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, 05:36 PM   #201
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,601
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
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.
Umm... they didn't actually.

His testimony is featured in the documentary. Under oath he stated he was never asked for an alibi nor was he ever treated as a suspect. And he was then of course allowed access to the crime scene by the same police who never bothered to find out where he during the time of Halbach's disappearance.
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, 05:39 PM   #202
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
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.
Maybe you should read the definition of citation:

Quote:
ci·ta·tion
/sīˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
a quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work
What you posted was biased, unsubstantiated conjecture. A guess. Useless.
__________________
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, 05:40 PM   #203
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,888
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
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.
Not really though. Look at Scott Peterson - where and how did he kill Laci? Often when bodies are not found or found completely decomposed it is impossible to know where or how.
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, 05:41 PM   #204
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Umm... they didn't actually.

His testimony is featured in the documentary. Under oath he stated he was never asked for an alibi nor was he ever treated as a suspect. And he was then of course allowed access to the crime scene by the same police who never bothered to find out where he during the time of Halbach's disappearance.
We all saw the same documentary. That's what I call another "BOMBSHELL" attempt by the defense attorneys that fell flat and seemed very dramatic and not factual IMO.

Example. If you are a school teacher and you were teaching your class on Tuesday and I talk to you about a missing friend and I already know you were teaching etc. You might say that I should, for the sake of protocol ask you where you were and what you were doing etc.

But if I know you are already alibied then I might not do it.

Yes they didn't follow exact procedure, but you are seeming to argue that because the cops didn't follow the procedure, planted evidence, were entirely corrupt.....that this means Steven Avery did not kill her.

I am saying one thing has nothing to do with the other. If you are able to evaluate other evidence and keep it separate then you can convict.

I honestly don't know what's so hard to understand here.
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, 05:42 PM   #205
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Umm... they didn't actually.

His testimony is featured in the documentary. Under oath he stated he was never asked for an alibi nor was he ever treated as a suspect. And he was then of course allowed access to the crime scene by the same police who never bothered to find out where he during the time of Halbach's disappearance.
Yes. Yet another inconvenient failure to undertake a professional police investigation. Something the "Avery is a creep and guilty" crowd like to ignore.
__________________
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, 05:47 PM   #206
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Not really though. Look at Scott Peterson - where and how did he kill Laci? Often when bodies are not found or found completely decomposed it is impossible to know where or how.
Of course this can happen. In this case however, the assault and stabbing are fundamental to the prosecution. Without this they have, at best, an interfering with a dead body charge. No physical evidence, no motive, dodgy timelines, withdrawn evidence from a mentally impaired child.

You don't think all this adds up to 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
Old 6th January 2016, 05:49 PM   #207
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post

Yes they didn't follow exact procedure, but you are seeming to argue that because the cops didn't follow the procedure, planted evidence, were entirely corrupt.....that this means Steven Avery did not kill her.
Could you please show where Johnny Karate, or anyone else for that matter, has said this? Please stop making stuff up.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 05:53 PM   #208
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Could you please show where Johnny Karate, or anyone else for that matter, has said this? Please stop making stuff up.

So your argument is he killed her but we should let him go free because some cops did unethical things.


You keep saying the "he's guilty because he's a creep crowd"

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth again. Which is it?

Is he guilty?
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, 06:01 PM   #209
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
So your argument is he killed her but we should let him go free because some cops did unethical things.


You keep saying the "he's guilty because he's a creep crowd"

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth again. Which is it?

Is he guilty?
Are you going to answer the question? Please show where Johnny Karate or anyone else said Avery did not kill her?
__________________
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, 06:02 PM   #210
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Umm... they didn't actually.

His testimony is featured in the documentary. Under oath he stated he was never asked for an alibi nor was he ever treated as a suspect. And he was then of course allowed access to the crime scene by the same police who never bothered to find out where he during the time of Halbach's disappearance.
Again we all saw the same documentary. I know exactly what you are talking about, the exact scene.

