|
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. |
30th September 2017, 03:17 AM | #41 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
[quote=Chris_Halkides;12010092]Link.
Quote:
“The investigators made my skin crawl watching this video,” Judge Diane Wood said. “He is obviously racking his brain about how he can answer in a way they will like.” “There was no promise of leniency,” Judge Diane Sykes, a potential Trump Supreme Court nominee, countered later. “There was a vague suggestion, at best.” Is Diane Sykes the new Scalia? Jesus wept. |
3rd October 2017, 03:54 PM | #42 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
BREAKING: Steven Avery attorney Kathleen Zellner has had her application for a retrial DISMISSED.
Quote:
No reasonable prospect of success is the grounds given. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
4th October 2017, 01:58 PM | #43 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
Yes, it would be unreasonable to grant a retrial after proving the murder was committed at a location far from that suggested by prosecutor Kratz.
Who needs proof of anything in a murder trial? We should all hang our heads in shame as 21st centurions, behaving like medieaval witches. |
4th October 2017, 02:39 PM | #44 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Will this be counted as her first loss ever, or not counted as a loss because she never entered battle because it was dismissed?
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
4th October 2017, 04:51 PM | #45 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
4th October 2017, 04:58 PM | #46 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
4th October 2017, 05:15 PM | #47 |
Becoming Beth
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
|
|
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." |
|
4th October 2017, 05:56 PM | #48 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
"The bottom line is neither we nor Mr. Avery have any intention of giving up or not proceeding to fight for his exoneration – because he is absolutely innocent," Zellner tells Rolling Stone. "It is not uncommon for judges at the trial court level to prematurely dismiss post-conviction petitions and get reversed by a higher court. We will press on regardless of which path we have to take and we will ultimately succeed."
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...-trial-w507080 This judge was a totally incompetent menace. Sleeping at night must be quite a project for the witch. |
8th October 2017, 10:25 PM | #49 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
Theres a lot of darkness and not sure the light will make it there.
Dasseys tilt judge is Easterbrook right? The more I read on this "political group" call the government, I wonder sometimes.... The deck is stacked. Zellner, who also represented Young, maintains that Avery and Dassey were "both framed". She believes that Manitowoc police planted evidence to implicate Avery in the murder in order to avoid a $36 million lawsuit against them, later involving Dassey to strengthen their case. The judge Zellner is talking about is Frank Easterbrook, one of three Seventh Circuit Court judges responsible for the ruling. In 2005, Judge Easterbrook denied an appeal from convicted murderer Dan Young Jr. who, like Dassey, had a low IQ score and claims to have been coerced into confessing to a crime he did not commit. Young, whose verbal IQ score was just 10 points higher than the lowest anyone could score, was sentenced to life in prison for a 1990 rape and murder. He served 12 years of his sentence before DNA evidence exonerated both him and and another man. In 2003, DNA evidence led to Avery's release after spending 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Avery was in the process of suing the Manitowoc County Sherif's Department for the wrongful conviction when he was arrested for the murder of Halbach. Dan Young Jr. was released from prison in 2006, but was killed by a hit-and-run driver. At the time of his death, he and Zellner had filed lawsuits against both Chicago and Cook County law officials for malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment. Young was also about to receive a $130,000 restitution from the state for his wrongful imprisonment. The driver responsible for his death was never found. |
9th October 2017, 02:19 AM | #50 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
I read about the death of
JOHN THOMPSON who wrote this http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/op...0thompson.html The link to the judgement of Clarence Thomas, the dissenting view of Ginsberg and the affirmation of Thomas by the late Antonin Scalia should scare the hell out of all Americans. This is where Scalia says if we can void Brady by any legal argument we should execute an innocent man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xci1a3yE0PM |
9th October 2017, 08:53 AM | #51 |
Occasional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 121
|
Which cases are the failures?
|
9th October 2017, 01:51 PM | #52 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 14,554
|
With Zellner continuing to legally pursue Avery's case, I've been trying to speculate a rough time frame for court. It always seems that those justice-wheels can move slowly. However, she seems to have a spark and can get things moving. Does anyone have an idea of how long before we can expect to see Zellner and Avery back in court?
