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 Brendan Dassey , murder cases , Steven Avery , Teresa Halbach

Reply
Old 28th June 2020, 10:08 AM   #201
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Does anyone here actually still believe Steven and Brendan are innocent? Considering all the incriminating phone calls now made public and Netflix admitting the show was a load of fiction no reasonable person should believe?
Essexman 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 28th June 2020, 10:48 AM   #202
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,197
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Does anyone here actually still believe Steven and Brendan are innocent? Considering all the incriminating phone calls now made public and Netflix admitting the show was a load of fiction no reasonable person should believe?
Links?
I could find nothing new.
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 28th June 2020, 12:32 PM   #203
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Links?
I could find nothing new.
Not long ago Avery's supporters made FOI requests for all of Steven and Brendan's recorded jail calls. And to no surprise it backfired big time

Here are a few of the incriminating calls.

Call between Avery and his lawyer Glynn. After Avery learns of Brendan’s police interviews.

Brendan's confession call with Barb in full

Brendan's 2nd confession call with Barb

Also there is an ongoing lawsuit. Retired Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office Lt. Andrew Colborn who is suing Netflix and the shows producers. The latest motions filed by Netflix to dismiss the case more or less says it all.

"Considering MaM as a whole and in context as the law requires leads to the inevitable conclusion that no reasonable viewer would interpret it as an affirmative factual assertion by Netflix"

"The framing theory is presented as Avery’s defense, not some empirical fact, is unmistakable in the context of MaM because viewers hear it in Avery’s and his defenders’ own voices, not via the detached reporting of a putatively objective journalist or narrator."

"Reasonable people understand that a man accused of murder has strong incentive to accuse law enforcement of misconduct; the notion that such viewers would consider Avery’s commentary to be that of an objective narrator laying out the gospel truth strains credulity"

"It insults the intelligence of MaM’s millions of viewers to suggest that any reasonable subset of them uncritically believed that everything said in MaM by a convicted murderer, his family, and his defense lawyers had been confirmed as accurate and was endorsed by the documentary itself."


Link to entire Netflix reply brief
Essexman 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 28th June 2020, 02:11 PM   #204
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,197
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Not long ago Avery's supporters made FOI requests for all of Steven and Brendan's recorded jail calls. And to no surprise it backfired big time

Here are a few of the incriminating calls.

Call between Avery and his lawyer Glynn. After Avery learns of Brendan’s police interviews.

Brendan's confession call with Barb in full

Brendan's 2nd confession call with Barb

Also there is an ongoing lawsuit. Retired Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office Lt. Andrew Colborn who is suing Netflix and the shows producers. The latest motions filed by Netflix to dismiss the case more or less says it all.

"Considering MaM as a whole and in context as the law requires leads to the inevitable conclusion that no reasonable viewer would interpret it as an affirmative factual assertion by Netflix"

"The framing theory is presented as Avery’s defense, not some empirical fact, is unmistakable in the context of MaM because viewers hear it in Avery’s and his defenders’ own voices, not via the detached reporting of a putatively objective journalist or narrator."

"Reasonable people understand that a man accused of murder has strong incentive to accuse law enforcement of misconduct; the notion that such viewers would consider Avery’s commentary to be that of an objective narrator laying out the gospel truth strains credulity"

"It insults the intelligence of MaM’s millions of viewers to suggest that any reasonable subset of them uncritically believed that everything said in MaM by a convicted murderer, his family, and his defense lawyers had been confirmed as accurate and was endorsed by the documentary itself."


Link to entire Netflix reply brief
The Netflix bit you quoted is perfectly rational, they say he is a convicted murderer, beware of what he says.

The Avery call merely suggests the police have a record of what Brendan said, not video of a murder, and the only part of either of Brendan's calls that is suspicious is where he says he did something with Steve before 5pm and came home.
The fire happened, it was burning rubbish in a shallow pit, it was not a crematorium. But as you know from Bamber, once opinions are fixed discussion is a waste of time.
Sadly.

