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

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


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

Reply
Old 7th January 2016, 12:36 AM   #281
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Truethat,

Wow. Enabling police corruption. Impressive.
__________________
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, 12:42 AM   #282
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
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.
Right. The jury weighed the evidence. That is what they're supposed to do. But (while I just skimmed through your links) I didn't see anything suggesting they had to weigh whether the evidence was planted or tampered with.
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:42 AM   #283
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
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.

LOL Stranger things have happened. Remember the case in Australia where the guy was on trial for murder and then it turned out the girl had been hiding out in a house for the last three years. They said it was the only murder trial where the victim was found alive in the middle of the trial.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/11/australia

I've never considered that she might still be alive. But again ten years is a long time. As I said, if you could find any evidence that she was involved with anyone in the police force I might have a reasonable doubt.

Maybe they went to a morgue or mortuary and grabbed a bunch of cremated bones. But based on the evidence we have I do not think that is likely.
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, 12:44 AM   #284
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
But based on the evidence we have I do not think that is likely.
Nor do I. But, let's not forget: these are the SAME LEOs who sent the man to prison for rape despite knowing there was another, more likely, suspect.
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:49 AM   #285
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Right. The jury weighed the evidence. That is what they're supposed to do. But (while I just skimmed through your links) I didn't see anything suggesting they had to weigh whether the evidence was planted or tampered with.

Like I said, I'm a true crime junky. I'm realizing that's why I'm having a different take on a lot of things about this case. (Namely his interrogation)

But yeah it comes up all the time in cases. ALL the time. Think OJ they accused the guy of planting the glove. Think about cop shootings where they say they planted a gun.

There's also the issue of "Chain of Custody" where evidence is challenged because they don't think it was kept preserved properly. Or challenges to labs for not properly dealing with evidence.

Remember the woman who was accused of killing her husband with arsenic poisoning and it turned out the lab got it wrong and it was tossed out.

http://murderpedia.org/female.S/s/sommer-cynthia.htm


But for every case like that there is another case where the defense argues that the evidence is tainted or planted or the confession was cooerced etc etc etc. (Amanda Knox)

There are many cases where the jury has to decide based on what they have to work with. Sometimes, if there is enough other evidence they convict. Sometimes they don't.

But the defense always accuses the evidence of being tainted or not handled properly.
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, 12:50 AM   #286
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Nor do I. But, let's not forget: these are the SAME LEOs who sent the man to prison for rape despite knowing there was another, more likely, suspect.
Yep. And that's why I think they should be prosecuted. And in fact it makes me understand their motive for planting the evidence and why I think the evidence was planted and why I disregard that evidence.

Again there is still enough other evidence IMO (I know not yours) for me to convict. Thank god we're not on a jury together huh?
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, 12:54 AM   #287
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Right. The jury weighed the evidence. That is what they're supposed to do. But (while I just skimmed through your links) I didn't see anything suggesting they had to weigh whether the evidence was planted or tampered with.
Of course they don't. The whole criminal justice system relies on ethical police behaviour. This is why police forces (professional ones at least) have Ethical Standards or similarly named divisions. The chances of planted or tainted evidence presented? Yes possible. The chances of known tainted evidence being presented (as truethat is advocating)? Virtually zero.
__________________
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, 12:54 AM   #288
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Thank god we're not on a jury together huh?
lol

"Your honor, we need more jurors. These two have killed each other."
__________________
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

Last edited by DragonLady; 7th January 2016 at 12:56 AM. Reason: spllng
DragonLady is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:04 AM   #289
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,808
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.
Except her burned remains were intertwined with the steel belts from her vehicle tires. Dassey is the one who told LE they put the tires in the fire, IIUC. That was not public knowledge so it matched the findings the police knew about. I bet burning rubber smells pretty bad too. Maybe even enough to mask other stench.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:09 AM   #290
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
I bet burning rubber smells pretty bad too. Maybe even enough to mask other stench.
(shakes head) Maybe.... As a teen I attended many desert parties where tires were burned, and while it does stink, it's not bad enough to drive anyone away, or to entirely cover up the smells of other stuff being burned, too. But all four tires burning at once? Maybe.

