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 Brendan Dassey , murder cases , Steven Avery , Teresa Halbach

Reply
Old 2nd July 2020, 03:51 AM   #241
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
they knew what they were doing

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.

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?
I would not use the word mistakes; "improprieties" is closer. The problem with saying "perhaps" Mr. Dassey's confession was contaminated, or that the authorities made mistakes is that it minimizes the severity of what they did. Along these same lines, I note that no one took up my challenge regarding negative controls, namely to set forth standards that would apply not just to this case, but to all cases involving DNA profiling.

I would like to see both Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey retried but only after all of the tainted evidence is excluded. IMO this would include Mr. Dassey's statements during and directly after his interrogation. It would also include anything gathered* by Manitowoc. If that evidence is used outside of court for the purposes of discussion, the people discussing it should explain what weight it deserves. MOO.
*EDT, by gathered I mean anything found or identified.
__________________
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; 2nd July 2020 at 04:59 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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, 04:04 AM   #242
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Brendan's statements

In a 2007 letter to Jerry Buying, Dr. Lawrence T. White concluded, "Brendan's statements were often inconsistent, ambivalent, and self-contradictory. In sum there are many reasons to question the trustworthiness and voluntariness of Bredan Dassey's so-called 'confession.'"
__________________
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 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, 04:09 AM   #243
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
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.
If the neighbour helped in this way then Steve Avery is guilty.
It will save time on thread to post the links to this neighbour and his assistance.

Last edited by Samson; 2nd July 2020 at 04:10 AM.
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, 04:14 AM   #244
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I would not use the word mistakes; "improprieties" is closer. The problem with saying "perhaps" Mr. Dassey's confession was contaminated, or that the authorities made mistakes is that it minimizes the severity of what they did. Along these same lines, I note that no one took up my challenge regarding negative controls, namely to set forth standards that would apply not just to this case, but to all cases involving DNA profiling.

I would like to see both Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey retried but only after all of the tainted evidence is excluded. IMO this would include Mr. Dassey's statements during and directly after his interrogation. It would also include anything gathered by Manitowoc. If that evidence is used outside of court for the purposes of discussion, the people discussing it should explain what weight it deserves. MOO.
The evidence gathered in this case was gathered by CCSO not MTSO. Even if you did omit the mountain of incriminating forensic evidence. A compelling circumstantial case can still be constructed.


The first bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery admitting over the phone he had a bonfire that night. Contradicting all his early police statements.

The second bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery calling the victim twice before she died on *67 and once after she died without the *67. The prosecution explanation is simple. Avery wanted to lure Teresa to his trailer. Having an IQ of just 70 Avery thought that *67 would also hide his number from cell phone company's records. After she has died he calls her again without *67 trying to make it appear he is wondering where she is. I have yet to hear an innocent explanation for this behaviour.

The third bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery seen having a bonfire for at least 7 hours. No need to mention the prosecution narrative for that one. What is the innocent explanation? I have never heard one.

The fourth bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery was seen ALONE by this bonfire at 11:30pm at night.

The fifth bit of circumstantial evidence is that the only Bonfire seen that night that could have cremated a body was Steven Avery's bonfire. Where else could Teresa have been cremated?

The sixth bit of circumstantial evidence is that the Mini Van Teresa photographed for an Auto trader ad, was never placed on display like all the other cars she had photographed in the past. Despite Steven Avery telling Earl that Teresa had done her work and left. The prosecution explanation is simple. Avery knew there would be no Auto trader advert because he has killed the photographer. Thus wont bother putting it on display with the rest of the cars on sale advertised in Autotrader.

The seventh bit of circumstantial evidence is that Brendan knew Teresa had no tattoos, despite being told the contrary, Brendan was adamant he never remembers seeing any Tattoos. Thus he has seen Teresa naked. Why has Brendan seen Teresa naked? No need to mention the prosecution narrative. What is the truther explanation?