However, you don't know that they had no already investigated his alibi. (Please see my previous comment where I exactly explained this already)

All the testimony shows is the ex boyfriends perspective on what happened. Not the cops.
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, 06:02 PM   #211
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
So your argument is he killed her but we should let him go free because some cops did unethical things.


You keep saying the "he's guilty because he's a creep crowd"

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth again. Which is it?

Is he guilty?
Oh, and where did I say that?
__________________
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, 06:05 PM   #212
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Are you going to answer the question? Please show where Johnny Karate or anyone else said Avery did not kill her?
Do you think he killed her?

If you do then why are you arguing that he should be released from prison?

Again, the jury had been told that the Defense felt that there had been a set up, they were clearly walked through the entire situation. And in the end they found him guilty.

So what exactly is the problem here. DIRECT QUESTION: Do you think that he killed her? Yes or no?
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, 06:08 PM   #213
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Do you think he killed her?

If you do then why are you arguing that he should be released from prison?

Again, the jury had been told that the Defense felt that there had been a set up, they were clearly walked through the entire situation. And in the end they found him guilty.

So what exactly is the problem here. DIRECT QUESTION: Do you think that he killed her? Yes or no?
That question is utterly irrelevant to my, and other's, point. That the prosecution was botched to an extent that there was reasonable doubt. He should be released from prison for that reason and that reason alone. This has been explained many times 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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 06:12 PM   #214
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
That question is utterly irrelevant to my, and other's, point. That the prosecution was botched to an extent that there was reasonable doubt. He should be released from prison for that reason and that reason alone. This has been explained many times in this thread.

Pahhhhhhhleeeeeeeeeeease.................

Then there's no point in engaging in a discussion because I am not talking about the same thing you are so it's irrelevant. Please enjoy your conversation with others and stop derailing the conversation I am having.

Thank you.


Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Not really though. Look at Scott Peterson - where and how did he kill Laci? Often when bodies are not found or found completely decomposed it is impossible to know where or how.

Scott Peterson is a good example of how you put together the evidence and look at Motive, Means and Opportunity and you come to one conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

And what's also interesting about the Peterson case is how a small detail contributed to understanding he was guilty. That detail was when he was interviewed by a news show and the woman interviewing him noticed that he ignored a call on his phone because he was focused on talking to her. Then you realize he's being interviewed about his missing wife and the phone rings and he ignores the call because he's not the desperate guy waiting to find out what's happened to his wife. He already knows what happened because he did it. At that moment the news anchor realized she was dead.

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 06:18 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, 06:16 PM   #215
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Pahhhhhhhleeeeeeeeeeease.................

Then there's no point in engaging in a discussion because I am not talking about the same thing you are so it's irrelevant. Please enjoy your conversation with others and stop derailing the conversation I am having.

Thank you.
You are having a conversation with yourself then. Nobody who thinks Avery should be released contends that he couldn't have killed her. Unless you can show where this was contended. Which you can't. You are arguing against a straw man you set up.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 08:40 PM   #216
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,601
truethat, it's quite obvious you not only fail to understand what is being argued by others, but you profoundly fail to understand what this documentary was about.

No one here is trying to exonerate Steven Avery. No one here is trying to argue he's innocent. No one here is trying to argue someone else murdered Teresa Halbach.

Until you can grasp that, and let go of the ridiculous straw man arguments you keep constructing, you will continue to fail.
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, 08:49 PM   #217
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
truethat, it's quite obvious you not only fail to understand what is being argued by others, but you profoundly fail to understand what this documentary was about.

No one here is trying to exonerate Steven Avery. No one here is trying to argue he's innocent. No one here is trying to argue someone else murdered Teresa Halbach.

Until you can grasp that, and let go of the ridiculous straw man arguments you keep constructing, you will continue to fail.


