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 12th July 2020, 11:11 AM   #321
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Why did Colborn use his cell phone?

"In fact it was entirely skipped by ‘Making a Murderer’ but it was important enough for Dean Strang to question Lt. Lenk at length, and for the inferences to be mentioned by Kratz in his closing arguments. This is the fact that Andrew Colborn called in the Teresa Halbach plate numbers over a cell phone and not the police radio." 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)
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 12th July 2020, 11:44 AM   #322
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,835
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
Everyone in Wisconsin who followed events from 2005 to 2007 knew he was guilty and the evidence was overwhelming. Steven Avery had zero supporters before this show aired.
None of which has any bearing on how our criminal justice system works.

Quote:
If MaM has proved anything. Its proved that modern documentary makers and Netflix have zero ethics and put profit and entertainment before facts.

Those who continue to insist Avery didn't murder Halbach are either too proud to admit they got duped by TV show full of cheap editing tricks or cannot bare the thought of defending a murdering incestial rapist on their conscience.
What “cheap editing tricks”? Please be specific and cite your evidence.

Also, Avery’s guilt or innocence isn’t the issue so much as the way the investigation was performed.

Do you deny it was mishandled and that protocols were violated during the course of it?

Last edited by johnny karate; 12th July 2020 at 12:05 PM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2020, 12:27 PM   #323
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
So you reject circumstantial evidence as a means of determining fact?
No. Considering my post was in response to a direct question from Chris Halkides, if you have a point in your response to my post then please make it.

I will say that if that was my position then I would be firmly in the Avery is innocent camp.
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 12th July 2020, 01:40 PM   #324
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Eyewitness evidence and forensic evidence suggests Teresa left the Avery property driving her car, turned left and drove some distance to where her cellphone last pinged. What fits is that she was lured out of her car, shot twice in the back of the head and rolled into her car.
I do not see how that fits with her being raped, moved to a garage and shot.
Avery simply did not have the logistical opportunity to do one thing and simulate another.
I am as puzzled as Essexman by wilful refusal to accept the blindingly obvious.
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 12th July 2020, 02:24 PM   #325
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
direct vs. circumstantial evidence

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
No. Considering my post was in response to a direct question from Chris Halkides, if you have a point in your response to my post then please make it.

I will say that if that was my position then I would be firmly in the Avery is innocent camp.
Lerxst,

Johnny karate asked the question that was on my mind as well. Here is a link to a brief discussion of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. ABA here. Something from New York here. I am not a lawyer, but I am tempted to opine that video falls into the direct evidence category, whereas DNA falls into the circumstantial category.

Upon rereading your answer to my question, I would say that the first two answers you offered are clearly direct evidence, but I am not sure about the third.
__________________
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 12th July 2020, 02:38 PM   #326
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Gage County, Nebraska compared with Manitowoc County

The county in Nebraska associated with the Beatrice Six case was facing bankruptcy a few years ago after the six sued for 28.1 million dollars. Link1 "Both insurers denied the county’s claims...The Times reports that officials are considering raising property taxes, borrowing money for the pension fund, delaying long-awaited public works or even taking back money from retirees."

Manitowoc County is larger than Gage County, but it is not many times larger.
__________________
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; 12th July 2020 at 02:42 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 12th July 2020, 03:02 PM   #327
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Eyewitness evidence and forensic evidence suggests Teresa left the Avery property driving her car, turned left and drove some distance to where her cellphone last pinged. What fits is that she was lured out of her car, shot twice in the back of the head and rolled into her car.
I do not see how that fits with her being raped, moved to a garage and shot.
Avery simply did not have the logistical opportunity to do one thing and simulate another.
I am as puzzled as Essexman by wilful refusal to accept the blindingly obvious.
What eyewitness evidence? Post links to these statements please. I'm well aware of the hearsay evidence from Bryan Dassey who claims Bobby told him he saw Theresa leave the property. I'm also aware of the forensic evidence as to her cellphone pings, but that does not prove Theresa left the property with her phone, and it does not explain how that same phone ended up back in Avery's burn pit.