The eight bit of circumstantial evidence is the RAV4 being found near the car crusher but not crushed. This shows the suspect intended to crush it but something prevented him from doing so. Lo and behold, Steven Avery did not have a set of keys to start the crusher. Only Earl and Allan did.

The ninth bit of circumstantial evidence is Steven Avery accusing the police of framing him before anyone else knew a crime had even been committed. Steven Avery accused MPD of framing him during a missing persons investigation. Thus he knows a crime has been committed against Teresa. How did he know? He done it.

The tenth bit of circumstantial evidence is Brendan Dassey crying to himself uncontrollably and losing 40 pounds in weight in the weeks after the murder.

I could go on.

Furthermore Brendan was days away from agreeing to a 15 year plea bargain until his mother and grandfather made him deny all the allegations. If they were both to be re-trialed it wouldn't surprise me if Brendan takes a plea and testifies against Steven.
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, 04:17 AM   #245
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
DNA degradation; negative controls

Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
There was nothing that compromised any of the DNA testing.
The word "compromised" is so vague as to be useless. One curiousity that has been discussed here more than once is why the bullet profile was essentially complete.

I explained what negative controls were in comment #219. In the next comment I wrote, "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."

By "all" I mean every case in which there is DNA profiling. No one has answered my question or offered a suggestion yet.
__________________
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 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, 04:23 AM   #246
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
If the neighbour helped in this way then Steve Avery is guilty.
It will save time on thread to post the links to this neighbour and his assistance.
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
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, 07:29 AM   #247
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
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.
I am well aware that the burden of proof was not on the defense at trial. If you believe that Avery is innocent then this burden of proof is on you however.

Like others have already said, we can go on and on about the trial for as long as we want, it won't change anything. Some of us are interested in the facts of the matter. We can cast doubt on some of the evidence, but if we're being honest we should not then doubt ALL of the evidence. The inconvenient truth for those who think he is innocent is that there is a whole lot of physical and circumstantial evidence against him. What is also missing is anything exculpatory, nothing in the evidence excludes Avery, at least not that we've seen yet.

If he's going to get out of prison for the second time, you're going to have to prove that. It's the reason he was released after his first conviction after all.
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 2nd July 2020, 07:36 AM   #248
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I would not use the word mistakes; "improprieties" is closer. The problem with saying "perhaps" Mr. Dassey's confession was contaminated, or that the authorities made mistakes is that it minimizes the severity of what they did. Along these same lines, I note that no one took up my challenge regarding negative controls, namely to set forth standards that would apply not just to this case, but to all cases involving DNA profiling.

I would like to see both Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey retried but only after all of the tainted evidence is excluded. IMO this would include Mr. Dassey's statements during and directly after his interrogation. It would also include anything gathered* by Manitowoc. If that evidence is used outside of court for the purposes of discussion, the people discussing it should explain what weight it deserves. MOO.
*EDT, by gathered I mean anything found or identified.
I would be fine with a re-trial as well. I can only speculate though that it would go much better for Dassey than it would for Avery. It's also hard to predict what evidence would be allowed and what would not be allowed.

Find something that excludes Avery though and I think you've got a winner.
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 2nd July 2020, 06:03 PM   #249
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
putative control question concerning a tattoo

For what Brendan actually said about the tattoo, start at 2:40 of this video. TL/DW: At one point Brendan in effect says that he does not remember a tattoo, but then he says "I don't know what it [the tattoo] was."
__________________
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 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 3rd July 2020, 01:32 AM   #250
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
For what Brendan actually said about the tattoo, start at 2:40 of this video. TL/DW: At one point Brendan in effect says that he does not remember a tattoo, but then he says "I don't know what it [the tattoo] was."
"FASSBENDER: did she have any scars, marks', tattoos, stuff like that, that you can remember?

BRENDAN: I don’t remember any tattoos. "


-------------------------------

"FASSBENDER: OK. (pause) We know that Teresa had a tattoo on her stomach, do you remember that?

BRENDAN: (shakes head “no”) uh uh"


So much for telling the police what they wanted to hear.
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 3rd July 2020, 04:09 AM   #251
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
"FASSBENDER: did she have any scars, marks', tattoos, stuff like that, that you can remember?