Any idea a murder and reduction of a body to ashes happened on the day is scientifically impossible.
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 29th June 2020, 09:25 AM   #205
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
internalized false confessions

Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Does anyone here actually still believe Steven and Brendan are innocent? Considering all the incriminating phone calls now made public and Netflix admitting the show was a load of fiction no reasonable person should believe?
Your comment is conclusory. I listened to one of Brendan's calls, and I heard nothing unexpected. Here is one of Saul Kassin's works on internalized false confessions. Either one accepts that false confessions occur, or one does not.
__________________
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)
Chris_Halkides 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 29th June 2020, 02:32 PM   #206
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,197
The theme with Brendan is he guesses, this comes up in the second call, I will do a transcript when I have time.
He explained to his mother in another call that he guessed in his interviews the same way he guesses his homework.
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 30th June 2020, 06:13 AM   #207
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Your comment is conclusory. I listened to one of Brendan's calls, and I heard nothing unexpected. Here is one of Saul Kassin's works on internalized false confessions. Either one accepts that false confessions occur, or one does not.
Considering Steven Avery's own admissions and confessions that implicates Brendan also. Its apparent that this in particular is not a false confession.
Essexman 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 30th June 2020, 08:44 AM   #208
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,925
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Considering Steven Avery's own admissions and confessions that implicates Brendan also. Its apparent that this in particular is not a false confession.
I really agree. If you want to feel sorry for Brendan, fine, but he was far more than an innocent bystander. He was an opportunist participant. Brendan seems to elicit sympathy from a lot of people, because he is 'slow' and had a brutal interrogation.

Doesn't make him innocent.
__________________
Julia
wasapi 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 30th June 2020, 08:55 AM   #209
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Considering Steven Avery's own admissions and confessions that implicates Brendan also. Its apparent that this in particular is not a false confession.
"Apparent"? I don't know. I'm not convinced either way.
Matthew Best 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 30th June 2020, 09:39 AM   #210
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
Some of the problems with this investigation

Here are some things that strike me about the investigation, all of which have been discussed here previously, with appropriate citations given:

One, Brendan's interrogation was marred by contamination with information from the interrogators. Either the interrogators were incompetent, or worse.

Two, Manitowoc should not have been involved in the investigation at all, owing to an obvious conflict of interest, as was tacitly acknowledged.

Three, Manitowoc's personnel had an uncanny ability to find evidence supposedly overlooked by others. That along with point two does not prove that gardening went on, but no reasonable person would dismiss this possibility out of hand, either.

Four, Ken Katz's statement after Brendan's interrogation was a clear violation of the ABA's model rules of conduct for prosecutors.

Five, Sherry Culhane and the lab in which she worked deviated from guidelines from the ABA's model rules for DNA evidence in more than one way. In brief, the lab should have rerun any evidence for which the negative control was positive. If you don't consider the results to be binding, why run the negative control in the first place? They should not have opposed the presence of the defense for any tests which consumed all of a sample. Their rationale for this opposition was hypocritical: they claimed that they were concerned about contamination, but they allowed the presence of students. if they were so concerned about contamination, why was Ms. Culhane speaking to students while preparing samples? In addition, it is well known that speaking is a contamination hazard. If Ms. Culhane is that careless about protocol, it suggests a more general lack of competence.

My list is not intended to be exhaustive. People who claim that Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey are guilty should address these points. Either they should rebut them with logical arguments and citations, or they should acknowledge them and explain how the case for guilt can be made in spite of them.
__________________
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)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 30th June 2020 at 10:06 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 30th June 2020, 10:00 AM   #211
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
What makes a confession believable?

Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Considering Steven Avery's own admissions and confessions that implicates Brendan also. Its apparent that this in particular is not a false confession.
Again, you are offering a conclusion but not supporting it. Was Brendan's statement contaminated by the interrogators? Does his statement agree with the facts of the case? If you acknowledge these two problems, what about his statement makes it believable anyway?
__________________
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)
Chris_Halkides 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 30th June 2020, 10:05 AM   #212
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
Brendan's ability to understand

Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
I really agree. If you want to feel sorry for Brendan, fine, but he was far more than an innocent bystander. He was an opportunist participant. Brendan seems to elicit sympathy from a lot of people, because he is 'slow' and had a brutal interrogation.