First of all you and lionking are not the only two people in this thread so get over yourselves with the "we're the experts and know what it's all about" BS you use to dodge direct questions

Next we all know what the documentary was about but some of us are disturbed by the lemming like leap off the cliff of critical thinking. You don't believe me? Well read some of the links I"ve posted where OTHER PEOPLE (you know, not just you and lionking) are talking about exactly what I'm saying.

It's a sensationalized documentary that is attempting to present this as a Steve Avery is INNOCENT and was framed by the police story. Otherwise why the push for people to ask the president to pardon him?

Critical thinking means this. Outside of the hype was the jury aware that the evidence might be tampered with, (which btw we don't KNOW that it was, we are accepting that it was) and that the police were trying to frame the guy.

If you are just arguing a hypothetical "well even if he's guilty he should be let go because the cops screwed up" line, then IMO it's a ridiculous argument.

As I said before, (and these are FACTS not strawmen) the jury knew that he was possibly being framed. They were presented with the evidence and evaluated it and they found him guilty.

If you can't handle this reality don't engage with people who can. Go to your echo chamber with lionking and yes each other back and forth.

I don't even understand why you are replying to me. You are having a useless theoretical conversation where the facts and reality are not relevant to the conversation. Enjoy it.

I'm not having that conversation.

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 10:27 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, 08:56 PM   #218
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,601
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
truethat, it's quite obvious you not only fail to understand what is being argued by others, but you profoundly fail to understand what this documentary was about.
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
It's a sensationalized documentary that is attempting to present this as a Steve Avery is INNOCENT and was framed by the police story.
Failure confirmed.
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, 09:17 PM   #219
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 794
Critical Thought Trumps Fantasy

IMO, the arguments for Avery's innocence and Dassey's lack of culpability are all over the map. They are a mixture of supposition, half-truths, illogical thought process, skewed perceptions, and unsubstantiated accusations. The main task of law enforcement and the prosecutorial team is to prove that an individual is guilty of a specific crime. They are not required to produce a perfect murder timeline nor are they required to provide a concrete motive.

If you believe that Avery is guilty, it is clear that he is a psychopath, so there is no point in providing answers as to why a psychopath does what he does. Psychopaths derive pleasure from inflicting emotional and physical pain on their victims. They take no responsibility for their actions and consistently blame the dumb and/or corrupt cops for their legal plight.

Fortunately, it didn't work for Ted Bundy, it didn't work for Jeffrey MacDonald, and it didn't work for Steven Avery. The reality is that a competent prosecutor could have convicted 10 perps on the evidence collected in this case.

Victim's mutilated/burned body found in a fire pit located in the perp's yard. The victim's personal belongings found in a burn barrel on the perp's property. The perp's DNA found on several evidentiary items. The victim's DNA found on several evidentiary items. The perp being the last person to see the victim alive which is confirmed by phone records and eyewitness testimony. Game over.
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, 09:19 PM   #220
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post

If you are just arguing a hypothetical "well even if he's guilty he should be let go because the cops screwed up" line, then IMO it's a ridiculous argument.
What? This is embarrassing. Not only do you not understand what people are saying (far more than two by the way) you have no idea of the criminal justice system. The argument is that he should not have been found guilty because the cops screwed up. You clearly don't understand reasonable doubt and the very basis of criminal justice.

And the strawman is your characterisation of the arguments of me, Johnny karate, sometime girl and others.

But nevertheless, your "contribution" is funny as hell.
__________________
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, 09:23 PM   #221
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
IMO, the arguments for Avery's innocence and Dassey's lack of culpability are all over the map. They are a mixture of supposition, half-truths, illogical thought process, skewed perceptions, and unsubstantiated accusations. The main task of law enforcement and the prosecutorial team is to prove that an individual is guilty of a specific crime. They are not required to produce a perfect murder timeline nor are they required to provide a concrete motive.

If you believe that Avery is guilty, it is clear that he is a psychopath, so there is no point in providing answers as to why a psychopath does what he does. Psychopaths derive pleasure from inflicting emotional and physical pain on their victims. They take no responsibility for their actions and consistently blame the dumb and/or corrupt cops for their legal plight.