BRENDAN: I don’t remember any tattoos. "


-------------------------------

"FASSBENDER: OK. (pause) We know that Teresa had a tattoo on her stomach, do you remember that?

BRENDAN: (shakes head “no”) uh uh"


So much for telling the police what they wanted to hear.
Heh Essexman I don't get this.
Are you finding cogent evidence in that exchange?

What I am grappling with is the bonfire and burning of the body.
Sure Steve was not a congressman but neither did he hava a 70 IQ, that was ascribed to the more leisurely working of Brendan Dassey's mind.

I am unclear what the cutoff number is useful to explain inviting someone to your place, with external and comprehensive detail of their itinerary, then shooting them, burning their body a few yards from your digs, and expecting no one will piece this together into some sort of culpable homicide.

To me it does not compute. So your version will help me.
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 3rd July 2020, 04:44 AM   #252
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
What Brendan actually said

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
For what Brendan actually said about the tattoo, start at 2:40 of this video. TL/DW: At one point Brendan in effect says that he does not remember a tattoo, but then he says "I don't know what it [the tattoo] was."
Fassbinder: "Do you disagree with me when I say that?"
Dassey: "No, but I don't know what it was."

Fassbender reminds me of Culhane. Both perform controls and then ignore the results.
__________________
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; 3rd July 2020 at 04:48 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 3rd July 2020, 10:23 AM   #253
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
From Richard Leo's affidavit

Here is a link to an affidavit from Professor Richard Leo on Mr. Dassey's interrogation. The following paragraph is in the conclusions section.

"6) Mr. Joseph Buckley, in a report dated April 4, 2007, asserts that Brendan offered details in his admissions that corroborate the veracity of these statements. In particular, Mr. Buckley asserts that there are at least seventeen (17) “corroborating details offered by Brendan Dassey” in his statements. As I have demonstrated in great detail above, all of the examples of alleged corroboration cited by Buckley are either the product of prompting, suggestion and contamination by the detectives, contamination by the media (this was one of the most highly publicized cases in the history of Wisconsin, and numerous details of the police investigation were released to the print and the broadcast media), guesses that were statistically probable, incorrect guesses that revealed Brendan’s ignorance of the true crime facts rather than any “inside” or “guilty” knowledge, or truthful statements that are consistent with Mr. Dassey’s version of events, in which he is not culpable for any crime."
__________________
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; 3rd July 2020 at 10:27 AM.
Chris_Halkides 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 3rd July 2020, 02:32 PM   #254
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
"What we did that night"

"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 3rd July 2020, 03:11 PM   #255
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
"What we did that night"

"it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled"
This was a phone conversation between Steve and an attorney.

Transcript:

I guess they were talking to Brendan last night, I guess they got it all on film or tape or whatever, what we did that night. So I don't know what they told him, or, what.

Did it relate to the pending case?

I guess so.

Ah, and who's Brendan?

That's Barbie's kid. He's the one who was with me that night, by the fire.

END of Steve's words in their completeness.
I can't get any notion of your point, "what we did that night" (was be by the fire which presumably they stacked and lit, no mention of what they burned)

Last edited by Samson; 3rd July 2020 at 03:14 PM.
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 3rd July 2020, 03:29 PM   #256
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This was a phone conversation between Steve and an attorney.

Transcript:

I guess they were talking to Brendan last night, I guess they got it all on film or tape or whatever, what we did that night. So I don't know what they told him, or, what.

Did it relate to the pending case?

I guess so.

Ah, and who's Brendan?

That's Barbie's kid. He's the one who was with me that night, by the fire.

END of Steve's words in their completeness.
I can't get any notion of your point, "what we did that night" (was be by the fire which presumably they stacked and lit, no mention of what they burned)
No mention of what they burned? What defendant who intends to plead not guilty is daft enough to mention burning the victims body over a recorded jail call?
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 3rd July 2020, 04:54 PM   #257
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
No mention of what they burned? What defendant who intends to plead not guilty is daft enough to mention burning the victims body over a recorded jail call?
It's kind of a problem that the body was burned in one place and moved to another.