Doesn't make him innocent.
His slowness is an issue because there is evidence that he did not understand the import of what he was saying. IIUC he told the interrogators that he needed to return to class to complete a project. The brutality is not as central to my thinking as the fact that the interrogators hopelessly contaminated the process.
EDT
His slowness is also a risk factor in false confessions. Offhand, I would offer Joseph Dick of the Norfolk Four as an example of someone who was slow and as an example of an internalized false confession. The book The Wrong Guys can be consulted for more information on this case.
__________________
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)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 30th June 2020 at 11:23 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 30th June 2020, 11:03 AM   #213
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
"Apparent"? I don't know. I'm not convinced either way.
What do you think Avery meant when he said -

“they got it all on film or tape or whatever what we did that night”

“He’s the one who was with me with the fire”

Also, Avery was placed on suicide watch after he heard Brendan had started talking.
Essexman 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 30th June 2020, 11:21 AM   #214
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by ACJL View Post
Thank you for the welcome! And I agree with you too, her case would've tipped me over the edge as well. After three years she still doesn't have a narrative.
I saw that the thread had been updated so I read the last few pages looking for anything new from Zellner. Nothing to be found that I can see, other than she is doing what lawyers do by spinning what appear to me to be little victories into what she says are huge wins.

What has been missing this whole time is a plausible theory, backed by the evidence, of who really killed Theresa Halbach if Steven Avery is not the real killer.
Lerxst 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 30th June 2020, 11:26 AM   #215
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,176
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Here are some things that strike me about the investigation, all of which have been discussed here previously, with appropriate citations given:

One, Brendan's interrogation was marred by contamination with information from the interrogators.

Two, Manitowoc should not have been involved in the investigation at all, owing to an obvious conflict of interest, as was tacitly acknowledged.

Three, Manitowoc's personnel had an uncanny ability to find evidence supposedly overlooked by others. That along with point two does not prove that gardening went on, but no reasonable person would dismiss this possibility out of hand, either.

Four, Ken Katz's statement after Brendan's interrogation was a clear violation of the ABA's model rules of conduct for prosecutors.

Five, Sherry Culhane and the lab in which she worked deviated from guidelines from the ABA's model rules for DNA evidence in more than one way. In brief, the lab should have rerun any evidence for which the negative control was positive. If you don't consider the results to be binding, why run the negative control in the first place? They should not have opposed the presence of the defense for any tests which consumed all of a sample. Their rationale for this opposition was hypocritical: they claimed that they were concerned about contamination, but they allowed the presence of students. if they were so concerned about contamination, why was Ms. Culhane speaking to students while preparing samples? In addition, it is well known that speaking is a contamination hazard. If Ms. Culhane is that careless about protocol, it suggests a more general lack of competence.
If you want to argue that Avery should get off on technicalities that's fine. But some of us are more interested in truth than legal outcomes.

Quote:
My list is not intended to be exhaustive. People who claim that Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey are guilty should address these points. Either they should rebut them with logical arguments and citations, or they should acknowledge them and explain how the case for guilt can be made in spite of them.
Your points sound exactly like what a defense would come up with when they know their client is guilty. This might be fair enough in court, but nitpicking the evidence or casting aspersions on the collectors doesn't make it false.

Brendan's interrogation was 'marred by contamination'? Perhaps, but does that mean everything he said was a lie? I think not.

Some cops had a 'conflict of interest' or an 'uncanny ability' to find evidence? Let's get it out in the open - you believe they were corrupt and faked all the evidence, right? Because if that's not what you are saying then it's irrelevant.

The lab 'deviated from guidelines' or were 'careless' and 'hypocritical'? Maybe so, but did that cause an incorrect identification? We are not in court so we don't need 'beyond (un)reasonable doubt' here, just an idea of how accurate the results probably were. A small chance of contamination doesn't mean it happened, and not following some specific guideline doesn't mean the results are false.

As more stuff like these phone calls comes out it becomes harder and harder for people to claim that Avery is innocent. If he was then we would expect to get the opposite. But we didn't. That this doesn't deter his supporters from rehashing old talking points is troubling, but not unsurprising.

So Steven, what did you do that night? Perhaps one day he will tell us, and then we will know for sure. Until then I will be guided by what the evidence indicates is more likely. Right now it's looking far more likely that he really is a murderer.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 30th June 2020, 12:09 PM   #216
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
As more stuff like these phone calls comes out it becomes harder and harder for people to claim that Avery is innocent. If he was then we would expect to get the opposite. But we didn't. That this doesn't deter his supporters from rehashing old talking points is troubling, but not unsurprising.
If the victims remains and belongings being found on his property and murder weapon hanging on his wall doesn’t stop them what will?
Essexman 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 30th June 2020, 02:59 PM   #217
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
some time ago

Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
What do you think Avery meant when he said -

“they got it all on film or tape or whatever what we did that night”
A quick Google search shows that this was posted at YouTube on 26 November 2019. Therefore the FOIA request must have predated the posting. This is old news, and calling the request "not long ago" is a stretch.

