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

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


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

Closed Thread
Old 7th January 2016, 08:07 AM   #321
Wrong Number
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 26
No matter how you slice it, the trail was not fair and the jury was prejudiced. So even if he did do it and I don't think he did, he should have a new trial far away from that county.
Wrong Number is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 08:09 AM   #322
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Wrong Number View Post
No matter how you slice it, the trail was not fair and the jury was prejudiced. So even if he did do it and I don't think he did, he should have a new trial far away from that county.
Now that's a different angle. I did read that they felt the jury was biased against him. I could see a retrial based on THAT. Not the evidence.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 08:12 AM   #323
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
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.
It's not a slippery slope at all.

You know what evidence in this case should have been considered tainted? Anything collected by investigators with a conflict of interest whom the public were told wouldn't be a part of the investigation, and couldn't be independently verified.

You know, like a key conveniently found lying on the floor after multiple fruitless searches by a guy personally named in Avery's lawsuit, and who wasn't supposed to be part of the investigation in the first place.

Or how about the DNA samples on the bullet fragment (also conveniently found after multiple fruitless searches by someone from the police department named in Avery's lawsuit and also shouldn't have been involved in the investigation) that was identified as belonging to Halbach despite a violation of protocol that should have rendered the test inconclusive.

These are concrete and well-defined examples, all springing from the same problem: A compromised investigation due to a clear conflict of interest.

So let's not pretend that we're using vague, undefinable standards and creating slippery slopes.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 09:28 AM   #324
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
It's not a slippery slope at all.

You know what evidence in this case should have been considered tainted? Anything collected by investigators with a conflict of interest whom the public were told wouldn't be a part of the investigation, and couldn't be independently verified.

You know, like a key conveniently found lying on the floor after multiple fruitless searches by a guy personally named in Avery's lawsuit, and who wasn't supposed to be part of the investigation in the first place.

Or how about the DNA samples on the bullet fragment (also conveniently found after multiple fruitless searches by someone from the police department named in Avery's lawsuit and also shouldn't have been involved in the investigation) that was identified as belonging to Halbach despite a violation of protocol that should have rendered the test inconclusive.

These are concrete and well-defined examples, all springing from the same problem: A compromised investigation due to a clear conflict of interest.

So let's not pretend that we're using vague, undefinable standards and creating slippery slopes.
It would be helpful and clarifying if you referred to those specific cops by name.

Last edited by truethat; 7th January 2016 at 09:29 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 Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 09:41 AM   #325
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
It would be helpful and clarifying if you referred to those specific cops by name.
There's a nice breakdown here:
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...case/77763356/

The two main players were Lenk and Colborn. They were both personally named in Avery's lawsuit, and the fact that these two clowns were allowed anywhere near this investigation is ridiculous.

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 09:42 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 Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 09:47 AM   #326
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Lenk had his grubby fingers all over the case. He was a completely unconvincing witness.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 10:00 AM   #327
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Lenk had his grubby fingers all over the case. He was a completely unconvincing witness.
And he lied on the stand. Why the jury found him remotely credible or he wasn't charged with perjury I have no idea.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 10:46 AM   #328
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,325
I haven't seen the series, but I've been following some of the TV commentary. Question: If the hypothesis is that the police planted false evidence against Avery, does that imply that the police also killed the victim? If not, are the police alleged to have found a murder victim, and knowingly let the real killer go free so they could frame Avery? Or did they quickly conclude that Avery did it (on the basis of their "gut feelings" or something) and set about manufacturing evidence to prove it while not seeking evidence that might point elsewhere?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 11:11 AM   #329
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I haven't seen the series, but I've been following some of the TV commentary. Question: If the hypothesis is that the police planted false evidence against Avery, does that imply that the police also killed the victim? If not, are the police alleged to have found a murder victim, and knowingly let the real killer go free so they could frame Avery? Or did they quickly conclude that Avery did it (on the basis of their "gut feelings" or something) and set about manufacturing evidence to prove it while not seeking evidence that might point elsewhere?
I don't think there is a clear-cut hypotheses because the investigation was so muddied by malfeasance.

As myself and others have stated, Avery very well could have killed Halbach, but the investigation was so compromised it’s impossible now to know what really happened.

Hell, if I really wanted to put on my tinfoil hat I could argue that maybe Teresa Halbach wasn’t actually murdered at all. We have no cause of death, and the only theory of the crime comes from a highly dubious “confession” from a learning disabled teenager, none of which is corroborated by physical evidence. The Manitowoc County police could have found her dead body in the car and decided to create a murder and pin it on the guy suing them for $36 million.