I call that exculpatory evidence.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 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 3rd July 2020, 10:30 PM   #258
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
No mention of what they burned? What defendant who intends to plead not guilty is daft enough to mention burning the victims body over a recorded jail call?
That is a world record circular argument.

If you pull your arms in closer you will spin faster.
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 4th July 2020, 12:30 AM   #259
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
It's kind of a problem that the body was burned in one place and moved to another.

I call that exculpatory evidence.
Are you being serious? He is admitting what Brendan said is what they did that night.
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 4th July 2020, 03:03 AM   #260
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,623
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
The evidence gathered in this case was gathered by CCSO not MTSO. Even if you did omit the mountain of incriminating forensic evidence. A compelling circumstantial case can still be constructed.


The first bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery admitting over the phone he had a bonfire that night. Contradicting all his early police statements.

The second bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery calling the victim twice before she died on *67 and once after she died without the *67. The prosecution explanation is simple. Avery wanted to lure Teresa to his trailer. Having an IQ of just 70 Avery thought that *67 would also hide his number from cell phone company's records. After she has died he calls her again without *67 trying to make it appear he is wondering where she is. I have yet to hear an innocent explanation for this behaviour.

The third bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery seen having a bonfire for at least 7 hours. No need to mention the prosecution narrative for that one. What is the innocent explanation? I have never heard one.

The fourth bit of circumstantial evidence is Avery was seen ALONE by this bonfire at 11:30pm at night.

The fifth bit of circumstantial evidence is that the only Bonfire seen that night that could have cremated a body was Steven Avery's bonfire. Where else could Teresa have been cremated?

The sixth bit of circumstantial evidence is that the Mini Van Teresa photographed for an Auto trader ad, was never placed on display like all the other cars she had photographed in the past. Despite Steven Avery telling Earl that Teresa had done her work and left. The prosecution explanation is simple. Avery knew there would be no Auto trader advert because he has killed the photographer. Thus wont bother putting it on display with the rest of the cars on sale advertised in Autotrader.

The seventh bit of circumstantial evidence is that Brendan knew Teresa had no tattoos, despite being told the contrary, Brendan was adamant he never remembers seeing any Tattoos. Thus he has seen Teresa naked. Why has Brendan seen Teresa naked? No need to mention the prosecution narrative. What is the truther explanation?

The eight bit of circumstantial evidence is the RAV4 being found near the car crusher but not crushed. This shows the suspect intended to crush it but something prevented him from doing so. Lo and behold, Steven Avery did not have a set of keys to start the crusher. Only Earl and Allan did.

The ninth bit of circumstantial evidence is Steven Avery accusing the police of framing him before anyone else knew a crime had even been committed. Steven Avery accused MPD of framing him during a missing persons investigation. Thus he knows a crime has been committed against Teresa. How did he know? He done it.

The tenth bit of circumstantial evidence is Brendan Dassey crying to himself uncontrollably and losing 40 pounds in weight in the weeks after the murder.

I could go on.

Furthermore Brendan was days away from agreeing to a 15 year plea bargain until his mother and grandfather made him deny all the allegations. If they were both to be re-trialed it wouldn't surprise me if Brendan takes a plea and testifies against Steven.
You are right.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Facebook-Like-Button.jpg (11.7 KB, 2 views)
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen 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 4th July 2020, 03:05 AM   #261
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Heh Essexman I don't get this.
Sure Steve was not a congressman but neither did he hava a 70 IQ

Steven Avery has an IQ of 70. See video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ek...youtu.be&t=148
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 4th July 2020, 03:06 AM   #262
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,623
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The word "compromised" is so vague as to be useless. One curiousity that has been discussed here more than once is why the bullet profile was essentially complete.

I explained what negative controls were in comment #219. In the next comment I wrote, "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."

By "all" I mean every case in which there is DNA profiling. No one has answered my question or offered a suggestion yet.
A crime scene tends to be very crude, often gruesome and in places that are far from sterile.