I've often been entertained by your ideas of what "fits", but those ideas do not constitute evidence. You cannot unfortunately prove that she was "lured out of her car, shot twice in the back of the head and rolled into her car".

Although Avery was charged with sexual assault he was not convicted of that charge, and we know those charges came from Brendan Dassey's dubious confession. So at least we agree on the fact the evidence does not show that Avery raped her.
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 12th July 2020, 03:08 PM   #328
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
What eyewitness evidence? Post links to these statements please. I'm well aware of the hearsay evidence from Bryan Dassey who claims Bobby told him he saw Theresa leave the property. I'm also aware of the forensic evidence as to her cellphone pings, but that does not prove Theresa left the property with her phone, and it does not explain how that same phone ended up back in Avery's burn pit.

I've often been entertained by your ideas of what "fits", but those ideas do not constitute evidence. You cannot unfortunately prove that she was "lured out of her car, shot twice in the back of the head and rolled into her car".

Although Avery was charged with sexual assault he was not convicted of that charge, and we know those charges came from Brendan Dassey's dubious confession. So at least we agree on the fact the evidence does not show that Avery raped her.
I like many others spent many hours a few years ago, so work from strong research lodging as memory.
I do not have time right now to go foraging, but surely the lpg driver was a credible witness describing times and movements of her car?

Last edited by Samson; 12th July 2020 at 03:09 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 12th July 2020, 03:15 PM   #329
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Lerxst,

Johnny karate asked the question that was on my mind as well. Here is a link to a brief discussion of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. ABA here. Something from New York here. I am not a lawyer, but I am tempted to opine that video falls into the direct evidence category, whereas DNA falls into the circumstantial category.

Upon rereading your answer to my question, I would say that the first two answers you offered are clearly direct evidence, but I am not sure about the third.
Thanks for the response, albeit seems a bit patronizing. I'm well aware of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. I find it ironic that "rejecting circumstantial evidence as a means of determining fact" is exactly what those who believe Avery is innocent are doing. You cannot claim that circumstantial evidence proves his innocence while simultaneously rejecting any circumstantial evidence that shows his guilt.

ETA: Since the recent discourse prior to this was at least in my mind about proving that the evidence against Avery was planted, I was assuming your question was in reference to that, i.e. What would you consider as evidence that the evidence against Avery was planted? If that was not your question then please clarify.

Last edited by Lerxst; 12th July 2020 at 03:20 PM.
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 12th July 2020, 03:22 PM   #330
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I like many others spent many hours a few years ago, so work from strong research lodging as memory.
I do not have time right now to go foraging, but surely the lpg driver was a credible witness describing times and movements of her car?
If anyone can find a link to that I would be happy to go read it. I would be interested to hear exactly what the driver saw, and if it was only her vehicle or someone that could be positively identified as Theresa Halbach.
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 12th July 2020, 04:22 PM   #331
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
If anyone can find a link to that I would be happy to go read it. I would be interested to hear exactly what the driver saw, and if it was only her vehicle or someone that could be positively identified as Theresa Halbach.
It’s been dishonestly portrayed on the series that some truck driver saw Teresas car after she went missing. However the witness saw no such thing.

This is from the trial transcript -

Q: Okay. Now, you can't -- As you sit here today, you can't really tell us whether you saw the vehicle that the people were concerned about on that day, can you?
A: No.


You can real the whole witness testimony in the link below

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007Mar08.pdf

You will also find that he mentions seeing a green SUV whereas Teresa had a blue SUV.
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 12th July 2020, 07:08 PM   #332
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
no bright line

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Thanks for the response, albeit seems a bit patronizing. I'm well aware of the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. I find it ironic that "rejecting circumstantial evidence as a means of determining fact" is exactly what those who believe Avery is innocent are doing. You cannot claim that circumstantial evidence proves his innocence while simultaneously rejecting any circumstantial evidence that shows his guilt.

ETA: Since the recent discourse prior to this was at least in my mind about proving that the evidence against Avery was planted, I was assuming your question was in reference to that, i.e. What would you consider as evidence that the evidence against Avery was planted? If that was not your question then please clarify.
It was not my intent to be patronizing, and I regret that this was the impression that I gave. Yet not everyone uses the word circumstantial in the same way. I did indeed want to know what you would accept as evidence of planting, and it is still not entirely clear to me what circumstantial evidence you would take.