Thanks. |
__________________
Julia |
|
9th December 2017, 06:53 AM | #53 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
NEWSFLASH: Appeal court reinstates Brendan Dassey's conviction.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:2074184:S:0 Excerpt:
Quote:
The fact the police might have - arguably made some mistakes - doesn't cancel out Dassey's culpability, albeit he was led on by the evil Avery. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
9th December 2017, 08:18 AM | #54 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
dissenting opinions from the court
From Chief Judge Diane Wood: “Psychological coercion, questions to which the police furnished the answers, and ghoulish games of ‘20 Questions,’ in which Brendan Dassey guessed over and over again before he landed on the ‘correct story’ (i.e., the one the police wanted), led to the ‘confession’ that furnished the only serious evidence supporting his murder conviction in the Wisconsin court,” Wood’s blistering dissent reads. “His confession was coerced, and thus it should not have been admitted into evidence. Dassey will spend the rest of his life in prison because of the injustice this court has decided to leave unredressed.”
[Judge] Rovner also blasted the majority’s ruling in her dissent. “No reasonable state court, knowing what we now know about coercive interrogation techniques and viewing Dassey’s interrogation in light of his age, intellectual deficits, and manipulability, could possibly have concluded that Dassey’s confession was voluntarily given,” she wrote. “His confession was not voluntary and his conviction should not stand, and yet an impaired teenager has been sentenced to life in prison. I view this as a profound miscarriage of justice.” |
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
9th December 2017, 01:37 PM | #55 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Unbelievable.
|
10th December 2017, 03:18 AM | #56 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
This panel comprised 4 women and 3 men.
The 3 dissenters were women. The other woman, Judge Diane S. Sykes, was a justice of the Wisconsin supreme court till 2004. Bio Professional Career: Law clerk, Hon. Terence T. Evans, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 1984-1985 Private practice, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1985-1992 Judge, Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, 1992-1999 Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1999-2004 https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/sykes-diane-s. Brendan was shafted by a rogue assembly of bad people. |
10th December 2017, 03:53 AM | #57 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
10th December 2017, 03:57 AM | #58 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
We need to separate (a) the issue of guilt and (b) the sentencing. Whilst AFAICS Dassey is guilty as charged, I don't agree with 'life without parole', as IMV there should always be left hope for (1) remorse (2) reform, and (3) redemption, especially where the offender was at a young age as of the time of the crime. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
10th December 2017, 04:05 AM | #59 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
"The principal issue in this habeas corpus
appeal is whether that finding was based on an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent or an unreasonable view of the facts." If you are ok with the first part, how about a view of the facts? The facts that are adduced from the undisputed evidence at the crime scene say that Brendan was nowhere near the trailer or the deceased. My view is that the importance of not disturbing the verdict to the woman from Wisconsin and the three old white male judges led them on a scenic route of wild impossibilities, and this offended every principle that Williams Wood and Rovner, as women and decent people, see as their duty to the courts. As an aside, I had not realised that any member of ISF actually believed Brendan had anything to do with the crime. |
10th December 2017, 04:29 AM | #60 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
I saw 'Making a Murderer' and I felt desperately sorry for Dassey and in particular, his mother. However, it was clear to me that his confession was sincere. His cousin testified in court that for two weeks after the crime, Dassey was beside himself with grief symptoms (crying and severely depressed). In the witness box, she said she wanted to retract this claim. However, from her body language and intense emotion, it was clear she was only doing that to save him. I was always conscious that I as a viewer was being led and manipulated by the defence -influenced producers (the defence lawyers were the stars of the series and had free reign to pontificate) and they even produced 'the alternative perp' (Halbach's ex-boyfriend). I was led by them to feel sorry for Dassey. So what hope for the average viewer who takes the contents of a 'reputably-backed' (Netflix) 'documentary' on trust? It was only because of Netflix viewers' outrage at the 'miscarriage of justice' as portrayed by the defence lawyers, that it was allowed an en banc review at all. Wise up. Nothing can replace a proper trial in a court of law. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
10th December 2017, 04:55 AM | #61 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
I have now read most of the judgement.
