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

Closed Thread
Old 6th January 2016, 09:39 AM   #161
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
So you guys think someone else killed her and he was framed. Got 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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 09:41 AM   #162
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Quote:
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.
Then the blood would look a smear. It doesn't. They look like drops that have been smeared. Here's one of them. The only other one I've seen is the drop on the driver door jamb but I can't find it online.

https://wronglyconvictedgroup.files....-min.png?w=474

To me that's pretty clearly two drops that got smeared (next to each other but in two different directions), not something already bloody that got wiped onto the dashboard. Also the only DNA recovered from Avery inside the the cabin of the vehicle was from blood, none from another source like sweat.

truethat, you asked earlier of not Avery then who? The strongest possibility I think is Scott Taydch, Barb Janda's then boyfriend/ now husband and Brendan's step father, perhaps with Bobby Dassey. They both place Halbach on the property between 2:30 and 3 and are each other's alibi (each says they saw the other driving away from the property). Problem with that is there is two other witnesses, the school bus driver and the propane truck driver, who put Halbach on the property between 3:30 and 3:45.

Furthermore, Taydch has scratches on his back when examined by police which he says he got playing with a puppy, he was trying to sell a .22 rifle in the days immediately after Halbach was last seen, and was described by a co-worker as "a nervous wreck" on the day of Avery's arrest. Finally, several people have said Taydch didn't like Avery.

There's more but I haven't really pursued this angle too closely. Other possibilities are the ex-boyfriend who broke into Halbach's voicemail after she'd gone missing and says he may have deleted a few messages and the person who was harassing Halbach who is never identified as near as I can find.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 09:52 AM   #163
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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?
The same way you disregard a vindictive ex girl friend who lied on the stand to get her ex in trouble. I'm not sure why you don't understand how simple this is. Lots of presented evidence is completely bogus.

It's the jury's job to evaluate the reliability of the evidence presented.

Here's an example

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/22/....resentencing/


The chick gets a second trial because:

Quote:

Wright's appellate attorney, Brian Wice, argued that her original team ignored crucial witnesses who would have supported Wright's claim of abuse at the hands of her husband. A psychiatrist who treated Wright after the stabbing, an expert on Battered Woman Syndrome, and a former girlfriend of the victim who had pressed assault charges against him were all known and available to the defense but inexplicably never testified, Wice argued in his appeal.

So she gets a whole new trial and guess what? She gets convicted as guilty again. The jury said the ex girlfriend's testimony was unreliable and it didn't matter in their decision.

What mattered was the compelling evidence and some small details. One being that she stabbed him 200 times and "took a break in the middle of it" when her son woke up, put him back to bed and got another knife from the kitchen and resumed stabbing.

You seem to think, drama is a replacement for evidence. That's the demeanor I saw with his defense attorneys as well. Like I said, when you watch the documentary you can see all these "dramatic moments" where it is clear that the attorney think he's dropped a BOMBSHELL in the court room.

It reeks of dramatics and diversion.

The evidence is that her body was found on his property, her car was found on his property, he personally stated he was the last one to see her alive and he called her twice hiding the number and once without, trying to establish an alibi.

The rest of the drama is important for other reasons. I'm not saying it doesn't matter that the cops planted evidence. I'm just saying it has nothing to do with whether or not he is guilty of the crime.

It's weird to me how many people watch the documentary while checking common sense at the door and just "go along" with the film makers version of events.

No wonder Casey Anthony walked away with nothing. Either you believe that the woman just happened to be murdered by someone else and the cops said "Yeah! Let's burn the corpse and make our job harder and leave minimal DNA to evaluate!" or they cops murdered an innocent person instead of just murdering him, orrrr he did it.

Now let me think for second.

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 10:09 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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:01 AM   #164
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Then the blood would look a smear. It doesn't. They look like drops that have been smeared. Here's one of them. The only other one I've seen is the drop on the driver door jamb but I can't find it online.

https://wronglyconvictedgroup.files....-min.png?w=474

To me that's pretty clearly two drops that got smeared (next to each other but in two different directions), not something already bloody that got wiped onto the dashboard. Also the only DNA recovered from Avery inside the the cabin of the vehicle was from blood, none from another source like sweat.

truethat, you asked earlier of not Avery then who? The strongest possibility I think is Scott Taydch, Barb Janda's then boyfriend/ now husband and Brendan's step father, perhaps with Bobby Dassey. They both place Halbach on the property between 2:30 and 3 and are each other's alibi (each says they saw the other driving away from the property). Problem with that is there is two other witnesses, the school bus driver and the propane truck driver, who put Halbach on the property between 3:30 and 3:45.

