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 5th January 2016, 07:32 PM   #121
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Everyone agrees the cops were wrong. Do you see anyone saying so what?
The cops being "wrong" is the whole point.
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 5th January 2016, 07:37 PM   #122
truethat
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.

Last edited by truethat; 5th January 2016 at 07:39 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 5th January 2016, 07:46 PM   #123
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
JTF, I already addressed most of what is in your link either in the post replying to it directly or in the one that answers Kratz's email.

I'm passionate about it because it's interesting, more an intense curiosity than a passion I suppose, not because I have any particular investment in Avery's guilt or innocence. He might have done it, might not. There's a very simple narrative that can be made that he did, but it can only work if you boot the sketchy evidence and get rid of Dassey from the story. That's not how they went and as a result, to me, the case is a mangled mess questionable actions by law enforcement, prosecutors, and a public defender which leads to questionable convictions.
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.
Ampulla of Vater 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 5th January 2016, 07:50 PM   #124
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
There's no physical evidence of sexual assault, stabbing or murder. Not a trace of DNA. No blood, tissue or semen. Not a fingerprint of the victim, nor were Avery's fingerprints in the SUV. No evidence of materials like bleach to clean things up. These two simpletons were nonetheless criminal masterminds who cleaned up things so thoroughly that forensic experts with weeks to do their jobs found nothing.

Come off it. These guys have trouble walking and chewing gum. The lack of physical evidence in the trailer is the biggest problem with the prosecution case in my view. Amongst many other problems well articulated by you and SomedayGirl.
It's misleading to say there is no evidence of a sexual assault because there was essentially no body. There was Avery's DNA under the hood of her car and his blood inside the car so it wasn't completely void of forensics.
Ampulla of Vater 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 5th January 2016, 07:56 PM   #125
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
It's misleading to say there is no evidence of a sexual assault because there was essentially no body. There was Avery's DNA under the hood of her car and his blood inside the car so it wasn't completely void of forensics.
I didn't say that. I said there was none in the trailer.
__________________
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 5th January 2016, 07:57 PM   #126
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
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.
Isn't good enough for what?

How does me not knowing in any way bolster your argument?

Quote:
The obvious evidence points to the fact that he is guilty.
This is in dispute.

Quote:
There was corruption by the police force.
This should reasonably call into question the "obvious evidence".

Quote:
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.
Two jurors in this case have expressed misgivings about how it was handled.

Quote:
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.
A. I don't see how the body alone is evidence of anything outside of the murder itself.
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:
So the question I"m asking you is why you think the conviction should be overturned?
I don't think it should be unless new evidence is discovered that exonerates Avery.

Quote:
Corruption in the cops? Yeah they told them all that. They convicted him anyway because he's very obviously guilty.
Two jurors in this case have expressed misgivings about how it was handled.

Quote:
If you don't think he's guilty then please explain the evidence above that has nothing to do with the police corruption.
I don't know if he's guilty or innocent and have made no claims in that regard, so I have nothing to explain on that point.

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.
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 5th January 2016, 08:00 PM   #127
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I didn't say that. I said there was none in the trailer.
Not really. You wrote:

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
There's no physical evidence of sexual assault, stabbing or murder. Not a trace of DNA. No blood, tissue or semen. Not a fingerprint of the victim, nor were Avery's fingerprints in the SUV. No evidence of materials like bleach to clean things up. These two simpletons were nonetheless criminal masterminds who cleaned up things so thoroughly that forensic experts with weeks to do their jobs found nothing.
Ampulla of Vater 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 5th January 2016, 08:03 PM   #128
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
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 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.
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 5th January 2016, 08:05 PM   #129
truethat
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.

Last edited by truethat; 5th January 2016 at 08:06 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 5th January 2016, 08:06 PM   #130
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Not really. You wrote:
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
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 5th January 2016, 08:08 PM   #131
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
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.
No, I dismissed it because your interpretation of what occurred during Avery's interrogation is utterly meaningless.

That's not evidence. It doesn't even approach evidence. And I thought that's what you were interested in discussing.

Last edited by johnny karate; 5th January 2016 at 08:13 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 5th January 2016, 08:17 PM   #132
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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.
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.
Ampulla of Vater 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 5th January 2016, 08:23 PM   #133
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
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.
Did you watch the documentary at all? If not, it's difficult to participate in this thread.
__________________
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 5th January 2016, 08:43 PM   #134
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Did you watch the documentary at all? If not, it's difficult to participate in this thread.
Yes, I watched it.

I've even read much of the case materials, at least those I can find.

I am of the belief I should not interact with you anymore. It never goes well for some reason.
Ampulla of Vater 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 5th January 2016, 08:49 PM   #135
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Yes, I watched it.

I've even read much of the case materials, at least those I can find.

I am of the belief I should not interact with you anymore. It never goes well for some reason.
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
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 5th January 2016, 09:03 PM   #136
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,470
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
And the cut doesn't really fix a problem with the blood in the vehicle. No prints or anything else of Avery is inside the cabin of the RAV4. If he was wearing gloves so he wouldn't leave prints, how does the blood drip where it does? If he wasn't wearing gloves and just wiped everything down instead, how did he miss the blood especially next to the ignition?
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
I watched this over the holidays and there is just one thing that I can't explain.