Fortunately, it didn't work for Ted Bundy, it didn't work for Jeffrey MacDonald, and it didn't work for Steven Avery. The reality is that a competent prosecutor could have convicted 10 perps on the evidence collected in this case.

Victim's mutilated/burned body found in a fire pit located in the perp's yard. The victim's personal belongings found in a burn barrel on the perp's property. The perp's DNA found on several evidentiary items. The victim's DNA found on several evidentiary items. The perp being the last person to see the victim alive which is confirmed by phone records and eyewitness testimony. Game over.
Surely you see that this is a ridiculous circular argument? If you believe he is guilty he is a psychopath therefore he is guilty? Really?
__________________
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, 09:26 PM   #222
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
It's a sensationalized documentary that is attempting to present this as a Steve Avery is INNOCENT and was framed by the police story. Otherwise why the push for people to ask the president to pardon him?
I disagree. I perceive it as a sensationalized documentary attempting to present a case demonstrating the Wisconsin justice system: allowed two men to be investigated by police officers who had well known conflict of interest issues and allowed that evidence to be used in court to secure convictions.

I believe the officers involved -and most likely Krantz, the prosecutor, should've never been allowed anywhere near the case, and that as a direct result the conviction should be invalidated.

I say again: I believe Avery is *probably* guilty. But by trying to "remove all doubt", the officers involved wrecked the train.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 09:29 PM   #223
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I disagree. I perceive it as a sensationalized documentary attempting to present a case demonstrating the Wisconsin justice system: allowed two men to be investigated by police officers who had well known conflict of interest issues and allowed that evidence to be used in court to secure convictions.

I believe the officers involved -and most likely Krantz, the prosecutor, should've never been allowed anywhere near the case, and that as a direct result the conviction should be invalidated.

I say again: I believe Avery is *probably* guilty. But by trying to "remove all doubt", the officers involved wrecked the train.
Very good summary. I doubt this clear explanation will be accepted though by people who enjoy constructing strawmen.
__________________
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, 09:31 PM   #224
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I disagree. I perceive it as a sensationalized documentary attempting to present a case demonstrating the Wisconsin justice system: allowed two men to be investigated by police officers who had well known conflict of interest issues and allowed that evidence to be used in court to secure convictions.

I believe the officers involved -and most likely Krantz, the prosecutor, should've never been allowed anywhere near the case, and that as a direct result the conviction should be invalidated.

I say again: I believe Avery is *probably* guilty. But by trying to "remove all doubt", the officers involved wrecked the train.
Well said, I agree with your assessment completely. Especially the bolded.
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, 09:33 PM   #225
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Well said, I agree with your assessment completely. Especially the bolded.
It's exactly the same argument as Johnny karate and me! Oh this has become beyond ridiculous.
__________________
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, 09:37 PM   #226
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
IMO, the arguments for Avery's innocence and Dassey's lack of culpability are all over the map. They are a mixture of supposition, half-truths, illogical thought process, skewed perceptions, and unsubstantiated accusations. The main task of law enforcement and the prosecutorial team is to prove that an individual is guilty of a specific crime. They are not required to produce a perfect murder timeline nor are they required to provide a concrete motive.

If you believe that Avery is guilty, it is clear that he is a psychopath, so there is no point in providing answers as to why a psychopath does what he does. Psychopaths derive pleasure from inflicting emotional and physical pain on their victims. They take no responsibility for their actions and consistently blame the dumb and/or corrupt cops for their legal plight.

Fortunately, it didn't work for Ted Bundy, it didn't work for Jeffrey MacDonald, and it didn't work for Steven Avery. The reality is that a competent prosecutor could have convicted 10 perps on the evidence collected in this case.

