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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags "Making a Murderer" , Brendan Dassey , documentaries , murder cases , Steven Avery , Teresa Halbach , tv shows

Reply
Old 6th January 2016, 10:42 PM   #241
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Ok lionking whatever. Again you don't understand my point. I am not trying to explain it to you.


For the others in the thread I was able to find the transcript of that section of the documentary. I'll past it below.


It's the guy in charge of the DNA lab explaining why he doesn't feel that it's an issue. He's talking to the reporters. So the go between is between HIM and a group of reporters.


Quote:

Reporter

If it's not a big deal, and it's a good sample, then why is the rule that you should toss it?


Guy in Charge (GIC)

Because I think the rule... Well, I don't think anyone tossed it here. The rule is a... And I think as Sherry stated, 90 percent of the time, 99 percent, you know, is followed. You need that guideline. You need that standard.

But when you're dealing with such sensitive, sensitive technology, you have to allow an element of common sense and this clearly called for it, and Sherry made the right call.

Does it happen often? No. And I think that shows the consistency and how good the scientific community is, that it's not something that has to be called upon often. There was no sample left to redo, and it just had no impact at all on the interpretation of Teresa Halbach's DNA profile on that bullet. I... I know you feel that's clear,

but it's up to the jury, you know, 12 people sitting in that box, to see whether it's, whether or not it's clear.
Certainly. And we probably all understand that, understand your point, um, but I mean, does...

Reporter
Do you really think that played very well with the jury?


GIC

Sure. I believe so. I think they can understand it. I think they're also normal, common sense people and they're gonna look back and say, "Yeah, it makes complete sense." She knew it was her profile and she knew she was teaching at the time and talking, so I mean, it all makes sense. That's what I'm trying to get across. If you want to be very rigid and say the protocol is the protocol and you can never deviate from this whatsoever, I don't think most people believe that's how life operates. That sometimes you do have to deviate just to make sense.

Read more at: http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.o...?f=524&t=24360

I think this pretty much sums up the problems with the case in general and how the jury was able to convict.

Again, the jury system is what it is. We don't get to overturn a verdict because we disagree with the jury. That's not how it works.

If they had not been TOLD this information, then it would be a different story.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:47 PM   #242
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
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.

Again, if you and I were sitting on the jury I think we'd both cause a mistrial because we wouldn't be able to convict because of the corruption of the police. But that would be more based on a sense of injustice.

If we were able to disregard what we felt was "contaminated" (in this case planted evidence) and just look at the other evidence, we might be able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

For you the fact that the cops messed with ANY of the evidence gives you reasonable doubt that ALL of the evidence is now suspect.

But in my perspective I would say "Ok here is the evidence, her body is on his property, the evidence in the burn barrel, and the issues with the phone call and him being the last person to see her alive......I can disregard the other evidence and convict him on THIS evidence alone." IMO the evidence shows that the cops tried to plant MORE evidence on his property to ensure a conviction. But that wouldn't invalidate the other evidence for me.

IMO that's what the jury did. And IMO it's a common experience in juries. There are many times where compelling evidence, even untampered with evidence is disregarded because juries don't consider them valid.

We don't get to overturn a verdict because we disagree with them.

(I'll see if I can find an example of a man accused of pushing his wife off a waterfall to show you what I mean.)

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 11:30 PM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:48 PM   #243
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
And I think as Sherry stated, 90 percent of the time, 99 percent, you know, is followed. You need that guideline. You need that standard.
Except when it's really, really important and a man's life is on the line. Then, well...you know...he's a creep....
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:51 PM   #244
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,670
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Again, if you and I were sitting on the jury I think we'd both cause a mistrial because we wouldn't be able to convict because of the corruption of the police. But that would be more based on a sense of injustice.

If we were able to disregard what we felt was "contaminated" (in this case planted evidence) and just look at the other evidence, we might be able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

For you the fact that the cops messed with ANY of the evidence gives you reasonable doubt that ALL of the evidence is now suspect.

But in my perspective I would say "Ok here is the evidence, her body is on his property, the evidence in the burn barrel, and the issues with the phone call and him being the last person to see her alive......I can disregard the other evidence and convict him on THIS evidence alone." IMO the evidence shows that the cops tried to plant MORE evidence on his property to ensure a conviction. But that wouldn't invalidate the other evidence for me.