I find such a theory too awful and far-fetched to seriously consider, but the unfortunate reality is that because of the way this case was handled, questions like that are left open.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 11:13 AM   #330
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I haven't seen the series, but I've been following some of the TV commentary. Question: If the hypothesis is that the police planted false evidence against Avery, does that imply that the police also killed the victim? If not, are the police alleged to have found a murder victim, and knowingly let the real killer go free so they could frame Avery? Or did they quickly conclude that Avery did it (on the basis of their "gut feelings" or something) and set about manufacturing evidence to prove it while not seeking evidence that might point elsewhere?
If we assume that Avery was not the murderer, I think the last hypothesis is the more likely by far. I don't think anyone seriously believes the police killed the victim.

But as Johnny karate says, the main issue is the botched investigation and prosecution.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill

Last edited by lionking; 7th January 2016 at 11:16 AM.
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 12:52 PM   #331
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,325
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
....
Hell, if I really wanted to put on my tinfoil hat I could argue that maybe Teresa Halbach wasn’t actually murdered at all. We have no cause of death, and the only theory of the crime comes from a highly dubious “confession” from a learning disabled teenager, none of which is corroborated by physical evidence. The Manitowoc County police could have found her dead body in the car and decided to create a murder and pin it on the guy suing them for $36 million.
...
What???? No autopsy? No inquest? How can someone be convicted of murder if the victim wasn't proven to have been murdered? Who were this guy's lawyers?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:19 PM   #332
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I haven't seen the series, but I've been following some of the TV commentary. Question: If the hypothesis is that the police planted false evidence against Avery, does that imply that the police also killed the victim? If not, are the police alleged to have found a murder victim, and knowingly let the real killer go free so they could frame Avery? Or did they quickly conclude that Avery did it (on the basis of their "gut feelings" or something) and set about manufacturing evidence to prove it while not seeking evidence that might point elsewhere?
Well this is where it veers into cuckoo land. Some people are suggesting that the cops actually killed her and framed him. Some are saying by some strange coincidence she happened to die right after leaving his property and they thought they'd use her death to frame him. Some people are suggesting she's in on it and off in another country hiding while they frame him.

That's why I posted the article about using a bit of common sense. Which seems reasonable to you? I guess it depends on the kind of life you lead, the level of reasonable understanding etc. If you are a huge conspiracy theorist fan etc.

So it depends on what seems reasonable to you. In my opinion they knew he killed her and decided to "pad the evidence" by planting DNA evidence on his property and in her car.

I agree that anyone involved in his previous conviction should not have been allowed anywhere near the case. It's almost to point that it's possible to let him walk in order to reconcile this.

Then you remember the victim, not just Avery and you reconsider justice. So I suppose it depends on your way of looking at things.

Also as to your other comment, it is not unheard of for a person to be convicted of murder without a body and without a cause of death.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:28 PM   #333
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What???? No autopsy? No inquest? How can someone be convicted of murder if the victim wasn't proven to have been murdered? Who were this guy's lawyers?
The body was burned. There wasn't anything left to autopsy.

ETA: And the best part? Avery was actually acquitted on the mutilating a corpse charge.

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 01:31 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 01:49 PM   #334
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Uncovered this little nugget in a news report from 2007 about the jury selection:
Quote:
Perhaps more to the point for Avery, the panel selected Friday includes a man whose son works for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department and a man whose wife works for the Manitowoc County clerk of courts office. Avery, 44, is charged with killing 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach.

Those connections are significant because Avery claims that a vial of his blood was left unsecured in the clerk's office and that sheriff's deputies used it to plant his blood inside Halbach's vehicle.

I think it would have just been quicker and easier if the people of Manitowoc County simply dragged Avery from his home and lynched him.

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 01:57 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:00 PM   #335
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Uncovered this little nugget in a news report from 2007 about the jury selection:



I think it would have just been quicker and easier if the people of Manitowoc County simply dragged Avery from his home and lynched him.
I think bias of the jury is the way to go in trying to get a new trial. That's the only one that makes sense to me. Although at this point how would he get an impartial jury? He's a household name by now.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:08 PM   #336
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Uncovered this little nugget in a news report from 2007 about the jury selection:
Quote:
Perhaps more to the point for Avery, the panel selected Friday includes a man whose son works for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department and a man whose wife works for the Manitowoc County clerk of courts office. Avery, 44, is charged with killing 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach.