It is not a sixth-form chemistry experiment in a school lab with a beaker, bunsen burner and pipette.

Often there is just one chance to test a speck of blood, a semi fingerprint or a feint DNA trace.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen 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 4th July 2020, 06:35 AM   #263
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Are you being serious? He is admitting what Brendan said is what they did that night.
Does he know what Brendan said at this point?
Matthew Best 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 4th July 2020, 07:01 AM   #264
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Are you being serious? He is admitting what Brendan said is what they did that night.
Yes, I am being serious.

They framed him once, without any motive other than putting a guy away, so they can bean count.

The second time they had 36 million reasons to frame him.

Of course since they were framing him, they had exculpatory evidence that they didn't reveal to the defense through discovery.

Lots of problems with their case against Avery.

One being Teresa's burned body parts in two places.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 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 4th July 2020, 07:40 AM   #265
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Yes, I am being serious.

They framed him once, without any motive other than putting a guy away, so they can bean count.
He wasn't framed once. The witness misidentified Avery as her attacker and the Jury believed her.

Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Yes, I am being serious.

The second time they had 36 million reasons to frame him.
The lawsuit was estimated to be anywhere from 2 to 36 million. And the States public liability insurance were the ones paying the bill.

Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post

Lots of problems with their case against Avery.

One being Teresa's burned body parts in two places.
Avery placing bones in his sisters burn barrel is not a problem.
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 4th July 2020, 07:43 AM   #266
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Does he know what Brendan said at this point?
No. But he was placed on suicide watch once he found out Brendan was in custody.
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 4th July 2020, 08:13 AM   #267
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
photo line-up and live line-up

Here is a link covering the identification that led to Mr. Avery's 1985 conviction.
__________________
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 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 4th July 2020, 09:06 AM   #268
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,920
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
No. But he was placed on suicide watch once he found out Brendan was in custody.
So how can he be "admitting what Brendan said is what they did that night" if he doesn't know what Brendan said?

Someone deciding to put him on suicide watch isn't evidence of anything.

You are struggling here.
Matthew Best 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 4th July 2020, 09:14 AM   #269
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post



Avery placing bones in his sisters burn barrel is not a problem.
It was the bones that were returned to Teresa's family that were not from the burn barrel, nor from Avery's junkyard nor from his property that is the problem.

It indicates that she was burned somewhere else and the bone were placed on Avery's property, but they missed a few.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 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 4th July 2020, 12:07 PM   #270
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Only the perpetrator would know

"Researchers have closely examined confessions that have been proven to be false with DNA evidence, and they find that well over 90% of these false confessions contain details that supposedly only the perpetrator (and the police) could have known 11,12. We currently have little empirical research on why so many false confessions contain so many accurate details – but one proposed method is called “contamination,” by which police divulge accurate details during questioning, and the suspect later repeats them back in a confession. Alternatively, suggestive questioning can lead a suspect to speculate and guess details of the crime, many of which might turn out to be accurate." 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)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 4th July 2020 at 12:23 PM.
Chris_Halkides 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 5th July 2020, 06:24 AM   #271
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
So how can he be "admitting what Brendan said is what they did that night" if he doesn't know what Brendan said?
Because he knows what he and Brendan done that night.
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 5th July 2020, 12:04 PM   #272
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
It's kind of a problem that the body was burned in one place and moved to another.