I do, however, contend that if she was first burned somewhere else, then brought to the property and burned a second time, a tire would mask the smell.
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:12 AM   #291
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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.
But then who is to decide what is tainted, of not the jury. The defense would have you believe everything is tainted. The eyewitness who saw her arrive at the property? Tainted. The phone call evidence? Tainted. The fact that she was specifically requested to come that day? Tainted.

I think it is a slippery slope to have a pre-jury, for lack of a better term, decide what gets let into the trial. That is why it all gets presented to the jury and then they decide.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:12 AM   #292
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
(shakes head) Maybe.... As a teen I attended many desert parties where tires were burned, and while it does stink, it's not bad enough to drive anyone away, or to entirely cover up the smells of other stuff being burned, too. But all four tires burning at once? Maybe.

I do, however, contend that if she was first burned somewhere else, then brought to the property and burned a second time, a tire would mask the smell.

This is an interesting part of the evidence that I would like to have seen explored more by the defense. For example, as you pointed out before, when was it burned?

I have not heard (but have not read all the transcripts) his sister say for example, "is that what you were burning? You said you were burning tires."

I think the defense dropped the ball 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 7th January 2016, 01:14 AM   #293
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
But then who is to decide what is tainted, of not the jury. The defense would have you believe everything is tainted. The eyewitness who saw her arrive at the property? Tainted. The phone call evidence? Tainted. The fact that she was specifically requested to come that day? Tainted.

I think it is a slippery slope to have a pre-jury, for lack of a better term, decide what gets let into the trial. That is why it all gets presented to the jury and then they decide.
They actually do have this. It's the judges call. I think the judge made the right decision in allowing it all in and allowing the line of questioning suggesting it was planted.

Can you understand DragonLady why I say by not allowing it in, he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial?
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, 01:15 AM   #294
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Of course they don't. The whole criminal justice system relies on ethical police behaviour. This is why police forces (professional ones at least) have Ethical Standards or similarly named divisions. The chances of planted or tainted evidence presented? Yes possible. The chances of known tainted evidence being presented (as truethat is advocating)? Virtually zero.
Evidence that they knew it was tainted? You do realize this documentary took ten years to make and we are viewing it after the fact?

If the evidence was KNOWN to have been tainted then why haven't they prosecuted the people who did it? Even if the entire town was corrupt, the defense made this case loud and clear. Do you think IA just blew it off?
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, 01:21 AM   #295
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Where I come from the prosecution has to decide on the veracity of evidence. If the evidence is dodgy, the prosecution doesn't proceed. Some people here seem to be saying "introduce all evidence, regardless of how tainted it is, and let the jury decide". Is this how people want a criminal justice system to work? 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:25 AM   #296
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Where I come from the prosecution has to decide on the veracity of evidence. If the evidence is dodgy, the prosecution doesn't proceed. Some people here seem to be saying "introduce all evidence, regardless of how tainted it is, and let the jury decide". Is this how people want a criminal justice system to work? Really?
Yes as long as you point out that the evidence is tainted. It's important to do so.

Many times in trials (and has been the case in this one) the police zero in on ONE suspect and don't investigate other people who had Motive, Means and Opportunity.

If they get an appeal, they present ALL the evidence and discredit it. It's what the defense is supposed to do.

For example in the Ryan Ferguson case the janitor who identified him was called back to the appeal. They presented his original testimony where he identified Ryan Fergus and then the defense tore it apart.

The witness tearfully admitted on the stand that he had felt cooerced into identifying Ryan Ferguson by the DA's office.

They presented the testimony and then challenged it. It's how you show the jury the truth.
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, 01:25 AM   #297
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,808
For it to be KNOWN tainted evidence, you'd have to prove it. I don't think you can prove any of it is absolutely tainted. Do you want to have a pretrial on the pieces of evidence to be admitted?