Furthermore, Taydch has scratches on his back when examined by police which he says he got playing with a puppy, he was trying to sell a .22 rifle in the days immediately after Halbach was last seen, and was described by a co-worker as "a nervous wreck" on the day of Avery's arrest. Finally, several people have said Taydch didn't like Avery.

There's more but I haven't really pursued this angle too closely. Other possibilities are the ex-boyfriend who broke into Halbach's voicemail after she'd gone missing and says he may have deleted a few messages and the person who was harassing Halbach who is never identified as near as I can find.

This is interesting. I'll look more into your ideas here before commenting.

But the next thing I have asked and have not gotten an answer to is this.

Then WHY when he was told that his nephew had confessed, wasn't his reaction....WHAT?

Why didn't he say, "What the hell is going on?" He knew someone had killed the woman on the property.

I don't know about you, but if I thought the cops were framing me and they said they found evidence on my property and a key in my house and I'm sitting there baffled at what the hell is going on and shocked because someone is killed (Consider this in real life, not television show thinking)

My reaction to my nephew confessing that he did it would NOT be, "Oh they are framing him toooooo! We're innocent!!!"

It would be "Maybe he did it and he's the one who is trying to frame me! What is he saying? What is the evidence."

There's no curiosity about that. He knows his nephew story is not true because as I said before....he knows what really happened.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:27 AM   #165
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Other possibilities are the ex-boyfriend who broke into Halbach's voicemail after she'd gone missing and says he may have deleted a few messages and the person who was harassing Halbach who is never identified as near as I can find.
This is a good example of what I mean about them trying to make a BOMBSHELL moment out of nothing.

In the documentary they ask the guy if he deleted any messages. He said NO.

Then they have the phone expert saying "at least one must have been deleted!"

Ooooh dum dum duuuum!!! Mystery.

Well A if he deleted a message why not just say "I was skipping through trying to get to the most recent messages, so I may have deleted a few by accident."

And B. Have you ever had a full mail box and tried to get to the last message? Do you listen and document? Or it more like this

Play messages

Monday January 4th at 2 ...pm

"Hi Truethat! It's me Jane...call me back!"

Monday January 4th at 3 ....pm

"Hi Truethat! It's me Jane again, where are you call me back!"

Monday January 4th at 3 ....pm

"Hey Truethat, it's Jane again....call me."


What do you do after a while? You just start skipping and deleting the messages to get to the most recent messages. It's not ominous. It's normal behavior.

He probably accidentally deleted a few while trying to skip forward.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:29 AM   #166
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
So you guys think someone else killed her and he was framed. Got it.
Yes, that's exactly what neither of us said. Well done.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:30 AM   #167
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Quote:
There's no curiosity about that. He knows his nephew story is not true because as I said before....he knows what really happened.
This view actually goes both ways. The other possibility is he knows the story is not true because he knows what really happened inasmuch as Dassey's original story is the true one - that they were together after 6PM, built a bonfire together, Avery got calls from both his girlfriend and Brendan's mom, Dassey helped him clean up some transmission fluid in the garage that had been spilled earlier in the day when Avery was working on his project car, and that around 10PM Dassey went home.

If you're Avery (and innocent) and have the history he does with local law enforcement, when they say, "Brendan confessed" it wouldn't be a surprise if your internal monologue is, "Whatevs, no he didn't...you guys lie all the time to get folks to talk" followed closely by "If he said that it's because you forced it and I know what really happened - he'll recant because that's not true". There's no reason for Avery to flip out at this news necessarily.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony

Last edited by SomedayGirl; 6th January 2016 at 10:32 AM.
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:37 AM   #168
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
This is a good example of what I mean about them trying to make a BOMBSHELL moment out of nothing.

In the documentary they ask the guy if he deleted any messages. He said NO.

Then they have the phone expert saying "at least one must have been deleted!"

Ooooh dum dum duuuum!!! Mystery.

Well A if he deleted a message why not just say "I was skipping through trying to get to the most recent messages, so I may have deleted a few by accident."

And B. Have you ever had a full mail box and tried to get to the last message? Do you listen and document? Or it more like this

Play messages

Monday January 4th at 2 ...pm

"Hi Truethat! It's me Jane...call me back!"

Monday January 4th at 3 ....pm

"Hi Truethat! It's me Jane again, where are you call me back!"

Monday January 4th at 3 ....pm

"Hey Truethat, it's Jane again....call me."


What do you do after a while? You just start skipping and deleting the messages to get to the most recent messages. It's not ominous. It's normal behavior.

He probably accidentally deleted a few while trying to skip forward.
It's interesting that you are able to come up with innocent reasons why someone might break into another person's voicemail and delete messages, but are unable to see innocent reasons why someone might call another person three times.