Those connections are significant because Avery claims that a vial of his blood was left unsecured in the clerk's office and that sheriff's deputies used it to plant his blood inside Halbach's vehicle.
I think it would have just been quicker and easier if the people of Manitowoc County simply dragged Avery from his home and lynched him.
That quote has a familiar tone to it. Isn't that just the sort of connect-the-dots required for every conspiracy theory on this forum?

Recipe:
1) Present facts stripped of any useful context, extracted from an almost endless list of possible coincidences.
2) Imply there is a connection, but do not actually prove any connection to whatever narrative helps advance the plot.
3) Shift the burden of proof to those who question "the significance."
4) Don't try to ask the actual people involved, or dig any deeper, or explore the ramifications of accusing people of malfeasance wholesale.
5) Find more of the same.

It's almost as bad as numerology. Almost.
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 Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:09 PM   #337
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,325
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
The body was burned. There wasn't anything left to autopsy.

ETA: And the best part? Avery was actually acquitted on the mutilating a corpse charge.
Reading Wikipedia: So the burned victim and her burned car were found on his property, to which he had asked her to come to take advertising pictures of his cars? Seems like an ex-con would be a little smarter than that. Does the prosecution allege that he thought no one would come looking for her, or that burning the car and body would make them unidentifiable, or what? What's the prosecution's theory of the case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:14 PM   #338
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
That quote has a familiar tone to it. Isn't that just the sort of connect-the-dots required for every conspiracy theory on this forum?

Recipe:
1) Present facts stripped of any useful context, extracted from an almost endless list of possible coincidences.
2) Imply there is a connection, but do not actually prove any connection to whatever narrative helps advance the plot.
3) Shift the burden of proof to those who question "the significance."
4) Don't try to ask the actual people involved, or dig any deeper, or explore the ramifications of accusing people of malfeasance wholesale.
5) Find more of the same.

It's almost as bad as numerology. Almost.

Almost!
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:18 PM   #339
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Reading Wikipedia: So the burned victim and her burned car were found on his property, to which he had asked her to come to take advertising pictures of his cars? Seems like an ex-con would be a little smarter than that. Does the prosecution allege that he thought no one would come looking for her, or that burning the car and body would make them unidentifiable, or what? What's the prosecution's theory of the case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery
Her car wasn't burnt. Interestingly Avery had a car crusher on the lot, yet these otherwise criminal masterminds who left no DNA evidence at alleged crime scenes, didn't attempt to dispose of the car this way.

In addition, the wrecking yard was a huge place with multiple points of access and several families lived there. Also, the victim visited the yard in the past to do her job.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:22 PM   #340
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
That quote has a familiar tone to it. Isn't that just the sort of connect-the-dots required for every conspiracy theory on this forum?

Recipe:
1) Present facts stripped of any useful context, extracted from an almost endless list of possible coincidences.
2) Imply there is a connection, but do not actually prove any connection to whatever narrative helps advance the plot.
3) Shift the burden of proof to those who question "the significance."
4) Don't try to ask the actual people involved, or dig any deeper, or explore the ramifications of accusing people of malfeasance wholesale.
5) Find more of the same.

It's almost as bad as numerology. Almost.
Firstly, some conspiracies actually occur. But leave that alone.

My issue is that the investigation and prosecution were tainted. What do you think about that?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:33 PM   #341
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
That quote has a familiar tone to it. Isn't that just the sort of connect-the-dots required for every conspiracy theory on this forum?
You don't see a problem with members of the jury being related to people the defendant was suing?

Last edited by johnny karate; 7th January 2016 at 02:40 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:39 PM   #342
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What's the prosecution's theory of the case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery
The prosecution's theory, in a nutshell:

Avery lured Halbach to his trailer, abducted her, shackled her to his bed where both he and Dassey sexually assaulted her. Then she was stabbed and/or her throat was slit, dragged to Avery's garage, and shot in the head.

Avery then burned her body in the fire pit just outside his trailer, and stashed her car in the salvage yard.

Now... see how much of the physical evidence presented actually corroborates any of this.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:46 PM   #343
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Firstly, some conspiracies actually occur. But leave that alone.
My comment was solely about the quote offered up, not about the entire corpus.

Quote:
My issue is that the investigation and prosecution were tainted. What do you think about that?
I don't know enough about the case to have an opinion. Perhaps I will watch the series. In general though, you can still get information from a "tainted" process, depending on the details.