It is an exercise that never collides with facts or common sense. I would deem it ideal as a parody, for law students to marvel at the medieval style of logic of Salem and so on, not believing that it is an actual discarding of a human life for the convenience of a system bereft of morality. We are plumbing depths of evil I expect the internet age to remedy. Too many people will judge these four judges for their safety to be assumed, if the global response to the netflix documentary is anything to go by. |
10th December 2017, 05:22 AM | #62 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
These are the statistics ignored by the vested interest judges, but highlighted by the dissenters.
"Some of the factors that induce false confessions are in‐ ternal. Studies have demonstrated that personal characteris‐ tics such as youth, mental illness, cognitive disability, sug‐ gestibility, and a desire to please others may induce false confessions.10 A survey of false confession cases from 1989– 2012 found that although only 8% of adult exonerees with no known mental disabilities falsely confessed to crimes, in the population of exonerees who were younger than 18 at the time of the crime, 42% of exonerated defendants confessed to ************************************************* 9 See Saul M. Kassin, False Confessions, 8 WIREs Cogn Sci. e1439 (2017). 10 Blandón‐Gitlin et al., supra note 2, at 240. No. 16‐3397 65 crimes they had not committed, as did 75% of exonerees who were mentally ill or mentally disabled.11 Overall, one sixth of the exonerees were juveniles, mentally disabled, or both, but they accounted for 59% of false confessions.12 In‐ deed, youth and intellectual disability are the two most commonly cited characteristics of suspects who confess falsely.13 Dassey suffered under the weight of both charac‐ teristics." |
11th December 2017, 05:07 AM | #63 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
Dassey's lawyers respond
Dassey's lawyers were quoted: "Today's ruling contravenes a fundamental and time-honored position of the United States Supreme Court: interrogation tactics that may not be coercive when applied to adults are coercive when applied to children and the mentally impaired. Indeed, when such tactics are applied to vulnerable populations, the risk of false confession grows intolerably.
"Unfortunately, this time-worn lesson was ignored today by four judges in the case of Brendan Dassey. We at the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth are committed to continuing to fight on behalf of Brendan and others like him to prevent future miscarriages of justice." |
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
13th December 2017, 08:18 AM | #64 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
John Adams on protecting innocent people versus punishing guilty ones
IIRC Jerry Buting, one of Mr. Avery's lawyers, quoted John Adams in his book:
"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. "But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever." |
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
13th December 2017, 02:17 PM | #65 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
From the hearing posted earlier
“There was no promise of leniency,” Judge Diane Sykes, a potential Trump Supreme Court nominee, countered later. “There was a vague suggestion, at best.” So 1. She has a history of being part of the Wisconsin system that is dedicated to perpetuating the status quo. 2. She is considered talented enough to be considered for the highest office. 3. She duly decides legal process has been followed and the crime facts can be ignored. I see no hope for a system that could get to this pass. |
25th June 2018, 12:48 PM | #66 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
The Supremes take a pass
Mr. Dassey's case will not be heard by the Supreme Court. Link.
|
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
25th June 2018, 02:04 PM | #67 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
25th June 2018, 06:51 PM | #68 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
|
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else. |
|
25th June 2018, 06:54 PM | #69 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
Ken Kratz on twitter
Ken Kratz, the special prosecutor in the Dassey and Avery trials, said Monday that he has "a great deal of sympathy today for Brendan Dassey."
Kratz tweeted, "His uncle, Steven Avery, made him a murderer--his family and attorneys provided the worst possible advice, ensuring that he will now spend nearly the rest of his life in prison." Kratz continued, "Knowing he could have been walking out of prison in as little as three years from today, had he followed Attorney [Len] Kachinsky's original plea recommendation, I wonder if his 'advisors' so willing to criticize law enforcement for obtaining his confession will turn the lens of scrutiny on themselves and apologize to Brendan for mishandling his case at almost every turn." Link I did not think that my opinion of Ken Kratz could go any lower, but I was wrong. |
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
26th June 2018, 03:46 AM | #70 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 3,356
|
|
__________________
Just drive. |
|
27th June 2018, 05:42 AM | #71 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
This appears to be a misstep by your supreme court Chris, the institution is due to be fully exposed by series 2 by these film makers, along with the 4 judges that ignored the dissenting 3 women in the circuit appeal.