But then again, you are the only one here blessed with the gift of critical thinking.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:38 AM   #169
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
truethat, you just asked for other possible suspects and I offered them. I don't know much about the ex. Might be a nice guy. He does allow that he may have deleted VMs from her phone and there's not really any good reason for that. Could be an innocent mistake. It's just odd. Taydch is much stronger as an alternative killer but again that hasn't really been an area of focus for me with regards to this case, it's more of a sideline huhthatsintersting kinda thing.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony

Last edited by SomedayGirl; 6th January 2016 at 10:41 AM.
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:41 AM   #170
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
This view actually goes both ways. The other possibility is he knows the story is not true because he knows what really happened inasmuch as Dassey's original story is the true one - that they were together after 6PM, built a bonfire together, Avery got calls from both his girlfriend and Brendan's mom, Dassey helped him clean up some transmission fluid in the garage that had been spilled earlier in the day when Avery was working on his project car, and that around 10PM Dassey went home.

If you're Avery (and innocent) and have the history he does with local law enforcement, when they say, "Brendan confessed" it wouldn't be a surprise if your internal monologue is, "Whatevs, no he didn't...you guys lie all the time to get folks to talk" followed closely by "If he said that it's because you forced it and I know what really happened - he'll recant because that's not true". There's no reason for Avery to flip out at this news necessarily.

Again, there's a dead body on your property and a key has been found in your room that you know you didn't put there.

You hung out with your nephew at 6 pm. A dead body turns up on your property later. Then your nephew starts confessing and saying YOU did it with him.

Wouldn't you wonder what was going on? Wouldn't you think for a moment, wait HE is the one who is trying to frame me. He's saying "I did it?" What's going on. I'm not talking about in the interrogation room where cops are known to lie. I'm talking later after Dassey is arrested.

I think you know the point I'm making and you're rationalizing it away. I can understand your points.

I'm just saying these things are what convince me he did it. (In my personal unprofessional opinion)


I'm a true crime junky. And two common ways they regularly catch people are because they LIE and get caught in a lie. (The phone call, him saying she never showed up.....etc)

And they already know information about the crime that only the perpetrator could know.

For example, cases where a victim is covered in blood on the floor and the person on 911 says "She's been shot in the head!!" when they just arrived a few minutes ago. They already know what happened.

That's how he comes across to me. He already knows what happened. You can see the detective trying to trip him up in the interrogation with this line of questioning.

"Here's what happened....."

"No that's not what happened......."

"Ok then tell me what happened......"

And Avery dodging it well. (It's a common interrogation trick.)

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 10:42 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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:44 AM   #171
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Quote:
(The phone call, him saying she never showed up.....etc)
Did he do that? My understanding is he's clear from the outset she did - came, took pics, gave him the magazine and bill of sale and left. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. (I'm a bit of an Avery sometimes...lol)
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:47 AM   #172
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
truethat, you just asked for other possible suspects and I offered them. I don't know much about the ex. Might be a nice guy. He does allow that he may have deleted VMs from her phone and there's not really any good reason for that. Could be an innocent mistake. It's just odd. Taydch is much stronger as an alternative killer but again that hasn't really been an area of focus for me with regards to this case, it's more of a sideline huhthatsintersting kinda thing.
I get it. The case is fascinating!
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:47 AM   #173
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Did he do that? My understanding is he's clear from the outset she did - came, took pics, gave him the magazine and bill of sale and left. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. (I'm a bit of an Avery sometimes...lol)
I have zero recollection of Avery claiming Halbach never showed up, and am quite confident he did not in fact ever make that claim.

That whopper is going to need citation to be believed.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:55 AM   #174
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Again, there's a dead body on your property and a key has been found in your room that you know you didn't put there.

You hung out with your nephew at 6 pm. A dead body turns up on your property later. Then your nephew starts confessing and saying YOU did it with him.

Wouldn't you wonder what was going on? Wouldn't you think for a moment, wait HE is the one who is trying to frame me. He's saying "I did it?" What's going on. I'm not talking about in the interrogation room where cops are known to lie. I'm talking later after Dassey is arrested.

I think you know the point I'm making and you're rationalizing it away. I can understand your points.

I'm just saying these things are what convince me he did it. (In my personal unprofessional opinion)


I'm a true crime junky. And two common ways they regularly catch people are because they LIE and get caught in a lie. (The phone call, him saying she never showed up.....etc)

And they already know information about the crime that only the perpetrator could know.

For example, cases where a victim is covered in blood on the floor and the person on 911 says "She's been shot in the head!!" when they just arrived a few minutes ago. They already know what happened.