IMO that's what they did. And IMO it's a common experience in juries. There are many times where compelling evidence, even untampered with evidence is disregarded because juries don't consider them valid.

We don't get to overturn a verdict because we disagree with them.

(I'll see if I can find an example of a man accused of pushing his wife off a waterfall to show you what I mean.)
And that's enough to acquit. Don't you understand this?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:53 PM   #245
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Except when it's really, really important and a man's life is on the line. Then, well...you know...he's a creep....
Again her body was found on his property. Him being a creep has nothing to do with that. That's what I don't understand people ignoring. Him being a creep doesn't help him.

But it's not like they convicted him with no body and no evidence except for her key in his room and her car found on his property.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:54 PM   #246
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,670
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Except when it's really, really important and a man's life is on the line. Then, well...you know...he's a creep....
Yup. 10% error possibility? That would get cases thrown out around the world. Not necessarily in the US though.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:55 PM   #247
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
And that's enough to acquit. Don't you understand this?
For you it is. For DragonLady it is. Not for me. Not for the members of the jury.

Do you understand how a jury works? We don't get to overturn a jury verdict just because we disagree with it.

Flip it the other way around and let's say he was found innocent not guilty. He's allowed to walk out onto the court steps and say "Suckers! I did it!" And they can't overturn the verdict.

That's how a jury works. You don't like it? Ok a lot of people don't like jury verdicts. Look at George Zimmerman, OJ and Casey Anthony.

You don't get to overturn a jury verdict just because you don't agree with it.

Last edited by truethat; 6th January 2016 at 11:11 PM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 10:59 PM   #248
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
For you the fact that the cops messed with ANY of the evidence gives you reasonable doubt that ALL of the evidence is now suspect.
Yes; for me it does.

Just for the sake of the discussion:

If we grant the LEO's planted the key. Let's say we know for an incontrovertible fact an LEO planted the key.

Now we have to ask:

Where did he get the key? Did he break a law to obtain this key? Is there another victim of some other crime involved somewhere (did he steal a wallet? did he find the victim's corpse, rob her, and then keep the key?)

Why did he plant the key where he did -in an area he knew had already been searched?

If he was willing to plant a key, was he not also willing to plant blood evidence? If not, why not?

If he was willing to plant a key, was he not also willing to move some bones from another burn site to Avery's yard? If not, why not?

If he was willing to plant a key, was he not also willing to convince one of his fellow LEOs to plant something else? Convince all of them to each plant something? If not, why not?

The questions go on, and those questions are reasonable doubts.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:00 PM   #249
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Here's the case I was talking about before DragonLady, I don't know if you are familiar with it. You can watch the video of it on youtube somewhere. (Either Dateline or 48 Hours has it.)

Basically they were on the top of a cliff and he said she fell to her death. The way they found the body made them suspicious. (That and he had a previous wife die and collected her life insurance)

During the trial they brought in these water experts and reinacted the way a body would fall of the cliff and how it would land. They spent all this money and had several experts showing she wouldn't have fallen and been swept down the river the way he said she did.

I remember watching and calling BS on it. How can you replicate a fall and the currents of a constantly changing body of water? How can you throw a body doll off a cliff and say it's the same thing as a living person falling?

So basically they disregarded all that testimony. When they interviewed the jury they said they just put it aside and looked at the other evidence. They found him guilty.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2459023
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:04 PM   #250
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,670
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
For you it is. For DragonLady it is. Not for me. Not for the members of the jury.

Do you understand how a jury works? We don't get to overturn a jury verdict just because we disagree with it.

Flip it the other way around and let's say he was found innocent. He's allowed to walk out onto the court steps and say "Suckers! I did it!" And they can't overturn the verdict.

That's how a jury works. You don't like it? Ok a lot of people don't like jury verdicts. Look at George Zimmerman, OJ and Casey Anthony.

You don't get to overturn a jury verdict just because you don't agree with it.
Clearly you don't. Nobody in the US, and anywhere to my knowledge, is found "innocent". "Not guilty" is a far different concept. Your fundamental misunderstanding of criminal justice is shining through in this thread. Embarrassingly.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:04 PM   #251
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Yes; for me it does.

Just for the sake of the discussion:

If we grant the LEO's planted the key. Let's say we know for an incontrovertible fact an LEO planted the key.