I did read that the appeal was turned down. Were the "taints" presented on appeal? That seems relevant, because if another judge looked at this and decided not to hear the appeal, I would (sans additional info) lean toward: not tainted enough.

I understand this case is being looked at by The Innocence Project. If they also decide there's no significant "there" there, would you take that as an authoritative answer?

I am not so impressed with the connections between police, jurors, and so on. Why? Because I live in a county with a similar population (~80,000) and have testified in cases where I knew (at least by sight) several of the random people in the courtroom. It's damn hard to avoid all connections - there are bound to be some.

And I'm having a hard time believing the cops had a motivation here - lawsuits happen all the time. By the way, did Avery win his lawsuit?
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 Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:55 PM   #344
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
The lawsuit was settled in his favour to the tune of $400k. Only a fraction of what he would have received if he wasn't arrested for murder. It went in legal fees.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:56 PM   #345
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
You don't see a problem with members of the jury being related to people the defendant was suing?
I looked it up. The lawsuit had already been settled by Feb 2006. When was the jury impaneled?

Here's what I found about the settlement:
"Plaintiff Steven A. Avery brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Manitowoc County and several former Manitowoc County officials alleging that they caused him to be wrongfully imprisoned for over eighteen years. I had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Before commencing the action, plaintiff authorized two different law firms to represent him. On October 30, 2003, he signed a forty percent contingency fee agreement with Gingras, Cates and Luebke ("GCL"), and later the same day he engaged Attorney Walter F. Kelly on a 33-1/3 percent contingency fee basis. Plaintiff understood that Attorney Stephen M. Glynn would assist Kelly. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff decided that he wanted Kelly and Glynn to represent him and discharged GCL. Thus, Kelly and Glynn pursued the § 1983 action on plaintiffs behalf. However, believing that plaintiff had breached his fee agreement with it, GCL advised Kelly and Glynn that it retained a lien on the proceeds of any settlement of plaintiffs claims. In February 2006, plaintiff settled his claims against defendants for $400,000. However, GCL, Kelly and Glynn could not resolve the fee dispute. Therefore, the parties, GCL, Kelly and Glynn asked me to enter an order dismissing plaintiffs § 1983 claims, retaining jurisdiction of the fee dispute pending my resolution of it, and directing Kelly to retain forty percent of the settlement ($160,000) in his trust account. On February 6, 2006, I entered such an order. I now address the fee dispute." From: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinio...itowoc-county/

Jurors are subject to dismissal by the defense attorney if they have a conflict of interest (although the judge can dismiss them as well). One presumes this was explored during voir dire.

$400,000 isn't chump change, but the county had a budget of over $76 million in 2005.

Last edited by marplots; 7th January 2016 at 02:58 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 02:58 PM   #346
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Edit. Misread
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:01 PM   #347
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The lawsuit was settled in his favour to the tune of $400k. Only a fraction of what he would have received if he wasn't arrested for murder. It went in legal fees.
Can you justify this? How was the award reduced for the false imprisonment because he was arrested on the new charge? I don't see how it follows.
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 Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:04 PM   #348
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Can you justify this? How was the award reduced for the false imprisonment because he was arrested on the new charge? I don't see how it follows.
You should watch the documentary. It's all covered
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:05 PM   #349
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Can you justify this? How was the award reduced for the false imprisonment because he was arrested on the new charge? I don't see how it follows.
Basically he needed the money for a lawyer for the new charges so he settled.

I always thought it was interesting that the lawyers who were singing his praises didn't ask their friends to work with him and wait for the law suit.


There was an immediate backlash and distancing from him that I find extremely revealing.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:09 PM   #350
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
And I'm having a hard time believing the cops had a motivation here - lawsuits happen all the time. By the way, did Avery win his lawsuit?
The original lawsuit was for $36 million, and was still in process when Avery was charged with Halbach's murder. He ended up settling for $400,000 to cover his legal fees.

The insurers for Manitowoc County had also said they would not cover the settlement if Avery won, so not only would Manitwoc County be on the hook, but those named as individuals in the lawsuit (including the sheriff of Manitowoc County) were facing professional and financial ruin.

And these are also the same people who pretty much railroaded Avery in 1985 for no particular motive at all.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:13 PM   #351
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Johnny karate, I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.

From what I understood in the film they asked an outside investigator to come in when they were investigating Avery and they basically kicked him out of his house for several days to search it.

I know that they are saying that people are coming from the "same office" as the Police Officers that suddenly found the key. But is the exact same guys that were named in the lawsuit? Or is it just people from the same office.