That's how he comes across to me. He already knows what happened. You can see the detective trying to trip him up in the interrogation with this line of questioning.

"Here's what happened....."

"No that's not what happened......."

"Ok then tell me what happened......"

And Avery dodging it well. (It's a common interrogation trick.)
It's weird that you keep chastising people for being lemmings beholden to what the documentary depicted, and at the same time base your opinion on what Avery did or did not wonder based on... what the documentary depicted.

The filmmakers shot thousands of hours of footage over the course of a decade all edited down to ten hours. You might ask yourself if maybe you didn't actually see Avery's every waking moment and were not made privy to his every thought.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:28 AM   #175
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,891
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I have zero recollection of Avery claiming Halbach never showed up, and am quite confident he did not in fact ever make that claim.

That whopper is going to need citation to be believed.
Avery was quite clear that she turned up. This is indeed a whopper.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:32 AM   #176
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Rolling Stone interview with the flimmakers. Pretty interesting. This view is largely reflective of mine as well and is mostly what I took from the series:

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/...-show-20160106

Quote:
It was never our interest whether he did it or not; it wasn't what it was about. Our job wasn't about any type of investigation of did he do it or not?...Ours was much more macro. We were taking a procedural look at the system. We have no stake in the outcome of the trial; we have no stake in whether Steven is innocent or guilty...What we were documenting was the procedure that led to the verdicts.

The takeaway is that the American criminal justice system is in peril. We as American people should have concerns about that system...
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:47 AM   #177
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 833
CSI Effect

The Avery case is another example of the CSI Effect. This effect has resulted in a disturbing trend of linear thinking and forensic analysis is a complex creature. There are a myriad of reasons why a crime scene is either devoid of trace evidence or contains a small portion of what laymen believe SHOULD be present. A few examples off the top of my head...

Several years ago, a student at the University of Vermont was raped and murdered by a individual with a history of sexual assault. This perp was convicted of the murder, but the jury foreman admitted that he would have been acquitted if the only piece of evidence was his DNA being found inside the victim's body.

As disturbing as that sounds, he put a cherry on the CSI Effect Sunday by adding that the lack of the victim's DNA/trace evidence in the perp's car made their decision an extremely difficult one. So, the initial response from this jury was that if the victim was inside the perp's vehicle, physical traces of the victim would HAVE to be present in that vehicle.

That mindset is the reason why critical thought has taken a beating in the past several years. If the argument is that the perp must have cleaned his car, Avery had far more time and help (e.g., Dassey) to clean his trailer/garage, yet trace evidence/DNA was STILL present in his garage.

Another example involves a case that I have researched for the past 26 years. Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of murdering his wife and two young daughters in their home at Fort Bragg. This residence had prior tenants and MacDonald had frequent guests, so one would assume that there would be ample unsourced trace evidence/DNA in that apartment. Right? Wrong.

The totality of unsourced trace evidence/DNA consisted of 19 fibers and 3 hairs. Many of those 19 unsourced fibers could have been sourced if MacDonald had not discarded most of the family clothing items and 1 of those 3 unsourced hairs was proven to have been the result of lab contamination.

MacDonald's wife was not sexually assaulted and the blood evidence was unique because each family member had a different blood type. At trial, the defense did not argue that the source of a single blood stain was someone other than a MacDonald family member.

IMO, the lack of trace evidence/DNA sourced to Halbach/Avery in certain locations is not nearly as important as trace evidence/DNA that WAS found on the Avery compound. If you combine the sourced evidence with the FACT that Halbach's burned remains were found in Avery's yard and some of her personal items were found in a burn barrel, there is only one reasonable narrative.

Steven Avery murdered Teresa Halbach by shooting her in the head;he placed her nude corpse in the fire pit; he moved her vehicle to another part of the compound; he opened the hood and dismantled the vehicle; he took the car key with him; he removed the license plates; and placed the plates in another vehicle on the compound.

The level of Dassey's involvement and the details of the rape/murder will never be resolved, but the person responsible for Teresa Halbach's death is Steven Avery.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:59 AM   #178
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Originally Posted by truethat View Post

But the next thing I have asked and have not gotten an answer to is this.

Then WHY when he was told that his nephew had confessed, wasn't his reaction....WHAT?

Why didn't he say, "What the hell is going on?" He knew someone had killed the woman on the property.
Sorry, I meant to reply to this and got sidetracked with other replies.

I don't know what his reaction was to being told his nephew confessed, by which I mean I haven't seen a transcript or video of the police telling him that. I'd love to have a look at that if you remember where you saw it.