The stakes look extremely high with public awareness of this case resembling block buster status internationally. And with the indomitable Sir Peter Jackson to hand, who knows what happens next? (My apologies as a New Zealander for his wilful and execrable ignorance of his local cases, I noticed a comment you once made). |
9th July 2018, 01:15 PM | #72 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
bullet mark analysis
In the first thread (comment #3661) Roger Ramjets wrote, "7. The bullet was not matched to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty to have been fired from Avery's exact rifle, or if it was then the State Crime Lab or Calumet County did participate in the frame-job by providing Manitowoc County officers with a bullet and DNA to plant."
It is up to Mr. Ramjets to support the idea that a bullet can be individualized to a particular rifle (nothing that I have read indicates that this is true). it's too large a subject to capture in one short comment, but here is a start: "Last September the Detroit Police Department's crime lab was shut down after an audit by the state of Michigan found a 10 percent error rate in ballistics identification." A story or two on Anthony Ray Hinton might also be worth pondering. EDT I see that there was a discussion of this issue at the time in the first thread (late May, 2017), a discussion that I only vaguely remembered. IMO the burden of proof still lies upon Mr. Ramjets to back up his claim that such individualization is possible (his claim, therefore his burden). |
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
9th July 2018, 04:39 PM | #73 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
firearm identification and the National Academy of Sciences
Paul Giannelli quoted a 2008 NAS report on ballistics imaging: "Conclusions drawn in firearms identification should not be made to imply the presence of a firm statistical basis when none has been demonstrated. Specifically, . . . examiners tend to cast their assessments in bold absolutes, commonly asserting that a match can be made 'to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.' Such comments cloak an inherently subjective assessment of a match with an extreme probability statement that has no firm grounding and unrealistically implies an error rate of zero."
|
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
31st July 2018, 03:34 AM | #74 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,109
|
I doubt that such assertions are 'common', but even if so I think a rational juror would appreciate its limitations.
It is obviously not possible to match a bullet against all guns in the entire World, but this is not necessary for several reasons. Firstly, the vast majority can easily be eliminated because they are the wrong caliber etc. Secondly, in most cases only a small number of weapons could have been present at the scene of the crime, eliminating over 99.9% of guns 'in the World' with a high degree of certainty. That still leaves a bit of wiggle room. Even if all other guns found and tested were eliminated, it could be speculated that an unknown weapon with 'identical' rifling was actually used (just like a suspect who was identified by rock solid DNA evidence could argue that it was his identical twin brother who did it, even though no evidence of said of twin exists). But the question is, how likely is it? Actual guns that could have been used must be given a higher weighting than imaginary ones, no? Clearly it is not possible for an examiner to test imaginary guns, so why should they be included in the statistical analysis? OTOH, if there really is a reasonable chance of misidentification then it weakens accusations of the police 'planting' bullets (the purpose of which is to taint evidence that cannot otherwise be explained away). The fact that it is still used suggests that even the defense does not consider misidentification to be as likely - IOW they know the bullet came from their client's gun because he did commit the crime! |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
31st July 2018, 04:42 AM | #75 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
firearms identification versus DNA profiling
Roger Ramjets,
Equating ballistics identification to DNA profiling might be exactly the comparison against which Professor Giannelli cautioned. When a DNA profile is from a single individual, is complete, and does not show evidence of degradation, every DNA technician would come to the same conclusion as to whether or not a given individual is excluded as a contributor. In other words DNA profiling is objective as long as certain criteria are met. Moreover as long as the profile is complete, it can probably be related to one individual or to his or her twin. I am not aware of evidence to indicate that firearms identification is this objective, and some of the information that I previously provided indicated the same thing. I provided at least citations over a year ago which bear the reliability of firearms identification, including a WaPo article coauthored by Spencer Hsu: "The court opinion was in a case that granted a retrial to an Alabama death row inmate who was then exonerated after 30 years when new firearms experts disagreed with the original examiners’ findings that sent him to prison... Some national studies, she [Janet Mitchell] noted, estimated examiner error rates as high as 1 in 20." |
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
31st July 2018, 05:39 AM | #76 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,109
|
No, since I never made such a claim.