Now we have to ask:

Where did he get the key? Did he break a law to obtain this key? Is there another victim of some other crime involved somewhere (did he steal a wallet? did he find the victim's corpse, rob her, and then keep the key?)

Why did he plant the key where he did -in an area he knew had already been searched?

If he was willing to plant a key, was he not also willing to plant blood evidence? If not, why not?

If he was willing to plant a key, was he not also willing to move some bones from another burn site to Avery's yard? If not, why not?

If he was willing to plant a key, was he not also willing to convince one of his fellow LEOs to plant something else? Convince all of them to each plant something? If not, why not?

The questions go on, and those questions are reasonable doubts.


I totally understand where you are coming from. That's why I quoted the other guy. At a certain point common sense comes into it. (And I'm not saying MY common sense is YOUR common sense. We can agree to disagree)

But what is more reasonable to me is what I said. They had him and they tried to plant MORE evidence because they were worried that without DNA evidence the jury wouldn't convict.

Stupid stupid people. Criminal people who should be prosecuted. I would have absolutely no problem at all with everyone involved in that sitting in jail.

But as a juror I would be able to put it aside and consider the other evidence. Do I think it's possible that they planted the body on his property?

Well possible yes. But I don't think they did it. It's much easier to plant a key and swipe some blood. That is what I think they did.

I'd be able to keep it separate. But I understand why you wouldn't.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:06 PM   #252
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Clearly you don't. Nobody in the US, and anywhere to my knowledge, is found "innocent". "Not guilty" is a far different concept. Your fundamental misunderstanding of criminal justice is shining through in this thread. Embarrassingly.
Ok point noted. Are you interested in having a conversation or just going by your usual MO of constantly quoting people just to criticize them and insult them without ever adding anything meaningful to the discussion? Hope you are enjoying yourself.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:09 PM   #253
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,670
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Ok point noted. Are you interested in having a conversation or just going by your usual MO of constantly quoting people just to criticize them and insult them without ever adding anything meaningful to the discussion? Hope you are enjoying yourself.
I'm pointing out stupid posts. That's all.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:09 PM   #254
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
Again her body was found on his property.
PARTS of her body were found on his property. Other PARTS were found at another burn site.

Let's all consider something I don't remember any one bringing up in the documentary at all: the smell of a burning corpse. No one said a single word about the smell of burning flesh in that "bomb fire".

I don't know what a burning human smells like. But back in the early 90's my ex and I cooked our Thanksgiving turkey in a 3' deep pit out in the desert. There wasn't a soul around for miles. But the smell of it cooking brought 40 people. I can't imagine Dassey, his family, the neighbors, the people passing by on the highway, etc never smelled a burning corpse.

So I tend to believe she was probably first burned somewhere else. Which only makes more doubts: why move the bones TO the property? Is it not possible he left the bones -and the key- somewhere else, the cops found them, then planted them at his home?

If that's possible, then we're right back to square one: we don't for sure know who killed her, or where, or why. We can say Avery is the LIKELY suspect, but that just isn't enough to take a man's life away.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:15 PM   #255
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
PARTS of her body were found on his property. Other PARTS were found at another burn site.

Let's all consider something I don't remember any one bringing up in the documentary at all: the smell of a burning corpse. No one said a single word about the smell of burning flesh in that "bomb fire".

I don't know what a burning human smells like. But back in the early 90's my ex and I cooked our Thanksgiving turkey in a 3' deep pit out in the desert. There wasn't a soul around for miles. But the smell of it cooking brought 40 people. I can't imagine Dassey, his family, the neighbors, the people passing by on the highway, etc never smelled a burning corpse.

So I tend to believe she was probably first burned somewhere else. Which only makes more doubts: why move the bones TO the property? Is it not possible he left the bones -and the key- somewhere else, the cops found them, then planted them at his home?

If that's possible, then we're right back to square one: we don't for sure know who killed her, or where, or why. We can say Avery is the LIKELY suspect, but that just isn't enough to take a man's life away.
That's actually a valid point and one that I've mentioned before (although from my angle a different one.)

So that takes us to what we think may have happened. Who knows maybe she had a heart attack while she was driving her car and she came to a stop and died. A cop finds the car. She's dead and they know she just came from his house and say "BINGO! Let's use this to frame him!"