Look at the spray tan murder case. The cops did not collect the magazines in the magazine rack which reportedly had spray tan on them. This was all part of the evidence phase of the trial and it left enough doubt for the husband to be acquitted.

Evidence is usually presented by one side and then refuted by the other, as was done in the Avery case. It is common for the jurors to be the ones to hear both sides of the evidence and then make their decision. I don't know what the alternative is in this case. The defense claims the key was planted. They give the reasons someone would want to plant it, the fact it has no DNA belonging to the owner of the key and it was not found on three prior searches. Then it is up to the jury to give it the weight it deserves. That's the way it works.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:27 AM   #298
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
For it to be KNOWN tainted evidence, you'd have to prove it. I don't think you can prove any of it is absolutely tainted. Do you want to have a pretrial on the pieces of evidence to be admitted?

Look at the spray tan murder case. The cops did not collect the magazines in the magazine rack which reportedly had spray tan on them. This was all part of the evidence phase of the trial and it left enough doubt for the husband to be acquitted.

Evidence is usually presented by one side and then refuted by the other, as was done in the Avery case. It is common for the jurors to be the ones to hear both sides of the evidence and then make their decision. I don't know what the alternative is in this case. The defense claims the key was planted. They give the reasons someone would want to plant it, the fact it has no DNA belonging to the owner of the key and it was not found on three prior searches. Then it is up to the jury to give it the weight it deserves. That's the way it works.

I was actually thinking about the Spray Tan murder case when we were discussing "tainted evidence." Remember how they nailed the chick for having a relationship with one of the cops. She was PISSSED OFF. LOL

These trials always dig in and try to find any way to prove the evidence or testimony is tainted, biased, wrong etc etc etc. I honestly think that in this case it's what got the guy off. (That and the ******* DA insulting the grandmother in front of the jury)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...detective.html

Last edited by truethat; 7th January 2016 at 01:29 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, 01:31 AM   #299
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
They actually do have this. It's the judges call. I think the judge made the right decision in allowing it all in and allowing the line of questioning suggesting it was planted.

Can you understand DragonLady why I say by not allowing it in, he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial?
I'm not positive, but I don't think judges decide on actual pieces of evidence unless there is a Brady violation of some sort. Or maybe if there is some other rule of law regarding the piece of evidence, but I can't think of a piece of evidence ruled on by a judge and I bet you I am a bigger trial junkie than you are
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:33 AM   #300
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
I was actually thinking about the Spray Tan murder case when we were discussing "tainted evidence." Remember how they nailed the chick for having a relationship with one of the cops. She was PISSSED OFF. LOL

These trials always dig in and try to find any way to prove the evidence or testimony is tainted, biased, wrong etc etc etc. I honestly think that in this case it's what got the guy off. (That and the ******* DA insulting the grandmother in front of the jury)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...detective.html
Ha! That was some of the best drama ever in a trial! I watched that entire trial. (I also watched the entire trial of Arias and Casi Anthony, including jury selection.)
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:33 AM   #301
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
I'm not positive, but I don't think judges decide on actual pieces of evidence unless there is a Brady violation of some sort. Or maybe if there is some other rule of law regarding the piece of evidence, but I can't think of a piece of evidence ruled on by a judge and I bet you I am a bigger trial junkie than you are
Maybe I'm misunderstanding it then, but isn't there always a discussion without the jury present about what will be allowed in and what will not? That's what I'm referring to.
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, 01:37 AM   #302
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Ha! That was some of the best drama ever in a trial! I watched that entire trial. (I also watched the entire trial of Arias and Casi Anthony, including jury selection.)
Maybe you'll understand what I mean by his interrogation. It's funny (and I know I know it's woo) but like I said, when I started watching this it was at the suggestion of Ryan Ferguson. So my attitude going in was that Avery was completely innocent.