Avery was arrested 11/9/05. I don't think he consented to any further police interviews or interrogations after that. The police didn't start chatting up Dassey (for the record at least) until 2/27/06 and he is arrested as a result of his confession on 3/2/06.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony

Last edited by SomedayGirl; 6th January 2016 at 12:02 PM.
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 12:04 PM   #179
Caper
Philosopher
 
Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,727
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Someday girl covered this in a previous post.
Thank you. Has there been any explanation for the bleach marks on the nephews jeans?
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 12:38 PM   #180
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
Yes. In his earlier interviews with police, Dassey says Avery spilled automotive fluid in the garage while working on a project car and that Dassey helped clean it up.
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 01:28 PM   #181
SomedayGirl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
I found this interesting. At this point there only way either of them can get a new trial is if there's new evidence. This test is in development and if it comes available for criminal cases it should definitely be used. Pretty cool. This would help resolve the question of EDTA/ not EDTA results.

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/...-determine-age

The blood of 22yo Avery should show up as no more than age 27. The blood of 40yo Avery should show up as no less than age 35. If the samples from the RAV4 don't fit, you must acquit. ​
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires.

--Susan B. Anthony

Last edited by SomedayGirl; 6th January 2016 at 01:30 PM.
SomedayGirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 01:44 PM   #182
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
So you guys think someone else killed her and he was framed. Got it.
Who is "you guys"? Since I brought up that possibility I'll assume that I'm being lumped in.

I don't know who killed her. I know the documentary sure made me think cops planted evidence. I came away from watching the series thinking "if I'd been on the jury I would vote not guilty" because there's an awful lot of reasonable doubt. However, I have pretty much only watched the documentary, and read/seen/heard very little from the prosecution other than what the series tore apart. This site presents some pretty compelling evidence that he did it, but I gave that no more than a cursory read.

Did he do it or not? I don't know. It's certainly possible that he was the killer, but I'm still leaning toward reasonable doubt. And I realize that doubt was put in my mind by an extremely biased documentary. If I spent enough time reading into the prosecutions side, or if I had actually sat on the jury, I might feel differently.

Last edited by CynicalSkeptic; 6th January 2016 at 01:55 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 02:20 PM   #183
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The Avery case is another example of the CSI Effect. This effect has resulted in a disturbing trend of linear thinking and forensic analysis is a complex creature. There are a myriad of reasons why a crime scene is either devoid of trace evidence or contains a small portion of what laymen believe SHOULD be present. A few examples off the top of my head...

Several years ago, a student at the University of Vermont was raped and murdered by a individual with a history of sexual assault. This perp was convicted of the murder, but the jury foreman admitted that he would have been acquitted if the only piece of evidence was his DNA being found inside the victim's body.

As disturbing as that sounds, he put a cherry on the CSI Effect Sunday by adding that the lack of the victim's DNA/trace evidence in the perp's car made their decision an extremely difficult one. So, the initial response from this jury was that if the victim was inside the perp's vehicle, physical traces of the victim would HAVE to be present in that vehicle.

That mindset is the reason why critical thought has taken a beating in the past several years. If the argument is that the perp must have cleaned his car, Avery had far more time and help (e.g., Dassey) to clean his trailer/garage, yet trace evidence/DNA was STILL present in his garage.

Another example involves a case that I have researched for the past 26 years. Jeffrey MacDonald was convicted of murdering his wife and two young daughters in their home at Fort Bragg. This residence had prior tenants and MacDonald had frequent guests, so one would assume that there would be ample unsourced trace evidence/DNA in that apartment. Right? Wrong.

The totality of unsourced trace evidence/DNA consisted of 19 fibers and 3 hairs. Many of those 19 unsourced fibers could have been sourced if MacDonald had not discarded most of the family clothing items and 1 of those 3 unsourced hairs was proven to have been the result of lab contamination.

MacDonald's wife was not sexually assaulted and the blood evidence was unique because each family member had a different blood type. At trial, the defense did not argue that the source of a single blood stain was someone other than a MacDonald family member.

IMO, the lack of trace evidence/DNA sourced to Halbach/Avery in certain locations is not nearly as important as trace evidence/DNA that WAS found on the Avery compound. If you combine the sourced evidence with the FACT that Halbach's burned remains were found in Avery's yard and some of her personal items were found in a burn barrel, there is only one reasonable narrative.

Steven Avery murdered Teresa Halbach by shooting her in the head;he placed her nude corpse in the fire pit; he moved her vehicle to another part of the compound; he opened the hood and dismantled the vehicle; he took the car key with him; he removed the license plates; and placed the plates in another vehicle on the compound.

The level of Dassey's involvement and the details of the rape/murder will never be resolved, but the person responsible for Teresa Halbach's death is Steven Avery.