It could happen. But I have a very hard time believing it. I think in a situation like that they'd launch into procedure of getting her to a hospital.

However if you could show that any of the cops was in any way involved with her....and she died with THEM or something maybe. They filmed this documentary for 10 years and people were digging like mad to find evidence. I think something would have come up.

Then we get to the idea that maybe they killed her to frame him and that goes back to my other argument, it would have been easier for them to kill him.

So unless you have some new evidence or something, I'm pretty confident that he killed her.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:17 PM   #256
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I'm pointing out stupid posts. That's all.
Yep. That's all you do.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:19 PM   #257
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,670
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Yep. That's all you do.
You give me plenty of opportunities.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:21 PM   #258
Yalius
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 474
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Yes; for me it does.

Just for the sake of the discussion:

If we grant the LEO's planted the key. Let's say we know for an incontrovertible fact an LEO planted the key.

Now we have to ask:

Where did he get the key? Did he break a law to obtain this key? Is there another victim of some other crime involved somewhere (did he steal a wallet? did he find the victim's corpse, rob her, and then keep the key?)

Why did he plant the key where he did -in an area he knew had already been searched?

If he was willing to plant a key, was he not also willing to plant blood evidence? If not, why not?

If he was willing to plant a key, was he not also willing to move some bones from another burn site to Avery's yard? If not, why not?

If he was willing to plant a key, was he not also willing to convince one of his fellow LEOs to plant something else? Convince all of them to each plant something? If not, why not?

The questions go on, and those questions are reasonable doubts.
You're now getting to the point where the superhuman framing ability of this one cop is beyond any conceivable person's skills. This is one of those circumstances where *every* piece of evidence would have to be impeccably and expertly faked, and that's just not reasonable to believe. I mean, you're not talking about ambiguous evidence that suggests a particular culprit, but a litany of unambiguous items that are essentially dispositive individually, and en masse are simply overwhelming.
Yalius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:25 PM   #259
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Yalius View Post
You're now getting to the point where the superhuman framing ability of this one cop is beyond any conceivable person's skills. This is one of those circumstances where *every* piece of evidence would have to be impeccably and expertly faked, and that's just not reasonable to believe. I mean, you're not talking about ambiguous evidence that suggests a particular culprit, but a litany of unambiguous items that are essentially dispositive individually, and en masse are simply overwhelming.
This is how I see it as well. A key? They found the car maybe the key was in the ignition. Seems likely. So they contaminate the key and the car and then drop the key in his house somewhere random.

That is believable to me. The other stuff is too complicated and easily exposed.

So for example say the ex boyfriend killed her and they know "someone else killed her" they'd have to take the risk of that person never making a mistake or a slip up or telling someone while drunk or having a conflicted story that's busted by a witness etc etc etc.

It's also why I mentioned earlier that when you watch the documentary you can see when he's 100 percent confident that the cops planted the evidence.

It's like two liars looking at each other both knowing the other one lied because they are also lying. They can't reveal why they know the other person is lying without exposing themselves.

He knows what evidence they planted because he knows what really happened. IMO
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:25 PM   #260
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
So that takes us to what we think may have happened. Who knows maybe she had a heart attack while she was driving her car and she came to a stop and died. A cop finds the car. She's dead and they know she just came from his house and say "BINGO! Let's use this to frame him!"

It could happen. But I have a very hard time believing it.
Understood. But for me, believing that is no more difficult than believing Avery blew off a huge financial judgement for the thrill(?) of killing a woman on the eve of collecting the money.

Stranger things have happened.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:27 PM   #261
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Understood. But for me, believing that is no more difficult than believing Avery blew off a huge financial judgement for the thrill(?) of killing a woman on the eve of collecting the money.

Stranger things have happened.
I think the impetus for the crime was Jodi going to jail. He kept saying over and over again he just wanted to get married. Even when she was forced to cut off contact with him he mentioned that.

I think he was angry and lost it. I don't believe Dassey's story at all. I think it was a lost of control. Perhaps a sexual assault or an attempt at one and she said she'd do something and he killed her so as not to lose the lawsuit.