I was totally on his side for not "confessing to a crime he didn't commit" for the first part. But when it got to the scene where he was being interviewed by the media about the woman showing up on his property that day, I was sitting there mind blown, going "Holy **** this guy is lying through his teeth." It was only then that I looked up the case and saw that he was convicted.
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, 01:38 AM   #303
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
I'm not positive, but I don't think judges decide on actual pieces of evidence unless there is a Brady violation of some sort. Or maybe if there is some other rule of law regarding the piece of evidence, but I can't think of a piece of evidence ruled on by a judge and I bet you I am a bigger trial junkie than you are
The prosecution decides what evidence to present to support the charge. In decent jurisdictions this responsibility is treated seriously, and the tainted bullet evidence, which was decisive,nwoukd not even be presented.
__________________
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, 01:38 AM   #304
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Maybe I'm misunderstanding it then, but isn't there always a discussion without the jury present about what will be allowed in and what will not? That's what I'm referring to.
I will have to think on this for a bit, but I can day no, there is not always a discussion about what can be admitted and what can't unless there is a motion filed for some reason.

There would be in cases of prior convictions coming in and things which might not give the perp a fair trial, but certainly not over every piece of evidence and not usually over any one piece of evidence, but let me think on this a bit.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:42 AM   #305
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The prosecution decides what evidence to present to support the charge. In decent jurisdictions this responsibility is treated seriously, and the tainted bullet evidence, which was decisive,nwoukd not even be presented.
Is this a moral question? I thought those didn't matter.


Actually the reality of it is the DA is trying to get a conviction. I do agree with you that no evidence should ever be presented to a jury that is KNOWN to be tainted, wrong, contaminated. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way which is why the defense is allowed to challenge it. That's how it works.


But I think we all are hearing the evidence and deciding that it's tainted. There is not evidence that it was known by the DA to be tainted. The cop who did it is NOT the person who presented the case.

You don't think the cop told the DA that he planted it do you? Why would he do that? If he did the DA would prosecute him. (Unless it's your opinion that they all were in on it and it's a conspiracy. I can see that argument but it wasn't what was presented at trial.)
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, 01:43 AM   #306
Ampulla of Vater
Master Poster
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The prosecution decides what evidence to present to support the charge. In decent jurisdictions this responsibility is treated seriously, and the tainted bullet evidence, which was decisive,nwoukd not even be presented.
Yes and no. Yes, the prosecution decides what to present to support their charges. Don't forget though, the prosecution takes what is presented to them by the cops and makes a case. They are not a neutral party, but more of a team on the same team as the cops, an extension if you will. I'm not sure they would scrutinize the evidence and admit it was planted. If they had enough other evidence and felt something was potentially damaging to the case, they might decide not to use it.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:46 AM   #307
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Is this a moral question? I thought those didn't matter.
Where did you get this idea? 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:47 AM   #308
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Yes and no. Yes, the prosecution decides what to present to support their charges. Don't forget though, the prosecution takes what is presented to them by the cops and makes a case. They are not a neutral party, but more of a team on the same team as the cops, an extension if you will. I'm not sure they would scrutinize the evidence and admit it was planted. If they had enough other evidence and felt something was potentially damaging to the case, they might decide not to use it.
I think this is more likely the case. Why risk an appeal? DAs like convictions and they don't like issues that could potentially overturn that conviction.

We also could wonder why they submitted the confession. I think that has more to do with ego than deliberately submitting a coerced confession. Cops like to think they are masters are getting confessions. Most of the interviews I've seen with them they don't act like there's even the possibility that it's coerced, whereas the rest of us are looking at it like WTF?
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, 03:05 AM   #309
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Can you understand DragonLady why I say by not allowing it in, he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial?
Sure I can. I just disagree.

We hold people to an oath to tell the truth and we prosecute perjury because we don't want the jury to sift through lies.

Shouldn't we hold evidence to the same standards for the same reasons?

