big axe to grind against someone shouldn't also be allowed to investigate them.
First I agree with this statement.

I'd love to actually have a conversation about this if you don't mind. As I said the reaction to this documentary reminds me of the reaction to the other documentary "The Impostor" It's on Netflix and it's a lot shorter. (take a look if you want)

There's a couple of things that the documentary seems to present as FACTS that might not be facts.

Think of our reaction to the first episode. We see a guy get exonerated after serving 18 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.

The perspective is that of Steven Avery who obviously sat there every single day of his sentence knowing he did not do it. And then he gets out. So we put ourselves in his position and think about how he felt and walk away with anger, suspicion and disgust towards the police.

But indulge me for a moment. The police either knew 100% he did not do it and decided to "get him" because they thought he was bad news. Or maybe they really thought he did it, and they interpreted everything that way because they thought he did.

Our assumption was it was a deliberate frame job because that's how Avery interpreted it. But is it true? For example the sketch of the suspect looked a lot like Avery's mug shot. So it was presented like the guy made it look like his "mug shot" but in reality the man may have known Avery, have known what he looked like and as he's sketching he's thinking "Wow she's describing Avery" and so he sketches it out to look like him.

Can you see the difference between them
  1. Knowing he did not do it and framing him.
  2. Thinking that he did do it and honestly interpreting the evidence that way.


Let's play devils advocate for a second. Confirmation bias happens to everyone. if in their mind he did it, it may not have been a situation of them forcing or manipulating the evidence to "frame him" but "tunnel vision" and interpreting all the evidence with him in mind.

They were wrong. They find out years later, almost two decades later they were wrong. Now they have not sat for 18 years brooding over this because they really thought they got the right guy.

So if they really thought they got the right guy, why would they have animosity towards him if they made a mistake?

I think anyone who has worked for a company knows what it is like to have a huge **** up happen and then you wonder how the chips are going to fall and whose heads are gonna roll. But you don't necessarily have anger, deep seeded hatred or resentment towards the person who called it in. You are just worried about the fall out.

So in order for the "Steven Avery was deliberately framed for the murder of Teresa H." to work, you have to start from the mindset that they were bitter, resentful and angry that their original frame up got revealed.

But if it wasn't a frame up and it was an honest mistake, then there's not a reason for this kind of a reaction.

The documentary told you that they had the reaction. Steven Avery told you that they had this reaction.

But what evidence outside of these biased perspectives do you have that show this is really what happened?

Last edited by truethat; 7th January 2016 at 11:45 PM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 11:52 PM   #395
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,190
Fuggaboutit', Truethat! It's *********** Chinatown! Their minds are made up don't bother them with the facts ...
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 12:01 AM   #396
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,470
Quote:
So it was presented like the guy made it look like his "mug shot" but in reality the man may have known Avery, have known what he looked like and as he's sketching he's thinking "Wow she's describing Avery" and so he sketches it out to look like him.
I've Googled, but can't find a screenshot of the drawing anywhere. When I saw it while watching the show, I paused it and took a long look. I do a LOT of sketching, and I draw faces from television, magazines, mug shots...whatever, so I was curious. I couldn't draw any real hard conclusions about what information the artist may have used to complete the drawing, and was hoping to find it posted online somewhere for a better look. Has anyone seen it?
__________________
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
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 12:09 AM   #397
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I've Googled, but can't find a screenshot of the drawing anywhere. When I saw it while watching the show, I paused it and took a long look. I do a LOT of sketching, and I draw faces from television, magazines, mug shots...whatever, so I was curious. I couldn't draw any real hard conclusions about what information the artist may have used to complete the drawing, and was hoping to find it posted online somewhere for a better look. Has anyone seen it?
Here ya go

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWswCrcUYAAm2h7.png


Here is the mug shot of what Avery looked like at the time. His hair was different in the one when he came in. But if the guy knew him (small town everyone knows everyone, he's had run ins with the police) he may have just drawn him that way. Not necessarily "made it to look like the mug shot."

http://www.jasonstapleton.com/wp-con...ry-Mugshot.jpg







Last edited by truethat; 8th January 2016 at 12:16 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 12:17 AM   #398
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Fuggaboutit', Truethat! It's *********** Chinatown! Their minds are made up don't bother them with the facts ...
This is awesome
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 12:27 AM   #399
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,470
Thank-you, truethat.
__________________
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
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 01:32 AM   #400
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
First I agree with this statement.

I'd love to actually have a conversation about this if you don't mind. As I said the reaction to this documentary reminds me of the reaction to the other documentary "The Impostor" It's on Netflix and it's a lot shorter. (take a look if you want)

There's a couple of things that the documentary seems to present as FACTS that might not be facts.

Think of our reaction to the first episode. We see a guy get exonerated after serving 18 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.

The perspective is that of Steven Avery who obviously sat there every single day of his sentence knowing he did not do it. And then he gets out. So we put ourselves in his position and think about how he felt and walk away with anger, suspicion and disgust towards the police.

But indulge me for a moment. The police either knew 100% he did not do it and decided to "get him" because they thought he was bad news. Or maybe they really thought he did it, and they interpreted everything that way because they thought he did.

Our assumption was it was a deliberate frame job because that's how Avery interpreted it. But is it true? For example the sketch of the suspect looked a lot like Avery's mug shot. So it was presented like the guy made it look like his "mug shot" but in reality the man may have known Avery, have known what he looked like and as he's sketching he's thinking "Wow she's describing Avery" and so he sketches it out to look like him.

Can you see the difference between them
  1. Knowing he did not do it and framing him.
  2. Thinking that he did do it and honestly interpreting the evidence that way.


Let's play devils advocate for a second. Confirmation bias happens to everyone. if in their mind he did it, it may not have been a situation of them forcing or manipulating the evidence to "frame him" but "tunnel vision" and interpreting all the evidence with him in mind.

They were wrong. They find out years later, almost two decades later they were wrong. Now they have not sat for 18 years brooding over this because they really thought they got the right guy.

So if they really thought they got the right guy, why would they have animosity towards him if they made a mistake?

I think anyone who has worked for a company knows what it is like to have a huge **** up happen and then you wonder how the chips are going to fall and whose heads are gonna roll. But you don't necessarily have anger, deep seeded hatred or resentment towards the person who called it in. You are just worried about the fall out.

So in order for the "Steven Avery was deliberately framed for the murder of Teresa H." to work, you have to start from the mindset that they were bitter, resentful and angry that their original frame up got revealed.

But if it wasn't a frame up and it was an honest mistake, then there's not a reason for this kind of a reaction.

The documentary told you that they had the reaction. Steven Avery told you that they had this reaction.

But what evidence outside of these biased perspectives do you have that show this is really what happened?
Cool story. If you ignore the fact that the Manitowoc Police Department was told that, 10 years before Avery was released that a nearby police force had someone in custody who raped a woman in their town. The person who actually did it, Gregory Allan. What was the response of the police - "we have our man" or words to that effect. Now why wasn't this properly investigated? I have an answer, what's yours?

Why did you ignore this? It was prominently featured in the documentary. Did you watch it all? Doesn't seem so.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 8th January 2016 at 01:35 AM.
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.