Either way it is wrong, but if they allowed the exact people that he's suing onto the property then that is really crystal clear bias that no one should have a hard time understanding.

Was it the exact same officer who found the key? Or just someone from the same office?

I'm sorry I'm not clear on who is who.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:14 PM   #352
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
The original lawsuit was for $36 million, and was still in process when Avery was charged with Halbach's murder. He ended up settling for $400,000 to cover his legal fees.

The insurers for Manitowoc County had also said they would not cover the settlement if Avery won, so not only would Manitwoc County be on the hook, but those named as individuals in the lawsuit (including the sheriff of Manitowoc County) were facing professional and financial ruin.

And these are also the same people who pretty much railroaded Avery in 1985 for no particular motive at all
And it's why these guys were told to stay away from the murder investigation. It didn't stop them from "assisting" 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 Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:16 PM   #353
JTF
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 757
Prove It

LK: Jeez, I posted on this case a mere 24 hours ago, yet three new pages have been created. How this dumpy sadist created so much uproar would make for an interesting psychological study. TRUE is correct in asserting that you misunderstood my point regarding whether Avery is a psychopath.

I'll try again. The murder of Teresa Halbach was a henious crime and speaks to the fact that the perp who committed the crime is a psychopath. Ergo, if you believe that the perp is Steven Avery, there is no need to prove why he did it because psychopaths have a specific psychological make-up.

As I stated in my prior post, psychopaths derive pleasure from inflicting emotional and physical pain. Avery was clearly obsessed with Halbach, he lured her to his residence, and fulfilled his sick fantasies by raping, torturing, and killing her in cold blood.

The evidence of his guilt is so overwhelming that his advocates have taken to creating mythical scenarios that they KNOW they cannot prove. Shouting to the heavens that police planted evidence is a healthy emotional release, but that won't get convicted murderer Steven Avery out of jail.

The Avery camp has to prove their allegations to the appellate courts. So far, they have pleaded to the appellate courts, but have provided no corroboration for their claims. I could claim that two Unicorns live in my backyard, but without concrete evidence to back it up, I'm simply telling tall tales.

The original burden was on the prosecution to prove that Steven Avery murdered Teresa Halbach. They met that burden in spades. To the dismay of the Avery camp, the burden is now on them to prove that Avery did not commit this horrific crime. IMO, their arguments have been akin to throwing pebbles at a tank. They have done nothing to demonstrate that Steven Avery is some sort of tortured innocent.

Last edited by JTF; 7th January 2016 at 03:19 PM.
JTF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:16 PM   #354
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Jurors are subject to dismissal by the defense attorney if they have a conflict of interest (although the judge can dismiss them as well). One presumes this was explored during voir dire.

$400,000 isn't chump change, but the county had a budget of over $76 million in 2005.
I don't know how these two jurors got through the voir dire process, and regardless of when the lawsuit was settled, it's pretty obvious they had good reason to hold a personal grudge against Avery.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:17 PM   #355
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Ok I'm reading this

Quote:

Manitowoc County Sheriff's Lt. James Lenk and Sgt. Andrew Colborn were suspected of becoming aware of evidence during the 1990s that Avery did not commit the 1985 rape and ignoring the information, while Avery remained in prison. In October 2005, less than three weeks before Teresa Halbach is murdered, Lenk and Colborn were questioned during a sworn deposition connection with Avery's $36 million lawsuit against Manitowoc County. After Halbach disappeared, Lenk and Colborn thrust themselves into the investigation, focusing on Avery. Colborn interviewed Avery the same night Halbach is reported missing. Lenk interviewed Avery the next morning. Lenk approached Halbach's vehicle after it was found. Lenk found the keys to Halbach's vehicle inside Avery's bedroom in plain view after officers from Calumet County, the state Division of Criminal Investigation and Two Rivers Police Department apparently did not see them in previous searches.


So was he suing LENK?

Last edited by truethat; 7th January 2016 at 03:19 PM.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:23 PM   #356
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
LK: Jeez, I posted on this case a mere 24 hours ago, yet three new pages have been created. How this dumpy sadist created so much uproar would make for an interesting psychological study. TRUE is correct in asserting that you misunderstood my point regarding whether Avery is a psychopath.

I'll try again. The murder of Teresa Halbach was a henious crime and speaks to the fact that the perp who committed the crime is a psychopath. Ergo, if you believe that the perp is Steven Avery, there is no need to prove why he did it because psychopaths have a specific psychological make-up.