The very next sentence is "So I don’t know what they told ‘em or what." This throws the whole passage into ambiguity. Nice try.
__________________
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)
Chris_Halkides 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 30th June 2020, 03:06 PM   #218
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,197
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
If the victims remains and belongings being found on his property and murder weapon hanging on his wall doesn’t stop them what will?
hahahahaha

Guess what Manitowoc wanted you to see!?
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 30th June 2020, 03:42 PM   #219
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
Negative controls in DNA forensics

I have collected a few quotes to explain what negative controls are, although more could be said on this subject. All three articles are worth reading in their entirety.

“Identifying and Preventing DNA Contamination in a DNA-Typing Laboratory,” by Terri Sundquist and Joseph Bessetti (Promega Corporation) link
“Appropriate control reactions are helpful in determining whether DNA contamination has occurred. A “reagent blank” control consists of all reagents used during sample processing but contains no sample. This control is used to detect DNA contamination of the analytical reagents used to prepare the sample for analysis. In a separate negative control reaction, water is used instead of extracted sample or reagent blank. This negative control reaction is often referred to as the “no-template” control and allows identification of contamination in the amplification reagents themselves.”

“DNA Testing: An Introduction for Non-Scientists,” by Dr. Donald E. Riley link
“Good PCR technique is no guarantee that contamination didn't influence the results. Steps must be taken to try and detect contamination. Negative controls are blank PCRs that have all the components of the evidentiary PCRs but have no other DNA added intentionally. Fortunately, there are often two negative controls used, one when the DNA is extracted, and another when the PCR is set up. Any PCR signal in the negative control would warn that contamination has occurred. Unfortunately, the negative controls are virtually the only warning of PCR contamination. Negative controls may alert the analyst to general contamination occurring within the lab or the lab reagents. These controls don't offer protection against contamination occurring before the samples arrived at the PCR lab. Negative controls also can't rule out contamination of individual samples. The individual samples lack individual signs of contamination if it occurs. Unlike a human patient, a PCR is incapable of showing signs of infection (contamination) such as fever or undue pain. PCRs also have no immune system to ward off contaminants.”

"Tarnish on the Gold Standard,” by Professor William Thompson (University of California at Irvine) link to a number of articles
“While most of the problems are due to inadvertent mistakes, a number of cases involving dishonesty have also come to light…In all of these cases, the analysts were caught faking the results of control samples designed to detect instances in which cross-contamination of DNA samples has occurred.”

“In most instances, these errors produced unexpected results that flagged the problem, such as positive results in a control sample that was supposed to contain no DNA or a second DNA profile in a sample that was supposed to be from a single person. Upon noticing such problems, labs typically throw out the results of that test and start over.”

“Given the unexpectedly high frequency of contamination in DNA testing we have just discussed, it is interesting, and not at all surprising, that the major form of fakery discovered to date involves control samples known as extraction blanks that are designed to detect contamination. These samples are supposed to contain no DNA. When they produce positive results, it indicates there was a problem — DNA somehow ended up in a sample where it did not belong. If that happened to a control sample, it could also have happened to other samples, so the analyst must throw out the whole test and start over.”
__________________
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)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 30th June 2020 at 03:44 PM.
Chris_Halkides 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 30th June 2020, 04:21 PM   #220
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
unanswered questions

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If you want to argue that Avery should get off on technicalities that's fine. But some of us are more interested in truth than legal outcomes.

Your points sound exactly like what a defense would come up with when they know their client is guilty. This might be fair enough in court, but nitpicking the evidence or casting aspersions on the collectors doesn't make it false.

Brendan's interrogation was 'marred by contamination'? Perhaps, but does that mean everything he said was a lie? I think not.

Some cops had a 'conflict of interest' or an 'uncanny ability' to find evidence? Let's get it out in the open - you believe they were corrupt and faked all the evidence, right? Because if that's not what you are saying then it's irrelevant.

The lab 'deviated from guidelines' or were 'careless' and 'hypocritical'? Maybe so, but did that cause an incorrect identification? We are not in court so we don't need 'beyond (un)reasonable doubt' here, just an idea of how accurate the results probably were. A small chance of contamination doesn't mean it happened, and not following some specific guideline doesn't mean the results are false.