But I'm clearly just speculating 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:28 PM   #262
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,670
Originally Posted by Yalius View Post
You're now getting to the point where the superhuman framing ability of this one cop is beyond any conceivable person's skills. This is one of those circumstances where *every* piece of evidence would have to be impeccably and expertly faked, and that's just not reasonable to believe. I mean, you're not talking about ambiguous evidence that suggests a particular culprit, but a litany of unambiguous items that are essentially dispositive individually, and en masse are simply overwhelming.
What other pieces of evidence apart from the key, the "magic bullet" (where there is contamination) and the blood smear in the SUV tie Avery to the murder? Not that difficult to plant by police with access to crime scenes and laboratories.

I'm not saying this happened. It does go to reasonable doubt though. Together with the lack of physical evidence from the alleged murder scenes.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 6th January 2016 at 11:30 PM.
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:30 PM   #263
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
You're now getting to the point where the superhuman framing ability of this one cop is beyond any conceivable person's skills.
I agree it becomes facetious quickly. However, those are the kinds of questions that spring to my mind. From the poisoned seed grows a whole poisonous tree.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:36 PM   #264
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I agree it becomes facetious quickly. However, those are the kinds of questions that spring to my mind. From the poisoned seed grows a whole poisonous tree.
How would you handle this case if you were given magic powers to do whatever you wanted?
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:40 PM   #265
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
How would you handle this case if you were given magic powers to do whatever you wanted?
I think I would simply insist he get a new trial, using only evidence that has not been cast under the shadows caused by the possible misconduct, and with a new prosecutor, judge, and jury.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th January 2016, 11:53 PM   #266
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I think I would simply insist he get a new trial, using only evidence that has not been cast under the shadows caused by the possible misconduct, and with a new prosecutor, judge, and jury.
But how would you ensure that if you think that all the evidence is suspect?

Is there any evidence you think is valid?
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:03 AM   #267
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,064
Originally Posted by Yalius View Post
You're now getting to the point where the superhuman framing ability of this one cop is beyond any conceivable person's skills. This is one of those circumstances where *every* piece of evidence would have to be impeccably and expertly faked, and that's just not reasonable to believe. I mean, you're not talking about ambiguous evidence that suggests a particular culprit, but a litany of unambiguous items that are essentially dispositive individually, and en masse are simply overwhelming.
No one is arguing all the evidence was faked.

The point is, in a compromised investigation where you know at least some of the evidence is tainted, it's impossible to know what evidence you can trust.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:04 AM   #268
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
But how would you ensure that if you think that all the evidence is suspect?

Is there any evidence you think is valid?
I don't think ANY of the evidence presented thus far is completely clear of suspicion. I'd have to start at the beginning, and evaluate each piece with new eyes. But if I had those magic powers of "anything I want", I'd want to just start over.

"Okay, everyone...old, cold case. Start at the top, and find out whodunit, why they dunit, where they dunit, and how they dunit."
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:07 AM   #269
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,064
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I don't think ANY of the evidence presented thus far is completely clear of suspicion. I'd have to start at the beginning, and evaluate each piece with new eyes. But if I had those magic powers of "anything I want", I'd want to just start over.

"Okay, everyone...old, cold case. Start at the top, and find out whodunit, why they dunit, where they dunit, and how they dunit."
And let's maybe keep anyone with a conflict of interest from taking part in the investigation.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:07 AM   #270
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,670
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
No one is arguing all the evidence was faked.

The point is, in a compromised investigation where you know at least some of the evidence is tainted, it's impossible to know what evidence you can trust.
And that's the point.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:09 AM   #271
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
And let's maybe keep anyone with a conflict of interest from taking part in the investigation.
YES!
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:09 AM   #272
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
No one is arguing all the evidence was faked.

The point is, in a compromised investigation where you know at least some of the evidence is tainted, it's impossible to know what evidence you can trust.
Exactly, so now you'll see my point I hope.

Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I don't think ANY of the evidence presented thus far is completely clear of suspicion. I'd have to start at the beginning, and evaluate each piece with new eyes. But if I had those magic powers of "anything I want", I'd want to just start over.

"Okay, everyone...old, cold case. Start at the top, and find out whodunit, why they dunit, where they dunit, and how they dunit."

I wish we could do that.

So to the bolded here's my point, I think that if we retried the case and DIDN'T submit the supposedly planted evidence, then we'd not really have a reason to discuss the idea that the cops were framing him.