Victim's mutilated/burned body found in a fire pit located in the perp's yard. The victim's personal belongings found in a burn barrel on the perp's property. The perp's DNA found on several evidentiary items. The victim's DNA found on several evidentiary items. The perp being the last person to see the victim alive which is confirmed by phone records and eyewitness testimony. Game over.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying as well. Even if we leave out the DNA evidence and the key in the bedroom and his nephew's confession, there is way more than enough evidence to convict the guy.

I find the fact that the woman was afraid of him and didn't want to come out to see him, and the cell phone calls, far more compelling evidence than her key being found in his trailer anyway.

Put it this way. If the woman wasn't afraid of Avery and had made plans like a normal appointment to see him and showed up and had taken the pictures with him calling her without hiding his number and then this all happened and her key was found in his room.

I'd probably not consider that very compelling evidence anyway. Even if his DNA was on it, it was in his trailer next to his shoes. Transfer DNA is extremely possible and there would be no way of knowing that he is the one who put the key there.

The key is the least important part of the evidence. I've seen many people convicted with less evidence than what they had on him.
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, 09:43 PM   #227
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Surely you see that this is a ridiculous circular argument? If you believe he is guilty he is a psychopath therefore he is guilty? Really?
That is not what he said. Maybe you should slow down in reading posts and try to understand what people are saying instead of jumping so quick into the conversation with a critical angle. You seem to be misunderstanding a lot in this thread.

The point he's making is that in order for Avery to do something like this, there's something seriously wrong with him. So this speaks to motive. You can try to understand a motive if it's clear, (for example if the ex boyfriend did it, it might be jealousy, money etc) Avery was a predatory guy with several different women. (The cat slaughter and torture in fire is also telling...I'm sorry you consider that being a "creep" most criminal psychologists take it far more serious than that)

I think that's where the backlash and flip came in the documentary. Suddenly people realized they had been tricked by a psychopath.

It's interesting to me how fast most people turned on him.
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, 09:47 PM   #228
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
That is not what he said. Maybe you should slow down in reading posts and try to understand what people are saying instead of jumping so quick into the conversation with a critical angle. You seem to be misunderstanding a lot in this thread.

The point he's making is that in order for Avery to do something like this, there's something seriously wrong with him. So this speaks to motive. You can try to understand a motive if it's clear, (for example if the ex boyfriend did it, it might be jealousy, money etc) Avery was a predatory guy with several different women. (The cat slaughter and torture in fire is also telling...I'm sorry you consider that being a "creep" most criminal psychologists take it far more serious than that)

I think that's where the backlash and flip came in the documentary. Suddenly people realized they had been tricked by a psychopath.

It's interesting to me how fast most people turned on him.
Seriously, you do not see this as a clear circular argument? You assume he committed the murder, so therefore there is something wrong with him. No **** Sherlock? Where does this line of "reasoning" go if he didn't commit the murder?
__________________
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, 09:49 PM   #229
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Seriously, you do not see this as a clear circular argument? You assume he committed the murder, so therefore there is something wrong with him. No **** Sherlock? Where does this line of "reasoning" go if he didn't commit the murder?
It doesn't. The only reason you think it does is you like to make an argument out of whole cloth all the time instead of just reading what people are saying. . There's no reason for you to derail the conversation by nit picking at his post because he made an obvious statement.

Christ already. Get over 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, 09:51 PM   #230
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Failure confirmed.
__________________
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, 09:54 PM   #231
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Exactly. That's what I'm saying as well. Even if we leave out the DNA evidence and the key in the bedroom and his nephew's confession, there is way more than enough evidence to convict the guy.
Right. The preponderance of evidence shows he is likely guilty. However, if even ONE piece of evidence was tampered with or planted by even ONE person involved in the investigation, we have to face the very sad possibility that ALL of the evidence was tampered with or planted, and therefore we have to find a "reasonable doubt".

If they had just played by the rules, Dassey would be free, Avery would be forgotten in prison, the cops involved would still have meaningful careers, and the people involved in this topic would be arguing about something else.