One of the police called in the victims plate number two days before the car was found on Avery's property.

Something is really fishy about that.
Yeah.... That bothers me, too. There was no context provided, and no explanation. It seemed completely out of place and I couldn't make any sense of it.

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
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 5th January 2016, 09:15 PM   #137
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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.
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.
Ampulla of Vater 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 5th January 2016, 09:21 PM   #138
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
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.
Doesn't all that raise doubt? From the documentary, the stabbing happened in the bedroom according to the prosecution. If it didn't, Dessey's statement is useless. Why was he convicted?
__________________
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 5th January 2016, 09:38 PM   #139
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,785
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Doesn't all that raise doubt? From the documentary, the stabbing happened in the bedroom according to the prosecution. If it didn't, Dessey's statement is useless. Why was he convicted?
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.
Ampulla of Vater 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 6th January 2016, 12:27 AM   #140
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
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.
I find it odd that someone who so expertly sanitized the alleged crime scenes would leave big smears of his own blood all over his victim's car.

Last edited by johnny karate; 6th January 2016 at 12:34 AM. Reason: typo
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 6th January 2016, 12:32 AM   #141
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I fond it odd that someone who so expertly sanitized the alleged crime scene would leave big smears of his own blood all over his victim's car.
Indeed. I guess the ninja crime hiding skills broke down this one time...
__________________
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 6th January 2016, 12:33 AM   #142
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Yes, it raises huge doubt... for Dassey.
But the whole narrative that allegedly came from Dassey's confession was used as the theory of the crime in Avery's trial.

And I'm not sure how we can reject the theory of the crime presented by the prosecution but still consider it a good conviction.
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 6th January 2016, 12:49 AM   #143
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,470
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I find it odd that someone who so expertly sanitized the alleged crime scenes would leave big smears of his own blood all over his victim's car.
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
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 6th January 2016, 12:51 AM   #144
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
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.
Yes, very good point.
__________________
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 6th January 2016, 12:54 AM   #145
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,710
Seconded, A great point. I'm really trying believe here.
Caper 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 6th January 2016, 01:00 AM   #146
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,665
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
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.
Not only that, there was a car crushing machine on the lot. It wouldn't take a criminal mastermind to crush it and get it carted it miles away.
__________________
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 6th January 2016, 01:03 AM   #147
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,710
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.
Caper 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 6th January 2016, 02:17 AM   #148
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
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.
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.


Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
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.




Yeah.... That bothers me, too. There was no context provided, and no explanation. It seemed completely out of place and I couldn't make any sense of it.

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.

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.

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 02:18 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 6th January 2016, 02:49 AM   #149
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
But the whole narrative that allegedly came from Dassey's confession was used as the theory of the crime in Avery's trial.

And I'm not sure how we can reject the theory of the crime presented by the prosecution but still consider it a good conviction.
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.
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 6th January 2016, 04:59 AM   #150
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,711
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
However, if I had to either convict him or let him go free, I'd convict.
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!

Last edited by Matthew Best; 6th January 2016 at 05:01 AM.
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 6th January 2016, 06:04 AM   #151
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
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!

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.
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 6th January 2016, 07:53 AM   #152
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
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.
I don't think anyone claimed the cops killed her. More like they found her dead and rather than going after the real killer, they framed Steven (so yes, they burned her, then planted the bones, car, key, blood, bullet). At least that was my take from the documentary.
CynicalSkeptic 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 6th January 2016, 07:58 AM   #153
truethat
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?
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 6th January 2016, 07:58 AM   #154
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,123
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
bobdroege7 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 6th January 2016, 08:06 AM   #155
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
So they found a dead body that just happened to be connected to him and mutilated the body and dumped her on his land?
That's what it seemed that Steven/ His Defense / the makers of the documentary were suggesting, yes. While downplaying the connection, and a lot of the other prosecution evidence.
CynicalSkeptic 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 6th January 2016, 08:15 AM   #156
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
How many times did they search the trailer before they found the key?
I think they said 3 times. Also the key which she'd owned for several years ONLY had his DNA on it. So it seemed pretty obvious that it was scrubbed clean and his DNA was placed on it. Even the victim's DNA was not found on the key.
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 6th January 2016, 08:15 AM   #157
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
So they found a dead body that just happened to be connected to him and mutilated the body and dumped her on his land?
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

Last edited by eerok; 6th January 2016 at 08:17 AM.
eerok 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 6th January 2016, 08:50 AM   #158
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by Caper View Post
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.
Someday girl covered this in a previous post.

Last edited by johnny karate; 6th January 2016 at 08:51 AM.
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 6th January 2016, 09:03 AM   #159
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
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.
How do you separate them? If you acknowledge that you believe the prosecution's theory of the crime is wrong and that the police engaged in a set up, what faith can you place in any evidence their tainted investigation yielded?
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 6th January 2016, 09:06 AM   #160
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,071
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by johnny karate; 6th January 2016 at 09:08 AM.
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
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 11:19 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.