I think the right way to present the case is to show ALL the evidence, INCLUDING evidence that the cops were framing him. Which they DID.

And then let the jury decide which evidence they would consider valid and which they would disregard.

This is what the judge did. The jury looked at all the evidence, listened to the arguments that there was a frame up going on and convicted him.

So in my mind it would have the same result anyway.

Not if YOU were on the jury of course. If they had a different jury they may have gotten a different result.

But this is how the jury system works. We have to accept their verdict.


What I'd like to see is more energy and focus directed at the police that planted the evidence and for them to be convicted if they did. I think that is a step in making sure this never happens again.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:10 AM   #273
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,064
And that's a perfect plan because juries always get it exactly right.

ETA: And sorry, but the idea that we should allow tainted evidence into a trial and just let the jury figure it all out is beyond stupid. There's a reason we have things like due process and rules of evidence. It can't just be a free-for-all with all our faith placed in the wisdom of twelve random people.

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 12:19 AM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:12 AM   #274
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
And that's a perfect plan because juries always get it exactly right.
Hey I've pointed out cases I didn't agree with as well. I'll point them out again. George Zimmerman, OJ and Casey Anthony.

You want to get upset at stupid juries who don't do their jobs correctly? Welcome to the club.

But again, we don't get to overturn a verdict because we don't agree with it and that is what the petition is trying to do.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:14 AM   #275
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,670
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Exactly, so now you'll see my point I hope.




I wish we could do that.

So to the bolded here's my point, I think that if we retried the case and DIDN'T submit the supposedly planted evidence, then we'd not really have a reason to discuss the idea that the cops were framing him.

I think the right way to present the case is to show ALL the evidence, INCLUDING evidence that the cops were framing him. Which they DID.

And then let the jury decide which evidence they would consider valid and which they would disregard.

This is what the judge did. The jury looked at all the evidence, listened to the arguments that there was a frame up going on and convicted him.

So in my mind it would have the same result anyway.

Not if YOU were on the jury of course. If they had a different jury they may have gotten a different result.

But this is how the jury system works. We have to accept their verdict.


What I'd like to see is more energy and focus directed at the police that planted the evidence and for them to be convicted if they did. I think that is a step in making sure this never happens again.
Let me get this right. You are advocating that tainted evidence should be presented in the event of a new trial? That seems to be what you are saying. Please confirm.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:22 AM   #276
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Let me get this right. You are advocating that tainted evidence should be presented in the event of a new trial? That seems to be what you are saying. Please confirm.
Yes.

Consider it this way. (I'm only going to try once to explain it to you so I'm not willing to keep going back and forth. TYIA)


If we had to sit down and say what evidence do we consider "untainted" and then we decide it's the things I mentioned before. (You may have other evidence you'd use)
  • Her body was found on his property

  • Her car was found on his property

  • He was the last person to see her alive

  • The phone calls

If we say, "we're not going to present the DNA, the key, the bullet and the blood in the car"

Ok so we don't present that. But by NOT presenting that, I don't think he's getting a fair trial. I think the only fair trial is to show all this evidence and to point out that there is a good suspicion that the cops planted evidence in an attempt to frame him.

Our defense is "He's being framed. Motive? The Law Suit." Means? Cops who should not have had access to his property, are suspected of planting evidence. Opportunity? They were on the property when they should have only had an outside source investigating.


This is the defense. If you don't allow the suspect evidence in, then how do you prove to the jury that there was "planted evidence?"

As we have discussed thus far, the body is a little harder to believe.

Most people don't think the body was planted. So if we can only talk about the body and not the key, it's less believable that he is being framed.

By showing all the "evidence" that the cops came up with, and by showing how the evidence was suspect and could have been planted we give a clearer picture about how it went down.

The cop on the stand pointing out that no one found the key 3 times and then all of a sudden it's there.....was very compelling evidence to me. I believed him.

It made me consider that he was being framed.

What's going to happen if you don't allow that into the case? It's going to diminish the evidence that proves he's being framed.

So I think that it was presented to the jury exactly the way it should have been.


Does that mean I think the cops should not be prosecuted? NO. I've pointed that out several times already.