As it is, a likely murderer needs to be retried, using entirely new evidence, in a new court jurisdiction, with new prosecution and a new jury. All at the expense of the Wisconsin taxpayers.

It's a shame. But worse, it opens another can of worms: How many other boys like Dassey are sitting in prison for making up stories? How many other men like Avery may be in prison for convictions based on evidence that was tampered with or planted?

How many is too many? I submit: ONE is too many.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 09:58 PM   #232
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Another good documentary to look at is called the Imposter. And it's about a con artist in France that convinced a family and the authorities that he was an abducted child of an American family. He got busted later but you watch this video and it reminds me so much of watching the documentary about Avery. Because by the end of the documentary he convinces a lot of people that the reason the family in the US took him in was to cover up the fact that they killed their own child.

It's very interesting to watch people's reaction to this documentary because you can see that people who are easily manipulated completely fall for the "con artists" version of events even though, to do what he does he has to be a sociopath.

I think what happened in the Steve Avery video, when the Wisconsin's governor's office was pushing for him to get the $400,000 and to pass the Avery Bill is that they somehow over looked the psychopathic tendencies. Sexual predatory issues, killing the cat, assault, etc. They overlooked that 6 years of the 18 years he was serving were for another crime altogether. They wiped all that clean or filed it under the "well yeah he's a creep but don't judge him for that, it doesn't mean he committed THIS crime!"

And that's just a manipulation defense attorneys used. I think it occurred to them that they had been duped by a psychopath and they put the distance between him and themselves very quickly.

Here's the other documentary I was talking about if you are interested. It's on Netflix

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1966604/


http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/t...w/the-imposter

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 09:59 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, 10:05 PM   #233
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
They wiped all that clean or filed it under the "well yeah he's a creep but don't judge him for that, it doesn't mean he committed THIS crime!"
To me, that is a cornerstone of US justice. We treat every crime as a separate crime, and cannot simply pull someone off the street and say "Well, you did this once. Therefore, we believe you did it again, and need look no further. If the evidence doesn't fit, we'll make it fit, and if you really didn't do this, we're sure you did something else just as terrible, so we'll sleep better with you behind bars regardless."
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:15 PM   #234
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Right. The preponderance of evidence shows he is likely guilty. However, if even ONE piece of evidence was tampered with or planted by even ONE person involved in the investigation, we have to face the very sad possibility that ALL of the evidence was tampered with or planted, and therefore we have to find a "reasonable doubt".

If they had just played by the rules, Dassey would be free, Avery would be forgotten in prison, the cops involved would still have meaningful careers, and the people involved in this topic would be arguing about something else.

As it is, a likely murderer needs to be retried, using entirely new evidence, in a new court jurisdiction, with new prosecution and a new jury. All at the expense of the Wisconsin taxpayers.

It's a shame. But worse, it opens another can of worms: How many other boys like Dassey are sitting in prison for making up stories? How many other men like Avery may be in prison for convictions based on evidence that was tampered with or planted?

How many is too many? I submit: ONE is too many.

I agree with you again. But he's not getting a pardon that's for sure. It's a waste of tax payers money and I also agree with you on that end, which is why I think in the end of it all, he's not going to get a new trial.

Again they allowed them to play this angle for the jury. They convicted. OOPS FORGOT TO ADD ETA


Where I disagree with you is that we need to throw out the conviction. Doing so goes against the jury system. You don't get to overturn the verdict because you disagree with it. The jury was told and a case was made that the cops were framing him. They knew this when they convicted. That's why I said that maybe for YOU as a juror you'd not convict. I said the same thing, It'd be a mistrial if I was on a jury. But if I had to choose to convict or exonerate I'd convict.

Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
To me, that is a cornerstone of US justice. We treat every crime as a separate crime, and cannot simply pull someone off the street and say "Well, you did this once. Therefore, we believe you did it again, and need look no further. If the evidence doesn't fit, we'll make it fit, and if you really didn't do this, we're sure you did something else just as terrible, so we'll sleep better with you behind bars regardless."
I also agree with the statement above. I was merely speaking to the drastic turn of tide of support once he got arrested the second time.