Great post!!
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 02:33 PM   #184
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Sorry, I meant to reply to this and got sidetracked with other replies.

I don't know what his reaction was to being told his nephew confessed, by which I mean I haven't seen a transcript or video of the police telling him that. I'd love to have a look at that if you remember where you saw it.

Avery was arrested 11/9/05. I don't think he consented to any further police interviews or interrogations after that. The police didn't start chatting up Dassey (for the record at least) until 2/27/06 and he is arrested as a result of his confession on 3/2/06.
Listen to his phone discussions with his sister, taped when he called her from jail.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 02:40 PM   #185
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
It's interesting that you are able to come up with innocent reasons why someone might break into another person's voicemail and delete messages, but are unable to see innocent reasons why someone might call another person three times.

But then again, you are the only one here blessed with the gift of critical thinking.
See how you are manipulating the statement?

Which is is suspicious to you:


Hacking into your girlfriends phone because she's been missing and you want to hear her messages? (Doing so with her sisters and family)

or using star 67 to hide your phone number when calling someone who has an appointment at your house?

(see how you minimized to" call someone three times?" If you are needing to do that, ask yourself why?)



Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 02:42 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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 04:08 PM   #186
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by SomedayGirl View Post
Yes. In his earlier interviews with police, Dassey says Avery spilled automotive fluid in the garage while working on a project car and that Dassey helped clean it up.
I find that a lot more plausible than two guys with IQs hovering around 70 outwitting trained forensics teams with nothing more than a bottle of bleach and a little elbow grease.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 04:44 PM   #187
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
That mindset is the reason why critical thought has taken a beating in the past several years. If the argument is that the perp must have cleaned his car, Avery had far more time and help (e.g., Dassey) to clean his trailer/garage, yet trace evidence/DNA was STILL present in his garage.
It was present on a lone bullet fragment (that was conveniently "found" after how many passes through the garage?) in such a minute amount that only one DNA test could be done on it. A test, by the way, that was botched and by the standards and protocols of the state forensics department, should have been ruled inconclusive.

The garage itself: Spotless. Not a drop of blood or scrap of DNA from the victim to be found anywhere in that rat’s nest of junk piled to the ceiling. A victim, by the way, who was supposedly dragged into the garage while bleeding from stab wounds, and then shot in the head.

And this truly awe-inspiring crime scene cleanup was supposedly perpetrated by the same guy who then bled all over the inside of Halbach’s car and decided to just to leave big bloody smears in plain sight.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 04:46 PM   #188
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
It was present on a lone bullet fragment (that was conveniently "found" after how many passes through the garage?) in such a minute amount that only one DNA test could be done on it. A test, by the way, that was botched and by the standards and protocols of the state forensics department, should have been ruled inconclusive.

The garage itself: Spotless. Not a drop of blood or scrap of DNA from the victim to be found anywhere in that rat’s nest of junk piled to the ceiling. A victim, by the way, who was supposedly dragged into the garage while bleeding from stab wounds, and then shot in the head.

And this truly awe-inspiring crime scene cleanup was supposedly perpetrated by the same guy who then bled all over the inside of Halbach’s car and decided to just to leave big bloody smears in plain sight.

Why do you keep arguing with people like we're agreeing with Dassey's confession on how it went down?

I don't think anyone believes she was stabbed in the bedroom and dragged out of the house.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:03 PM   #189
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
See how you are manipulating the statement?

Which is is suspicious to you:


Hacking into your girlfriends phone because she's been missing and you want to hear her messages? (Doing so with her sisters and family)

or using star 67 to hide your phone number when calling someone who has an appointment at your house?

(see how you minimized to" call someone three times?" If you are needing to do that, ask yourself why?)


Well, for starters, it was her ex-boyfriend. Which certainly changes the dynamic of the relationship. Not sure why you chose to minimize that.

As far as which I find more suspicious?

Hmm... the perfectly legal and common action of blocking caller ID? Or illegally hacking into someone else's voicemail? Yeah, that's a tough one.

But you of course miss the point.

You are willing to believe the most innocuous explanation when it comes to an ex-boyfriend with no alibi illegally hacking into his missing ex-girlfriend's voicemail, but refuse to accept or acknowledge anything less than nefarious motives for Avery when he blocked caller ID while calling her.

There is a clear bias on display, and it's laughable that you accuse others of lacking in critical thought.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:09 PM   #190
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,920
Originally Posted by Matthew Best
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
It was produced by Avery's defense
Citation needed.
Aha - the site linked above quotes an email from the (then) prosecutor where he states "...this series was produced by and FOR the defense of Steven Avery, and contains only the opinion and theory of the defense team.”

http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murd...easons-guilty/
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:11 PM   #191
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Why do you keep arguing with people like we're agreeing with Dassey's confession on how it went down?