I have never offered an opinion on Mr. Avery's factual innocence or guilt. The question is somewhat less interesting to me than whether or not the circa 1985 investigation was slipshod or worse, and especially whether or not the circa 2005 investigation was corrupt. These would be tough questions, even if we had more facts. When I was a graduate student, my advisor said that there is no bright line between sloppy science and fraudulent science. Perhaps the same is true of investigations.
__________________
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 13th July 2020, 06:04 AM   #333
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
It was not my intent to be patronizing, and I regret that this was the impression that I gave. Yet not everyone uses the word circumstantial in the same way. I did indeed want to know what you would accept as evidence of planting, and it is still not entirely clear to me what circumstantial evidence you would take.

I have never offered an opinion on Mr. Avery's factual innocence or guilt. The question is somewhat less interesting to me than whether or not the circa 1985 investigation was slipshod or worse, and especially whether or not the circa 2005 investigation was corrupt. These would be tough questions, even if we had more facts. When I was a graduate student, my advisor said that there is no bright line between sloppy science and fraudulent science. Perhaps the same is true of investigations.
Thank you for the clarification, and I will also add that what I provided was not an all inclusive list. I will accept circumstantial evidence as well, but I still maintain that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence exists yet that convinces me ALL of the evidence against Avery was planted.

I also appreciate your admission that these are tough questions, as it seems to be a foregone conclusion to some.
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 13th July 2020, 08:52 AM   #334
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Thank you for the clarification, and I will also add that what I provided was not an all inclusive list. I will accept circumstantial evidence as well, but I still maintain that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence exists yet that convinces me ALL of the evidence against Avery was planted.

I also appreciate your admission that these are tough questions, as it seems to be a foregone conclusion to some.
It is truly remarkable any evidence might need planting when a young woman makes an appointment to visit Avery at his property, and on the same day is raped, shot in his garage, then burned in a pit by his back door.
One might imagine the evidence would shout from the rooftops.
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 13th July 2020, 09:30 AM   #335
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is truly remarkable any evidence might need planting when a young woman makes an appointment to visit Avery at his property, and on the same day is raped, shot in his garage, then burned in a pit by his back door.
One might imagine the evidence would shout from the rooftops.
Good thing it does shout from the rooftops.

You're still being dishonest though, he was not convicted of rape and both sides concede that the remains were not burned in a pit by his back door.
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 13th July 2020, 09:48 AM   #336
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Good thing it does shout from the rooftops.

You're still being dishonest though, he was not convicted of rape and both sides concede that the remains were not burned in a pit by his back door.
The state did not concede on that issue. The state relied on the fact that Avery had a huge 8 hour bonfire in the burn pit the night Teresa died. And no other fire was seen in the area that night. And that Avery denied having that bonfire.
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 13th July 2020, 10:25 AM   #337
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
The state did not concede on that issue. The state relied on the fact that Avery had a huge 8 hour bonfire in the burn pit the night Teresa died. And no other fire was seen in the area that night. And that Avery denied having that bonfire.
Not directly, but indirectly they admitted even at trial that bones were moved. Their theory at the time was that they were moved by Avery FROM his burn pit TO his sister's burn barrel. From Kratz's closing argument:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...15.pdf#page=54

"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."

And later about the quarry bones:

"17 The bones were moved, but they were
18 moved by Mr. Avery. These bones in the quarry,
19 I'm going to take about 20 seconds to talk about,
20 because the best anybody can say is that they are
21 possible human. What does possible human mean?
22 Well, it means we don't know what it is. "

So at trial the State was trying to argue the bones in the quarry should not even be considered evidence as he goes on after this to say "whether they are human or not, could not, even by the FBI, be determined. "

However, in Zellner's latest brief she correctly IMO argues that the State implies those bones were not only human but also Theresa Halbach's by giving them to her family. I already posted this and it can be easily read in her latest brief so I'm not going to post a link to it again.