What I meant was, that the interesting part of this story for me, was that even though he was not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted, he was not necessarily an innocent guy. And that each time the cops have decided to get this guy behind bars, they screwed it up.

I've followed the Ryan Ferguson trial for years and was one of his supporters. So I suppose when I watched this documentary I went into it thinking that he was innocent. As it unfolded and it was clear to me that he was guilty, I was more freaked out by the backlash of people saying he was an innocent man framed by the police than people who were saying that he's guilty but the police need to be prosecuted.

I've not seen that discussion come up. If they have evidence of this then why haven't the cops been prosecuted?

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 10:21 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, 10:22 PM   #235
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
I've not seen that discussion come up. If they have evidence of this then why haven't the cops been prosecuted?
Good question!

Maybe if they prosecuted these officers, they'd be forced by public pressure to investigate their entire careers to see if they may have committed other illegal acts?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:24 PM   #236
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Good question!

Maybe if they prosecuted these officers, they'd be forced by public pressure to investigate their entire careers to see if they may have committed other illegal acts?
That's what is puzzling to me about this whole thing. (Btw I ETAed my original post for clarity) Why isn't this the reaction?

It's more upsetting to me to watch a cop sit there on the stand and say "The key wasn't there the first three times we looked and then suddenly it was there"

That to me is evidence worth investigating.
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, 10:28 PM   #237
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
That's what is puzzling to me about this whole thing. (Btw I ETAed my original post for clarity) Why isn't this the reaction?

It's more upsetting to me to watch a cop sit there on the stand and say "The key wasn't there the first three times we looked and then suddenly it was there"

That to me is evidence worth investigating.
Sigh. You are admitting there has been a miscarriage of justice (what else is it?) but shrug your shoulders and say he's still guilty so can stay in jail. Unbelievable.
__________________
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, 10:31 PM   #238
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Sigh. You are admitting there has been a miscarriage of justice (what else is it?) but shrug your shoulders and say he's still guilty so can stay in jail. Unbelievable.
No I'm not. I'm stating that it would have been a miscarriage of justice if the jury did not know that there was a suspicion (remember it has not been proven) that the cops were framing him.

They did know this, it was basically the crux of the defense.

They did know this and they were able to put aside evidence that they did not accept and look at the remaining evidence and convict him. That's what the jury did and so the conviction is valid.

Police misconduct? You think this is the first case where the policework was called into question? It is called into question in every single case that's prosecuted.

A good way of examining this is to look at the response of the guy in charge of the office that processed the DNA and the issue of contamination. The guy makes a good point in his interview with the news people.

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 10:32 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, 10:36 PM   #239
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,730
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
No I'm not. I'm stating that it would have been a miscarriage of justice if the jury did not know that there was a suspicion (remember it has not been proven) that the cops were framing him.

They did know this, it was basically the crux of the defense.

They did know this and they were able to put aside evidence that they did not accept and look at the remaining evidence and convict him. That's what the jury did and so the conviction is valid.
Utter nonsense. The police and prosecution put forward obviously tainted evidence. This thread wouldn't even exist if this wasn't the case.
__________________
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, 10:38 PM   #240
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
They did know this and they were able to put aside evidence that they did not accept and look at the remaining evidence and convict him. That's what the jury did and so the conviction is valid.
And that is a BIG problem.

The jury was willing to simply disregard the evidence they thought may have been compromised, and convict him on the stuff they thought wasn't. That's bad because if circumstances allowed ONE piece of evidence to be suspicious, it was ALL suspicious. There is no way to say with any certainty the other evidence wasn't all tampered with or all planted.

You can argue it wasn't LIKELY the other evidence was compromised, but the fact any of it was should have caused ALL of it to be viewed with reasonable doubt.
__________________
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 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 04:29 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.