As I stated in my prior post, psychopaths derive pleasure from inflicting emotional and physical pain. Avery was clearly obsessed with Halbach, he lured her to his residence, and fulfilled his sick fantasies by raping, torturing, and killing her in cold blood.

The evidence of his guilt is so overwhelming that his advocates have taken to creating mythical scenarios that they KNOW they cannot prove. Shouting to the heavens that police planted evidence is a healthy emotional release, but that won't get convicted murderer Steven Avery out of jail.

The Avery camp has to prove their allegations to the appellate courts. So far, they have pleaded to the appellate courts, but have provided no corroboration for their claims. I could claim that two Unicorns live in my backyard, but without concrete evidence to back it up, I'm simply telling tall tales.

The original burden was on the prosecution to prove that Steven Avery murdered Teresa Halbach. They met that burden in spades. To the dismay of the Avery camp, the burden is now on them to prove that Avery did not commit this horrific crime. IMO, their arguments have been akin to throwing pebbles at a tank. They have done nothing to demonstrate that Steven Avery is some sort of tortured innocent.

You would really enjoy that film that I mentioned. The Imposter. It's interesting how by the end of the film everyone is going along with a blatant sociopath who is saying the family killed their son. It's weird.


I will say that the reason I am willing to believe they planted the key was for two reasons.

A. It was found on the floor next to his slippers three days after the trailer had been searched several times.

B. Teresa H. had the key for several years. Yet the key only had Steven Avery's DNA on it. It didn't even have hers. So it seems that they scrubbed the key clean and then transferred his DNA on it.
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:29 PM   #357
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
LK: Jeez, I posted on this case a mere 24 hours ago, yet three new pages have been created. How this dumpy sadist created so much uproar would make for an interesting psychological study. TRUE is correct in asserting that you misunderstood my point regarding whether Avery is a psychopath.

I'll try again. The murder of Teresa Halbach was a henious crime and speaks to the fact that the perp who committed the crime is a psychopath. Ergo, if you believe that the perp is Steven Avery, there is no need to prove why he did it because psychopaths have a specific psychological make-up.

As I stated in my prior post, psychopaths derive pleasure from inflicting emotional and physical pain. Avery was clearly obsessed with Halbach, he lured her to his residence, and fulfilled his sick fantasies by raping, torturing, and killing her in cold blood.

The evidence of his guilt is so overwhelming that his advocates have taken to creating mythical scenarios that they KNOW they cannot prove. Shouting to the heavens that police planted evidence is a healthy emotional release, but that won't get convicted murderer Steven Avery out of jail.

The Avery camp has to prove their allegations to the appellate courts. So far, they have pleaded to the appellate courts, but have provided no corroboration for their claims. I could claim that two Unicorns live in my backyard, but without concrete evidence to back it up, I'm simply telling tall tales.

The original burden was on the prosecution to prove that Steven Avery murdered Teresa Halbach. They met that burden in spades. To the dismay of the Avery camp, the burden is now on them to prove that Avery did not commit this horrific crime. IMO, their arguments have been akin to throwing pebbles at a tank. They have done nothing to demonstrate that Steven Avery is some sort of tortured innocent.
Now you are making stuff up. Where's the evidence Avery was obsessed with Haibach. And re-stating a circular argument doesn't make it less circular.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:41 PM   #358
Elagabalus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,531
Is there a trial transcript somewhere?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 03:43 PM   #359
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Now you are making stuff up. Where's the evidence Avery was obsessed with Haibach. And re-stating a circular argument doesn't make it less circular.
No he's not. And he's explained it clearly; just because you don't understand what he means doesn't make it a circular argument. It's common sense. But you know what they say about common sense....
truethat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th January 2016, 04:11 PM   #360
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40,721
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
No he's not. And he's explained it clearly; just because you don't understand what he means doesn't make it a circular argument. It's common sense. But you know what they say about common sense....
You have to be joking. Firstly JTF says the murderer of Halbach is a psychopath. How does this follow? There's no evidence that she was murdered at all. It could have been an accident, disease, who knows. Even if she was murdered, why did it have to be by a psychopath, which has a specific definition. Most murders are committed by non-psychopaths.

Not satisfied with the gross logical error, he doubles down by concluding that if you believe Avery did it, he is a psychopath, and the usual laws of evidence, motive and so on can safely be thrown out, because JTF just knows. It's not only circular it's ridiculous.

And I know about "common sense" is. It's what people use as a smokescreen when they have no evidence or rational basis for their beliefs. Common sense is ********.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:59 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.