As more stuff like these phone calls comes out it becomes harder and harder for people to claim that Avery is innocent. If he was then we would expect to get the opposite. But we didn't. That this doesn't deter his supporters from rehashing old talking points is troubling, but not unsurprising.

So Steven, what did you do that night? Perhaps one day he will tell us, and then we will know for sure. Until then I will be guided by what the evidence indicates is more likely. Right now it's looking far more likely that he really is a murderer.
I will retain my original numbering for clarity.

1. The evidence that Dassey's interrogation was contaminated is clear and unmistakable and has been discussed in this thread. Saying "perhaps," is willful blindness. What it does do is to put the onus on the person claiming that the confession is valid to explain why. You have not done so, and Essexman's attempts have been desultory.

Saul Kassin, one of the leading experts on false confessions, wrote, "A second set of issues concerns the processes of interrogation used on Dassey. Rather than compensate for the boy’s limitations, police used the kinds of trickery and deceit that can produce false confessions from fully functioning adults." (emphasis mine). He continued, "The third argument was that Dassey’s confession showed that he had corroborating knowledge about the crime. Not so fast. Dassey’s final narrative was riddled with inconsistencies and factual errors. Moreover, the detectives had fed him information through a series of hints and leading questions." (emphasis mine)

2. Manitowoc county had a conflict of interest that Calumet county did not, a point that you failed to address. Anyone who doubts this can look at the finances of the county in Nebraska in which the Beatrice Six case took place.

3. If the Calumet county police had found evidence on a first pass through a crime scene, it would have carried more weight. Contrary to your implication, I am not claiming that the Manitowoc police necessarily planted evidence; what I am saying is that the jury should have discounted evidence collected in this manner because they might have (that they did not is one of the many failures of the justice system in this case).

5. You did not answer my question. If one performs a control experiment and ignores the result, then why perform it? A previous comment of mine should be consulted for what usually happens when a negative control gives a positive result. If you wish to propose a different standard by which the results of all negative control reactions should be assessed, then feel free. Until that new standard is accepted, my point stands.

In addition, Sherry Culhane did not even disclose what she did in her report, which is an ethical violation. Culhane's behavior is an object lesson in how not to perform DNA forensics. The essay "Tarnish on the Gold Standard" can be consulted for other examples.

IMO it is irresponsible to minimize the importance of what you refer to as legal technicalities. If we abandon good forensic practice, then we consign future individuals to be convicted on the basis of bad evidence. Some of us are interested in avoiding those future wrongful convictions.
__________________
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)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 30th June 2020 at 06:09 PM.
Chris_Halkides 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 30th June 2020, 09:57 PM   #221
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,197
Chris,
Is there any access to Injustice Anywhere forum?
That has a useful thread on the case for the curious.
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 1st July 2020, 06:34 AM   #222
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Like the old saying goes - “It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled”
Essexman 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 1st July 2020, 10:05 AM   #223
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
One cannot be separated from the other

Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Like the old saying goes - “It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled”
Some time ago I noted that the people who think that Mr. Dassey and Mr. Avery are guilty in effect say, "Look at the mountain of evidence," yet also say, "Look away from how it was obtained." Someday, they may see the contradiction in their position, but I am not holding my breath.
__________________
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)
Chris_Halkides 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 1st July 2020, 10:09 AM   #224
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
still waiting

Roger Ramjets and Essexman,

Can you produce an expert in false convictions who says that there was nothing wrong with the way that Mr. Dassey was interrogated? Can you refute the points he made (link in a previous comment)?

So far there has been nothing but the sound of crickets.
__________________
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)
Chris_Halkides 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 1st July 2020, 10:54 AM   #225
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Some time ago I noted that the people who think that Mr. Dassey and Mr. Avery are guilty in effect say, "Look at the mountain of evidence," yet also say, "Look away from how it was obtained." Someday, they may see the contradiction in their position, but I am not holding my breath.
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is not my position. There is indeed a mountain of evidence, but it all points to Avery and not Dassey. I also acknowledge that there were mistakes made by both the investigators and the prosecutors, but those mistakes don't change the facts of the case.