I don't think anyone believes she was stabbed in the bedroom and dragged out of the house.
That was the theory of the crime the prosecution presented. What other narrative am I supposed to use?

You seem to want to have you cake and eat it too.

You reject certain evidence as planted by corrupt cops, but have complete faith in other evidence collected by those same corrupt cops.
You reject the prosecution's theory of the how Avery committed the murder, but still believe Avery committed the murder.

I'm not sure how you are able to process such dissonant beliefs into anything resembling coherent thought.

Last edited by johnny karate; 6th January 2016 at 05:17 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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:16 PM   #192
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by CynicalSkeptic View Post
Did he do it or not? I don't know. It's certainly possible that he was the killer, but I'm still leaning toward reasonable doubt. And I realize that doubt was put in my mind by an extremely biased documentary. If I spent enough time reading into the prosecutions side, or if I had actually sat on the jury, I might feel differently.
Most of this "evidence" that was supposedly left out of the documentary has either been trumped up or outright fabricated by unethical scumbag and disgraced former prosecutor Ken Kratz.

SomedayGirl did a nice job addressing most of it earlier in the thread.

If you are interested in delving more into the case, I'd stick with actual court documents rather than talking points from Kratz.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:16 PM   #193
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Well, for starters, it was her ex-boyfriend. Which certainly changes the dynamic of the relationship. Not sure why you chose to minimize that.

As far as which I find more suspicious?

Hmm... the perfectly legal and common action of blocking caller ID? Or illegally hacking into someone else's voicemail? Yeah, that's a tough one.

But you of course miss the point.

You are willing to believe the most innocuous explanation when it comes to an ex-boyfriend with no alibi illegally hacking into his missing ex-girlfriend's voicemail, but refuse to accept or acknowledge anything less than nefarious motives for Avery when he blocked caller ID while calling her.

There is a clear bias on display, and it's laughable that you accuse others of lacking in critical thought.


Actually no it is interesting you say it was her ex boyfriend. I didn't know that and it would make me more critical of him.

But it's out of left field. When I talk about critical thinking it's what I'm pointing out (and probably why the judge didn't let them introduce this.....let me guess you think the judge is framing him too right?)

I'm pointing out that that's not how critical thinking works. You don't just guess and throw out any wild theory you can think of.

The reason they weren't allowed to accuse other people is that you need a motive, means etc.

What motive does the ex boyfriend have in killing her. Not...well maybe...... what actual motive?

What motive do the other people have? What means? The only one who even comes close to this is Bobby and he's got no motive.

So it's not just pitching a fit and throwing everything possible out there. I see this kind of problem a lot when evaluating argumentative writing skills in my clients. Many times they just throw idea after idea after idea at the reader without explaining a line of thought all the way through.

That is a lack of critical thinking sills.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:17 PM   #194
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 5,943
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Aha - the site linked above quotes an email from the (then) prosecutor where he states "...this series was produced by and FOR the defense of Steven Avery, and contains only the opinion and theory of the defense team.”

http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murd...easons-guilty/
That's your citation? An evidence-free accusation from the prosecutor?

I'm afraid I'm going to need a bit more than that!
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:21 PM   #195
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
That was the theory of the crime the prosecution presented. What other narrative am I supposed to use?

You seem to want to have you cake and eat it too.

You reject certain evidence as planted by corrupt cops, but have complete faith in other evidence collected by those same corrupt cops.

You reject the prosecution's theory of the how Avery committed the murder, but still believe Avery committed the murder.

I'm not sure how you are able to process such dissonant beliefs into anything resembling coherent thought.

Again, why are you arguing with US (not the cops) about their theory. Has anyone in this thread posted that the confession was correct and we think that he killed her the way Dassey said?

We've said this. He is guilty and the cops tried to plant more evidence to frame him. They got busted.

So I am rejecting what I consider planted evidence, namely the key in his office and the blood or DNA in the car.

So again for the last time (I'm gonna give up if you keep pretending I'm saying something else yet again)

I'm looking at the other evidence

A. Her body being on his property

B. Her body being BURNED on his property and him not noticing?

C. Her car being found hidden on his property with his DNA under the hood.

D. His phone calls and his attempt to block his phone number.

E. Him being the last person to see her alive


The only argument I've heard that seems legit about the phone number is that "how do we know he is the one who made it?" And it's cause he said he did...

But again, why would you try to hide your phone number from someone who has an appointment to meet you?