Granted, people do lie under oath. Granted, evidence may be tainted. But if we KNOW that going in, shouldn't we rule it out the same way we would rule out compulsive liars?
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:22 AM   #310
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Sure I can. I just disagree.

We hold people to an oath to tell the truth and we prosecute perjury because we don't want the jury to sift through lies.

Shouldn't we hold evidence to the same standards for the same reasons?

Granted, people do lie under oath. Granted, evidence may be tainted. But if we KNOW that going in, shouldn't we rule it out the same way we would rule out compulsive liars?
I see, so the question I'm asking you is how do you know it was tainted? Not why do you suspect it was, how do you know it was.

I personally think it was, but that's not the same thing as knowing it was.
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, 03:23 AM   #311
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,161
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.

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.
Noble cause corruption, which is what may have occurred here, must be incorporated into any human jungle. It is self evident that Avery, if guilty yet acquitted, would offend again. How does society prevent this? Lenk is evil or benelovent.
It is the jury system that is useless. These cases should be decided only by scientists.
Samson 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, 03:27 AM   #312
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
That's kind of why I dig the Italian system. A panel of judges would be more knowledgeable but we've got what we've got.
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, 03:56 AM   #313
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
I see, so the question I'm asking you is how do you know it was tainted? Not why do you suspect it was, how do you know it was.
See my previous posts. We usually can't "know" for an absolute certainty. But if ONE piece has been proven to be tainted, we have to assume they ALL may have been, precisely because we cannot know for certain which has been, and which has not.

Of course, that only applies to evidence that was subjected to the dubious circumstances. We can say "This evidence from Ohio, which arrived via Greyhound, was tainted by the blood of a suspected pterodactyl. Therefore, ALL the evidence which arrived via the same Greyhound is presumed tainted." The evidence from Ohio that arrived via carrier pigeon is allowed, unless someone can show the pigeon was in or on the bus in question, and so is evidence that arrived on other buses...."

It's simple: remove all reason for doubt, and you'll be left without reasonable doubt. If the prosecution couldn't find a case against Avery without using the tainted evidence, they were probably in the wrong line of work.
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:57 AM   #314
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,161
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
That's kind of why I dig the Italian system. A panel of judges would be more knowledgeable but we've got what we've got.
I invite people to decide if they would fly on an airplane where a jury had determined the reason there had been a crash. I would prefer scientists to study the wreck. We have incalculable judicial crashes yet we keep doing the same thing. It does not work. Usually doesn't fly with air investigations, nor should it when good people are being pitchforked by villagers.
Samson 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, 04:21 AM   #315
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,067
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
Yeah I can understand this argument. But the guy is so creepy. Makes me wish for the days of the Star Chamber!
Wow, what a wonderful idea. Let's abandon any pretense of justice and imprison.torture/kill people we don't like or find irritating.

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Jeez, "creepy" is now grounds for conviction......
Worrying.

Originally Posted by truethat View Post
I love how discussing the actual evidence is of no interest.
Then why do you keep ignoring people's responses?

Originally Posted by Caper View Post
Why would he buy leg Irons though? That seems very strange. He says it was for his girlfriend, but I'm not sure I buy that.
Why not? I have some and I haven't killed anyone so far.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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, 04:25 AM   #316
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,067
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
So you guys think someone else killed her and he was framed. Got it.
I see you're continuing to put words into the mouths of other people

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The Avery case is another example of the CSI Effect.
<snippage of irrelevancies>
Not it's not. It's people questioning dubious and contradictory evidence.

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Aha - the site linked above quotes an email from the (then) prosecutor where he states "...this series was produced by and FOR the defense of Steven Avery, and contains only the opinion and theory of the defense team.”

http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murd...easons-guilty/
Seriously? The only support you can cite for your belief is a prosecutor's opinion?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 05:23 AM   #317
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Noble cause corruption, which is what may have occurred here, must be incorporated into any human jungle. It is self evident that Avery, if guilty yet acquitted, would offend again. How does society prevent this? Lenk is evil or benelovent.
It is the jury system that is useless. These cases should be decided only by scientists.
No it bloody isn't. Prove it, or withdraw.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 05:24 AM   #318
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
See my previous posts. We usually can't "know" for an absolute certainty. But if ONE piece has been proven to be tainted, we have to assume they ALL may have been, precisely because we cannot know for certain which has been, and which has not.