OTOH you seem to be claiming that it is impossible to match a bullet to a gun with any degree of certainty, which is preposterous. Surely there must be cases where a bullet can be 'individualized' to a particular rifle, for the simple reason that no other gun exists which produces the same markings. Other cases might not be so cut and dried, but still certain enough to eliminate other guns that were suspected to be involved in the crime. Yet your linked article does not argue that matching bullets to guns is impossible. For example,
Quote:
I note that that article focuses more on shell casings than bullets. I am no firearms expert, but I have always been curious (and a little suspicious) about how casings can be identified by 'tooling' marks. Therefore I am not surprised that there may be some dispute about their accuracy. However since I never made any claims about shell casings this is irrelevant. In fact I haven't actually claimed anything, only expressed skepticism regarding certain collective 'truths' that are based more on emotion than facts and logic. As for 'burden of proof' that is up to the courts. I am not in a position to 'prove' anything, nor have I ever claimed to. All I can do is look at the available evidence and draw conclusions based on logic, experience, and general knowledge of how people think and behave - IOW what a good juror would do. One thing that is logically and practically certain is that in general the FBI etc. use certain crime detection methods because they work, and the vast majority of people they catch are guilty. I have also observed first hand the underhand methods defense lawyers use to try to get their guilty clients off (and being the lone voice of reason on a jury is no fun). So I am not surprised when the same people make contradictory claims that the police are both incompetent and fiendishly clever at the same time. Of course they will do that - anything to taint the evidence and make it look like the guilty party is a victim of injustice. The irony is that this application of 'the end justifies the means' is a major reason that some actual innocents end up in prison. I came back to this thread see if there were any new developments in the case - ready to accept whatever has been discovered, including any real evidence of police misconduct or even Avery's actual innocence. The lack of news is disappointing, but not surprising. That people defending him had to resort to distortions, lies, and emotional arguments to coerce us into believing he is innocent simply indicates that they don't have anything concrete. But such tactics only make me more skeptical. You want me to 'believe'? Then give me facts, not insinuations. |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
31st July 2018, 01:55 PM | #77 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,314
|
I was struck by Zellner pointing out so much malfeasance, particularly the treatment of the ex-boyfriend. Normally, that would be suspect #1 in a murder investigation.
Skeptics should be able to hold in their head a premise that they disagree with in order to make a point: If the ex-boyfriend did it, then the two parties most eager to frame Avery are the ex-boyfriend and the cops who were facing lawsuits for... wrongful prosecution. Talk about a recipe for disaster. They faked like the neighboring county was running the show for just that reason. But they were still running the show and the very people coming up with the direct evidence. Allowing tainted lab reports without even mentioning they were compromised. Etc. So what one has to do in order to work that premise is go through the whole mess again with attention to the interaction between the cops and this ex-boyfriend. Consider the additional testimonies on vehicle sightings and etc. at the same time. I don't recall considering him seriously as a suspect at all before the things Zellner pointed out. His direct participation in the search and his hacking of her phone - that is pretty alarming in the context of him as a suspect. Blood relatives were at the yard searching, right? Wasn't there something about switching phones? You'd do that to cover who was calling who and speak about things you don't want the cops knowing. The cut on Steven Avery's hand was the most damning direct evidence for me and I sure would love to see the precise explanation. I would have loved to see the defense trot right over to the lawn mower he was working on at the time and show the dried blood. Or whatever the exact story is. At the metal shredder or wherever. So the interest in Zellner's material is more about malfeasance - you just can't frame people, even if they're guilty. I shouldn't have to defend that principle. |
31st July 2018, 05:07 PM | #78 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
It is hard to see how the cut on the thumb overrides the simplest question in the case. Did the two independent witnesses see the car leaving the property or are they both making it up?