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 05:24 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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:22 PM   #196
Azrael 5
Philosopher
 
Azrael 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,746
One thing that stood out in the documentary,Kratz said in court the victim had ever been in the trailer,which negates the "confession" from the kid. This was in reply to defense lawyers stating no evidence in the trailer of victim!

The nephew did himself no favors on stand saying he made up stuff before,as no one would know how he was telling truth now! But if it all takes to convict someone is a confession police life would be easy.
__________________
"I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown
Azrael 5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:25 PM   #197
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,773
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Actually no it is interesting you say it was her ex boyfriend. I didn't know that and it would make me more critical of him.

But it's out of left field. When I talk about critical thinking it's what I'm pointing out (and probably why the judge didn't let them introduce this.....let me guess you think the judge is framing him too right?)

I'm pointing out that that's not how critical thinking works. You don't just guess and throw out any wild theory you can think of.

The reason they weren't allowed to accuse other people is that you need a motive, means etc.

What motive does the ex boyfriend have in killing her. Not...well maybe...... what actual motive?

What motive do the other people have? What means? The only one who even comes close to this is Bobby and he's got no motive.

So it's not just pitching a fit and throwing everything possible out there. I see this kind of problem a lot when evaluating argumentative writing skills in my clients. Many times they just throw idea after idea after idea at the reader without explaining a line of thought all the way through.

That is a lack of critical thinking sills.
I've thrown out no theories, "wild" or otherwise.

I'm simply pointed out the glaring flaws and malfeasances in the way this case was investigated, and offered plausible alternatives to your bizarrely entrenched beliefs.

Now, you may think it a "wild theory" that a man with no alibi might have something to do with his ex-girlfriend's disappearance and murder, but I encourage you to read up on crime statistics to disabuse yourself of that notion.

I'm not saying the ex-boyfriend committed the murder. I don't know one way or the other. But he certainly could have. And the reason that doubt lingers - no matter how objectionable you may find it - is because the police failed to eliminate him as a suspect. Had they done so - had they simply done their jobs - we wouldn't be having this discussion.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:28 PM   #198
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I've thrown out no theories, "wild" or otherwise.

I'm simply pointed out the glaring flaws and malfeasances in the way this case was investigated, and offered plausible alternatives to your bizarrely entrenched beliefs.

Now, you may think it a "wild theory" that a man with no alibi might have something to do with his ex-girlfriend's disappearance and murder, but I encourage you to read up on crime statistics to disabuse yourself of that notion.

I'm not saying the ex-boyfriend committed the murder. I don't know one way or the other. But he certainly could have. And the reason that doubt lingers - no matter how objectionable you may find it - is because the police failed to eliminate him as a suspect. Had they done so - had they simply done their jobs - we wouldn't be having this discussion.
That is what I'm talking about. You can't just throw out "Well MAYBE .....he COULD HAVE" I don't know how you think police work works, but they DID eliminate him but not in the way that the Avery lawyers would agree with.

What you just posted IMO is an example of just throwing anything out there, "He could have killed her...."

Again, Motive, means and opportunity. You can't just make stuff up.
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:35 PM   #199
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,920
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
That's your citation? An evidence-free accusation from the prosecutor?

I'm afraid I'm going to need a bit more than that!
Hey, you asked for a citation, I gave you one. You never said it had to be credible. You can believe whatever you want to believe. I'm just happy to know I didn't make it up; I really did read it 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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:36 PM   #200
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,891
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Again, why are you arguing with US (not the cops) about their theory. Has anyone in this thread posted that the confession was correct and we think that he killed her the way Dassey said?

We've said this. He is guilty and the cops tried to plant more evidence to frame him. They got busted.

So I am rejecting what I consider planted evidence, namely the key in his office and the blood or DNA in the car.

So again for the last time (I'm gonna give up if you keep pretending I'm saying something else yet again)

I'm looking at the other evidence

A. Her body being on his property

B. Her body being BURNED on his property and him not noticing?

C. Her car being found hidden on his property with his DNA under the hood.

D. His phone calls and his attempt to block his phone number.

E. Him being the last person to see her alive


The only argument I've heard that seems legit about the phone number is that "how do we know he is the one who made it?" And it's cause he said he did...

But again, why would you try to hide your phone number from someone who has an appointment to meet you?
Where and how was she murdered? The prosecution simply has to explain this to have a case. Like it or not, the prosecution contends that she was raped and stabbed in the bedroom and (belatedly, probably because there was no physical evidence in the bedroom) killed in the garage (where there was also no physical evidence). No DNA, no fingerprints, no semen, no tissue. I do not accept this narrative, so the case cannot be proven beyond 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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 02:54 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.