Of course, that only applies to evidence that was subjected to the dubious circumstances. We can say "This evidence from Ohio, which arrived via Greyhound, was tainted by the blood of a suspected pterodactyl. Therefore, ALL the evidence which arrived via the same Greyhound is presumed tainted." The evidence from Ohio that arrived via carrier pigeon is allowed, unless someone can show the pigeon was in or on the bus in question, and so is evidence that arrived on other buses...."

It's simple: remove all reason for doubt, and you'll be left without reasonable doubt. If the prosecution couldn't find a case against Avery without using the tainted evidence, they were probably in the wrong line of work.
I'm asking if you know that even one piece was. Like I said I think it was was but how do we know. The only thing I can think of would be that if any evidence was gathered by members of the police officers responsible for his previous conviction, that would be enough for me to consider it tainted.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 06:22 AM   #319
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 19,067
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is self evident that Avery, if guilty yet acquitted, would offend again.
Utter rubbish. Please spare us your amateur psychoanalysis. The idea that you can tell guilt or innocence without examining evidence is the sort of nonsense that leads to disasters like Grigson.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 07:07 AM   #320
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 28,968
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post

We hold people to an oath to tell the truth and we prosecute perjury because we don't want the jury to sift through lies.

Shouldn't we hold evidence to the same standards for the same reasons?
We do. It's the same process. Evidence does not come into the trial naked. It only comes in by way of testimony from some witness.

"Is this the gun you found?" "Did you test this for DNA?" and so on.

Quote:
Granted, people do lie under oath. Granted, evidence may be tainted. But if we KNOW that going in, shouldn't we rule it out the same way we would rule out compulsive liars?
Yes. But in most circumstances we do not know. The prosecutor cannot ethically put a witness on the stand they know to be lying. Other than that, the role of the jury as fact finders is to decide who is telling the truth and who is not at trial. That's their job.

Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
See my previous posts. We usually can't "know" for an absolute certainty. But if ONE piece has been proven to be tainted, we have to assume they ALL may have been, precisely because we cannot know for certain which has been, and which has not.
This is bogus, especially when various pieces of evidence come from various sources. I can impeach a witness who messed up a DNA test, but that doesn't "taint" the fingerprint evidence gathered and analyzed by someone else. (Which is what you say below.)

Quote:
Of course, that only applies to evidence that was subjected to the dubious circumstances. We can say "This evidence from Ohio, which arrived via Greyhound, was tainted by the blood of a suspected pterodactyl. Therefore, ALL the evidence which arrived via the same Greyhound is presumed tainted." The evidence from Ohio that arrived via carrier pigeon is allowed, unless someone can show the pigeon was in or on the bus in question, and so is evidence that arrived on other buses...."

It's simple: remove all reason for doubt, and you'll be left without reasonable doubt. If the prosecution couldn't find a case against Avery without using the tainted evidence, they were probably in the wrong line of work.
Evidence doesn't come "pre-tainted." The witness describing the evidence, and the meaning of it, is subject to cross examination and impeachment at trial. Prosecutors who rely on "bad" evidence are just shooting themselves in the foot.

There may be examples of this though. If, for political or other reasons, a prosecutor feels they have to try a case, but don't really believe the person is guilty, they might very well present easily impeached evidence or witness with the expectation it will help lose the case. I sometimes think this happens when the public is out for blood (like in a cop shooting) and not charging will only inflame public outrage. The prosecutor may know the case is weak and go ahead anyhow, just to appease the mob.
marplots 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 07:03 PM.
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.