This would make it harder for the State to try and argue that the burn pit was the only burn site, so I highly doubt they will do that if in fact there is a new trial or even evidentiary hearing. Doesn't mean they won't though.

My issue with Samson's post though is the creation of a strawman, actually two, in order to make it easier to refute the case against Avery.
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 13th July 2020, 11:17 AM   #338
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Not directly, but indirectly they admitted even at trial that bones were moved. Their theory at the time was that they were moved by Avery FROM his burn pit TO his sister's burn barrel. From Kratz's closing argument:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...15.pdf#page=54

"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."

And later about the quarry bones:

"17 The bones were moved, but they were
18 moved by Mr. Avery. These bones in the quarry,
19 I'm going to take about 20 seconds to talk about,
20 because the best anybody can say is that they are
21 possible human. What does possible human mean?
22 Well, it means we don't know what it is. "

So at trial the State was trying to argue the bones in the quarry should not even be considered evidence as he goes on after this to say "whether they are human or not, could not, even by the FBI, be determined. "

However, in Zellner's latest brief she correctly IMO argues that the State implies those bones were not only human but also Theresa Halbach's by giving them to her family. I already posted this and it can be easily read in her latest brief so I'm not going to post a link to it again.

This would make it harder for the State to try and argue that the burn pit was the only burn site, so I highly doubt they will do that if in fact there is a new trial or even evidentiary hearing. Doesn't mean they won't though.

My issue with Samson's post though is the creation of a strawman, actually two, in order to make it easier to refute the case against Avery.
There was no fire seen in the quarry gravel pit. Avery told Dassey that he hid some of Halbachs bones up there.

"Dassey also stated that Steven Avery told him he used a pail and removed some of her bones from the burn pit and dumped them in the gravel pit to the west of Steven Avery's property."

However Dassey chose not to testify and the state had to peruse a different narrative. Any reasonable jury would still find Avery guilty had the states narrative been that Avery hid the bones in the quarry.

Last edited by Essexman; 13th July 2020 at 11:20 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 13th July 2020, 11:39 AM   #339
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
There was no fire seen in the quarry gravel pit. Avery told Dassey that he hid some of Halbachs bones up there.

"Dassey also stated that Steven Avery told him he used a pail and removed some of her bones from the burn pit and dumped them in the gravel pit to the west of Steven Avery's property."

However Dassey chose not to testify and the state had to peruse a different narrative. Any reasonable jury would still find Avery guilty had the states narrative been that Avery hid the bones in the quarry.
Is there audio or transcript of hilited?
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 14th July 2020, 07:53 AM   #340
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Is there audio or transcript of hilited?
"FASSBENDER: Heard it from who?

BRENDAN: Him.

FASSBENDER: Oh. So he told you that he used the shovel to break up bones?

BRENDAN: Yeah, (nods “yes”)

FASSBENDER: And then buried some of the bones? (Brendan nods “yes”) Did he take some of her bones some, anywhere else?

BRENDAN: On the other side of the, like that, there was like in the back of the yard, there was like this steep hill there, like in the pit, there was some there that he threw there.

FASSBENDER: OK, we’re gonna, we’re in a little bit, we’re gonna have you draw on some sketches and stuff and we’re a, we’re gonna wanna these places. How do you know that there were some bones there?

BRENDAN: He told me that he threw some there.

FASSBENDER: Did he tell you how he did that?

BRENDAN: He had ‘em in a bucket.

FASSBENDER: And what I’m understanding is then in the back of both your yards or his yards, down toward into the pit, over that area?

BRENDAN: In like Radandt’s pit.

FASSBENDER: Oh, Radandt’s pit? (Brendan nods “yes”)
"

Last edited by Essexman; 14th July 2020 at 07:54 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 14th July 2020, 07:55 AM   #341
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
There was no fire seen in the quarry gravel pit. Avery told Dassey that he hid some of Halbachs bones up there.

"Dassey also stated that Steven Avery told him he used a pail and removed some of her bones from the burn pit and dumped them in the gravel pit to the west of Steven Avery's property."