I call that exculpatory evidence.
Why? Can it be proven that Steven Avery couldn't have done that? If you can, then by all means please do so. So far no one has been able to do that.
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 5th July 2020, 02:25 PM   #273
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Why? Can it be proven that Steven Avery couldn't have done that? If you can, then by all means please do so. So far no one has been able to do that.
There are many things he could do if he invited a woman to his property with the full knowledge of her employer, then raped her, shot her, and burned her body and distributed cremains to 3 locations, 2 on his own property.
One of the things he could not do is pretend he knew nothing about it. They just wouldn't believe him. He would not expect them to.
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 5th July 2020, 03:26 PM   #274
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,197
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Why? Can it be proven that Steven Avery couldn't have done that? If you can, then by all means please do so. So far no one has been able to do that.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution and they are required to release exculpatory evidence to the defense.
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2020, 07:29 AM   #275
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
The burden of proof is on the prosecution and they are required to release exculpatory evidence to the defense.
You claimed the fact that remains were burned somewhere else and brought back to Avery's burn pit is exculpatory, so the burden of proof is on you.
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 6th July 2020, 10:37 AM   #276
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
You claimed the fact that remains were burned somewhere else and brought back to Avery's burn pit is exculpatory, so the burden of proof is on you.
There is nothing exculpatory in the first place. Avery's burn pit is the primary burn location and he moved some bones into his sisters burn barrel in the following days. This was all in the prosecutions closing arguments quoted below.


"Bones were moved in this case. There's no question of that. Who moved the bones? To the State, or for the theory of the prosecution is easy. Mr. Avery moved the bones. He moved the big bones. He moved the big bones, the ones he could identify as human bones, from his burn pit, over to his sister's burn barrel. All right. That's a couple hundred feet away. If you think about the selfishness involved in that particular act, that I think is one factor. But I guess more importantly is directing attention away from himself. Might be that first night, might be the 31st, might be the 1st or the 2nd, because he has got a couple of days, as it turns out, before the police officers actually start the investigation."

"She was called there by Mr. Avery. And the number one reason why this is the primary burn location is that on October 31st, Mr. Avery had a big whopping fire there, on the 31st of October. And we haven't heard any evidence of a big whopping fire, the kind that would consume, fully consume a human body, anywhere else on that property. That's the primary burn location, ladies and gentlemen. You can find that, and you should find that, beyond a reasonable doubt. That shouldn't be a 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 6th July 2020, 01:07 PM   #277
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
There is nothing exculpatory in the first place. Avery's burn pit is the primary burn location and he moved some bones into his sisters burn barrel in the following days. This was all in the prosecutions closing arguments quoted below.


"Bones were moved in this case. There's no question of that. Who moved the bones? To the State, or for the theory of the prosecution is easy. Mr. Avery moved the bones. He moved the big bones. He moved the big bones, the ones he could identify as human bones, from his burn pit, over to his sister's burn barrel. All right. That's a couple hundred feet away. If you think about the selfishness involved in that particular act, that I think is one factor. But I guess more importantly is directing attention away from himself. Might be that first night, might be the 31st, might be the 1st or the 2nd, because he has got a couple of days, as it turns out, before the police officers actually start the investigation."

"She was called there by Mr. Avery. And the number one reason why this is the primary burn location is that on October 31st, Mr. Avery had a big whopping fire there, on the 31st of October. And we haven't heard any evidence of a big whopping fire, the kind that would consume, fully consume a human body, anywhere else on that property. That's the primary burn location, ladies and gentlemen. You can find that, and you should find that, beyond a reasonable doubt. That shouldn't be a question."
There is no such thing in an open pit.
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 6th July 2020, 02:05 PM   #278
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,741
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There is no such thing in an open pit.
I'd argue that despite what was said in the closing arguments that Avery's primary motivation to moving the "bigger pieces" to the burn barrel would be to allow the fire to consume them more thoroughly.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2020, 02:11 PM   #279
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
I'd argue that despite what was said in the closing arguments that Avery's primary motivation to moving the "bigger pieces" to the burn barrel would be to allow the fire to consume them more thoroughly.
I remain curious why it is a great plan. The body ends where she has a well known appointment. It does not compute and his IQ is far better than 70 despite the myth.
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 6th July 2020, 02:26 PM   #280
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,741
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I remain curious why it is a great plan. The body ends where she has a well known appointment. It does not compute and his IQ is far better than 70 despite the myth.
It's not a great plan. Why do you feel it has to be? And smart people have been known to do "not so bright" things when getting rid of a body:

gruesome-details-in-chad-daybell-and-lori-vallow-investigation
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 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 03:40 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.