Is your position that since these mistakes were made we should throw out or ignore all evidence of Avery's guilt? If that is the case, then how is your position any different from what you claim ours to be?
Lerxst 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 1st July 2020, 12:14 PM   #226
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
I can't speak for anyone else, but this is not my position. There is indeed a mountain of evidence, but it all points to Avery and not Dassey. I also acknowledge that there were mistakes made by both the investigators and the prosecutors, but those mistakes don't change the facts of the case.
For two reasons the mountain of evidence also points to Dassey

A) Steven Avery has made multiple admissions that Brendan was with him that night.

B) Brendans confession lead to more evidence being discovered.
Essexman 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 1st July 2020, 12:36 PM   #227
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
For two reasons the mountain of evidence also points to Dassey

A) Steven Avery has made multiple admissions that Brendan was with him that night.

B) Brendans confession lead to more evidence being discovered.
That Brendan was there that night is not in dispute by either side in this case. Hardly a mountain of evidence against him. His confession does not fit many of the known facts of the case, and what he did get right was most likely fed to him by the investigators. Even if Dassey is eventually released it wouldn't change my position on Avery.

Despite the position by some that the evidence against Avery was either fabricated or planted, no one has ever come close to proving that assertion. No one has ever produced any exculpatory evidence for Avery. If someone ever does, I would happily change my position and admit I was wrong.
Lerxst 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 1st July 2020, 01:03 PM   #228
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,925
Earlier today I watched a documentary on - either the ID channel or Reelz. It is current, (will possibly be on YouTube later), it seemed a balanced documentation.

Some evidence was perhaps new to me, however, it has been awhile and perhaps I had forgotten. However, my belief, then and way back, that they are both a couple of guilty murdering Monsters.

I started to say, 'both a couple of guilty murdering animals,', then realized it is too good for them. (I am also remembering Avery loving "to burn cats alive.)
__________________
Julia
wasapi 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 1st July 2020, 01:05 PM   #229
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
That Brendan was there that night is not in dispute by either side in this case. Hardly a mountain of evidence against him. His confession does not fit many of the known facts of the case, and what he did get right was most likely fed to him by the investigators. Even if Dassey is eventually released it wouldn't change my position on Avery.

Despite the position by some that the evidence against Avery was either fabricated or planted, no one has ever come close to proving that assertion. No one has ever produced any exculpatory evidence for Avery. If someone ever does, I would happily change my position and admit I was wrong.
Brendan was not fed any false information. He passed the controlled question by refuting the assertion that Teresa had tattoos.

Brendan passes the control question
Essexman 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 1st July 2020, 01:05 PM   #230
Busta Capp
Thinker
 
Busta Capp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 137
I completely believe that Avery is guilty.
Dassey may or may not have played an active role but he was there.

Manitowoc should have stayed out of it like they said they would.
Sure interrogators "tricked" Brendan, it's what they do to people too stupid to know you don't ever have to talk to them.

Based on the "questionable" evidence gathering by a department who had informally recused themselves and had an axe to grind, and numerous other issues as outlined above, as much as I hate to say it, the jury should have found reasonable doubt in a 1st degree murder charge.

There are many cases where an eyewitness that someone was in an area and/or their cell phone pinged a tower nearby are enough to have people on death row.

The system is supposedly set up so 1000 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent be locked up.
I'm not naive enough to believe it's ever practiced, but it's supposed to be the system.
__________________
Memorize This Signature
Busta Capp 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 1st July 2020, 03:05 PM   #231
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Brendan was not fed any false information. He passed the controlled question by refuting the assertion that Teresa had tattoos.

Brendan passes the control question
I didn't say he was fed any false information, they fed him information that they already knew to be correct. I'm also referring to his confession that was given in March, not his initial interviews back in November. By the time of his confession the major facts of the case were already well known by the police. The story that Brendan tells is clearly not supported by the evidence they already have, and they know that, so that is why they correct him at key points.

I've already said that Dassey's innocence or guilt has no bearing on the evidence against Avery. I don't connect both of them and insist that they must both be guilty or they must both be innocent. The evidence in the case is heavily weighted against Steven Avery, but not so much against Brendan Dassey. Dassey's confession was not needed to get a conviction of Avery, nor did it help prove Avery's innocence. It only served to doom Brendan to a life in prison.