Last edited by truethat; 7th January 2016 at 12:23 AM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:26 AM   #277
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,670
Unbelievable. Thank goodness you play no part in the criminal justice system.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:27 AM   #278
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
I think the right way to present the case is to show ALL the evidence, INCLUDING evidence that the cops were framing him. Which they DID.
(nods) I understand your point. Let me try to explain why I disagree.

Assume, first, we're on the jury. Again, let's assume we know for a fact the key was planted.

So...we jurors throw out the key. That brings us to the blood in the car. We KNOW the key was planted; now we have to decide if the blood in the car was, too.

Is it more or less likely someone planted it?

On one hand: we have the blood in the evidence locker, with the hole in the stopper.

On the other hand, we have the FBI test that says no EDTA detected (in a test that usually isn't allowed because it doesn't work very well).

(sigh) eenie meenie....

Now, I'm forced to say "Damn...it's entirely possible the blood was planted, as well as the key. So that brings us to the "bomb fire" (love that phrase!!!), and the bones and the second burn site....

We have to individually weigh the odds of every single piece of evidence, decide whether or not they were planted, then decide -finally- if that evidence is enough to convict.

It turns any verdict into Russian Roulette -with someone else's life.

In short: The jury is there to weigh the evidence, not to weigh the odds of whether the evidence should ever have been presented.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:35 AM   #279
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
(nods) I understand your point. Let me try to explain why I disagree.

Assume, first, we're on the jury. Again, let's assume we know for a fact the key was planted.

So...we jurors throw out the key. That brings us to the blood in the car. We KNOW the key was planted; now we have to decide if the blood in the car was, too.

Is it more or less likely someone planted it?

On one hand: we have the blood in the evidence locker, with the hole in the stopper.

On the other hand, we have the FBI test that says no EDTA detected (in a test that usually isn't allowed because it doesn't work very well).

(sigh) eenie meenie....

Now, I'm forced to say "Damn...it's entirely possible the blood was planted, as well as the key. So that brings us to the "bomb fire" (love that phrase!!!), and the bones and the second burn site....

We have to individually weigh the odds of every single piece of evidence, decide whether or not they were planted, then decide -finally- if that evidence is enough to convict.

It turns any verdict into Russian Roulette -with someone else's life.

In short: The jury is there to weigh the evidence, not to weigh the odds of whether the evidence should ever have been presented.

I think the blood evidence was planted and the DNA evidence was planted, the key the bullet everything.

I am only going by the evidence I listed as far as why I'd convict beyond a reasonable doubt.


As to the bolded, I kinda disagree with you on that one. I think it is the nature of the beast. I know what you are trying to get at but that's not the verdict the jury is being asked to decide on.

(that would be in the police misconduct case though)


For example in the two cases I shared with you in the thread we have two forms of testimony and evidence that the jury needs to consider.

The DA is always going to have a version of the events that they present because that's how they do it. So for example the DA said in the Wright case that it was a case of premeditated murder. (In that regard the jury would decide which evidence proves what) Do you see what I mean?

But the bottom line is she was found guilty. The Casey Anthony case was a shock to me because I couldn't believe they didn't find her guilty of anything.

These types of cases usually have multiple charges or degrees of guilt that they are deciding. I was very surprised that they didn't get her on child abuse.

In this case those levels would be where we would decide as a jury if the evidence should have been presented.

Let's look at it another way. Let's say they let in the story about him burning the cat when he was a teenager. You might say it is painting him in a negative light that has nothing to do with the case. If you and I were in the jury room you could make a strong case to me that I should not consider that evidence when deciding his guilt in this crime.

Do you know what I mean?
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:36 AM   #280
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
If we had to sit down and say what evidence do we consider "untainted" and then we decide it's the things I mentioned before. (You may have other evidence you'd use)•Her body was found on his property


•Her car was found on his property


•He was the last person to see her alive


•The phone calls
Right. But at the end of the documentary, I was no longer even 100% sure the woman is DEAD.

The fact they found her DNA on a bullet fragment that just suddenly appeared in a garage that had been searched before just wasn't overwhelmingly convincing. She might have spit on the damn thing. It's not LIKELY, but it's not impossible, and with all the other issues that have already been proven to be tainted, we just can't be certain of anything.

The same LEO who lies about a key may lie about the victim -he may know damn good and well she's hiding out in Ol' Mexico with his nephew the tennis pro.

That's why I say: if ONE thing is poisoned, ALL of it is.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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