That is the bus driver and the gas guy. If the car left the property the prosecution case is terminated. Did Zellner fabricate her cell phone pings a long distance away? That does not make sense when her record is considered, which has allowed her to choose only cases where she has no personal doubt of factual innocence. I can see that the legal process can ignore all this material, but the reasonable man may not. |
1st August 2018, 04:58 AM | #79 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
National Research Council Ballistic Imaging Report
Roger Ramjets,
The phrase "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" lacks meaning, and an argument has been put forward by the National Commission on Forensic Science that it should no longer be used: "Additionally, the legal community should recognize that medical professionals and other scientists do not routinely use “to a reasonable scientific certainty” when expressing conclusions outside of the courts since there is no foundational scientific basis for its use." You wrote, "OTOH you seem to be claiming that it is impossible to match a bullet to a gun with any degree of certainty, which is preposterous." No, I never said anything to that effect, and I do not feel a need to defend a position that I did not take. Here is another passage from Professor Giannelli, one that quotes from the 2009 NAS report: "In a different passage, the report remarked that '[m]uch forensic evidence ‘including, for example, bite marks and firearm and toolmark identifications’ is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the limits of the discipline.” (Id. at 107-08.)'" And one more from Professor Giannelli: "Agreeing with its 2008 Ballistics Imaging report, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science summarized the state of the research as follows: 'Because not enough is known about the variabilities among individual tools and guns, we are not able to specify how many points of similarity are necessary for a given level of confidence in the result. Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods. The committee agrees that class char- acteristics are helpful in narrowing the pool of tools that may have left a distinctive mark.'" Here is a passage from a 2017 book Forensic Science Reform, in which there is a chapter called "Firearms Identification", authored by Sarah L. Cooper: "With regards to firearms identification evidence, concerns at a national level manifested in 2008. In 2008, the National Research Council of the National Academies published its Ballistic Imaging Report, which focused on the feasibility of a national ballistics database.43 The Committee underscored that the report was not intended to be an overall assessment of firearms identification as a discipline. However, in assessing the feasibility of a national ballistics database, the report also considered the uniqueness of firearms related toolmarks and found that a definitive correlation had not been fully demonstrated.44 In particular, the report found the validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-related toolmarks had not yet been fully demonstrated.45 The Committee was of the view that a significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique, or even to qualitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.46" That people have been allowed to testify to something does not make it true. See below. You wrote, "One thing that is logically and practically certain is that in general the FBI etc. use certain crime detection methods because they work, and the vast majority of people they catch are guilty." Your argument about the FBI is contradicted by a review of hair analysis conducted by them. "Here's what we found: of the 268 cases where examiners provided testimony used to inculpate a defendant at trial, erroneous statements were made in 257 (96% of the cases). Defendants in at least 35 of these cases received the death penalty, and errors were identified in 33 (94%) of those cases. Nine of these defendants have already been executed, and five died of other causes while on death row." Link. There are stories in WaPo, the NYT, and Reason about this review that could be consulted for further information. Of course if by "working" one means that they get convictions, then yes, this method worked. Years of false forensic testimony about arson evidence is another example. I recall a conversation I had with an employee of ATF. He said that he was first taught arson investigation in 1985 and that everything that he learned was wrong. Moreover, in examples from these two disciplines (hair comparison and arson) it is the prosecution that provided false evidence, not the defense. |
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
2nd August 2018, 05:30 AM | #80 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
|
Rick Perry knows little of arson investigation it seems.
What concerns me most in this case is the determination of lawmakers to use legal enterprise to obfuscate justice. Brendan Dassey now stands as the victim of a very deliberate miscarriage of justice. the 7 to 4 verdict was anchored by a female lawmaker from his county. The other 3 females are disgusted and their dissenting judgement should echo for generations. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|