So it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other if Brendan was involved or not.
Lerxst 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 1st July 2020, 03:39 PM   #232
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,197
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
I didn't say he was fed any false information, they fed him information that they already knew to be correct. I'm also referring to his confession that was given in March, not his initial interviews back in November. By the time of his confession the major facts of the case were already well known by the police. The story that Brendan tells is clearly not supported by the evidence they already have, and they know that, so that is why they correct him at key points.

I've already said that Dassey's innocence or guilt has no bearing on the evidence against Avery. I don't connect both of them and insist that they must both be guilty or they must both be innocent. The evidence in the case is heavily weighted against Steven Avery, but not so much against Brendan Dassey. Dassey's confession was not needed to get a conviction of Avery, nor did it help prove Avery's innocence. It only served to doom Brendan to a life in prison.

So it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other if Brendan was involved or not.
Does Avery guilt depend on the body being burned in his fire pit the day she died?
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 1st July 2020, 03:48 PM   #233
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Does Avery guilt depend on the body being burned in his fire pit the day she died?
Although I suspect this is a loaded question, I'll answer it anyway.

No.
Lerxst 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 1st July 2020, 08:23 PM   #234
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,588
I
Quote:
s your position that since these mistakes were made we should throw out or ignore all evidence of Avery's guilt?
I don't think we have to throw it out or ignore it for the sake of discussion, but the jury should've thrown it out. We have rules of evidence for a reason, and once it was disclosed the DNA evidence was compromised that should've been "reasonable doubt".
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

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

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 02:22 AM   #235
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I

I don't think we have to throw it out or ignore it for the sake of discussion, but the jury should've thrown it out. We have rules of evidence for a reason, and once it was disclosed the DNA evidence was compromised that should've been "reasonable doubt".

There was nothing that compromised any of the DNA testing. The blood in Halbach's car and Averys own car tested positive for his DNA. There was no EDTA present in those blood stains hence it could not have come from the blood vial that MTSO were in possession of. It came from the cut on Avery's finger.

Furthermore Avery made no mention of "blood missing from his sink" in any of the recorded jail calls, nor did he tell Strang or Buting about it in 05/06 either. Its just a ludicrous idea Zellner made up for a TV show.

Last edited by Essexman; 2nd July 2020 at 02:41 AM.
Essexman 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 2nd July 2020, 03:02 AM   #236
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,636
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
There was nothing that compromised any of the DNA testing. The blood in Halbach's car and Averys own car tested positive for his DNA. There was no EDTA present in those blood stains hence it could not have come from the blood vial that MTSO were in possession of. It came from the cut on Avery's finger.

Furthermore Avery made no mention of "blood missing from his sink" in any of the recorded jail calls, nor did he tell Strang or Buting about it in 05/06 either. Its just a ludicrous idea Zellner made up for a TV show.
Hmmm, who to believe, you or the renowned forensic and DNA expert Chris Halkidis........
__________________
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 2nd July 2020, 03:20 AM   #237
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,197
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Hmmm, who to believe, you or the renowned forensic and DNA expert Chris Halkidis........
Not sure if you are being ironic but the edta is the invisible hand for Manitowoc.
So Steven Avery planted the cremains by his shed?
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 2nd July 2020, 03:21 AM   #238
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Hmmm, who to believe, you or the renowned forensic and DNA expert Chris Halkidis........
I am only going by what the experts involved in this case have concluded.
Essexman 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 2nd July 2020, 03:37 AM   #239
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,888
one of the side effects of tunnel vision

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
What has been missing this whole time is a plausible theory, backed by the evidence, of who really killed Theresa Halbach if Steven Avery is not the real killer.
I broadly agree with what you wrote. Yet, I have two reservations. The first is that the defense is not required to provide this, nor do they necessarily have the resources to do so. The second is that if the investigators have tunnel vision, they will not develop evidentiary leads that fail to line up with their suppositions. That is why I am in general hesitant to draw strong conclusions based on the apparent absence of alternative explanations.
__________________
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)
Chris_Halkides 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 2nd July 2020, 03:39 AM   #240
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Not sure if you are being ironic but the edta is the invisible hand for Manitowoc.
So Steven Avery planted the cremains by his shed?
Since he had a bonfire behind his shed for over eight hours that night and his next door neighbour said he helped Steven Avery place the body onto that fire. I guess you could say that.

Last edited by Essexman; 2nd July 2020 at 03:43 AM.
Essexman 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 04:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.