However Dassey chose not to testify and the state had to peruse a different narrative. Any reasonable jury would still find Avery guilty had the states narrative been that Avery hid the bones in the quarry.
I tend to agree on the highlighted part, which is why I have always maintained that even if there is a new trial, unless key parts of the evidence are discredited or not allowed the result will most likely be the same.

Those that believe in Avery's innocence however will build strawmen around inaccuracies in the State's case, like the sexual assault charges (which came from Dassey's confession) and the remains in the burn pit. This way it's easier to poke holes in the State's narrative .
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 14th July 2020, 02:45 PM   #342
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
I tend to agree on the highlighted part, which is why I have always maintained that even if there is a new trial, unless key parts of the evidence are discredited or not allowed the result will most likely be the same.

Those that believe in Avery's innocence however will build strawmen around inaccuracies in the State's case, like the sexual assault charges (which came from Dassey's confession) and the remains in the burn pit. This way it's easier to poke holes in the State's narrative .
I find the shackle and rape confession more credible than the bones and bucket confession. Reducing a body to bones is not possible in a shallow 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 14th July 2020, 03:05 PM   #343
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I find the shackle and rape confession more credible than the bones and bucket confession. Reducing a body to bones is not possible in a shallow open pit.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. The State did not then, and does not need to now demonstrate that she was shackled and sexually assaulted. Same goes for reducing a body to bones in a burn pit. At least if we're talking about Avery's conviction. If you want to talk about Dassey's conviction then by all means.

Why do you consider Dassey's confession credible?
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 14th July 2020, 03:53 PM   #344
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Thanks for demonstrating my point. The State did not then, and does not need to now demonstrate that she was shackled and sexually assaulted. Same goes for reducing a body to bones in a burn pit. At least if we're talking about Avery's conviction. If you want to talk about Dassey's conviction then by all means.

Why do you consider Dassey's confession credible?
I was making a simple point.
It is believable she was shackled and raped but unbelievable her body was reduced to bones that night in a shallow open pit.

Of course I am quite certain neither happened.

Modal logic lets one through the gate.
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 14th July 2020, 04:37 PM   #345
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Thanks for demonstrating my point. The State did not then, and does not need to now demonstrate that she was shackled and sexually assaulted. Same goes for reducing a body to bones in a burn pit. At least if we're talking about Avery's conviction. If you want to talk about Dassey's conviction then by all means.

Why do you consider Dassey's confession credible?
For one (mentioned above). They found human bones where Brendan said Avery hid some of them (the quarry). Brendan volunteered that information, nobody in the questioning suggested it to him.
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 14th July 2020, 05:19 PM   #346
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Experts on the conflict of interest problem

Journalist John Ferak wrote, "“By acknowledging a conflict right at the start, you have to walk the walk and live by that,” said Gregg McCrary, a prominent retired FBI agent who teaches policing at Marymount University in Arlington, Va. “It’s not just something to say, but something to do. The one overriding issue is the integrity of this investigation. You can’t compromise that. This goes to public perception of law enforcement.”"
And
"“Initially, it was quite appropriate for them to recuse themselves from the case,” said Jim Trainum, a nationally recognized crime consultant and former homicide detective in Washington, D.C. “However, it appears they were more interested in the public perception than the reality of it.”"
And
"Trainum said the Halbach investigation makes a compelling case study for other police professionals to analyze whether the murder investigation “was done fairly.”

“There’s doubt and a lot of doubt, so how can we learn in the future to prevent this from happening again?” he asked. “Other people allowed these things to happen. Where were both of the sheriffs? Where was the (investigation’s) supervisors? Shame on them. They should have all said, ‘Sorry, guys, I’m not going to let you in.'”"

The entire article is worth reading.
__________________
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; 14th July 2020 at 05:44 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 15th July 2020, 06:40 AM   #347
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I find the shackle and rape confession more credible than the bones and bucket confession.
They found human bones in the quarry where Brendan said Avery hid some.

They found a bullet with the victims DNA on where Brendan said the victim was shot.

The bullet was matched to the gun that Brendan said Avery used.

Brendan said the victim was shot in the left side of the head and they found bullet holes to the left of the victims skull.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Reducing a body to bones is not possible in a shallow open pit.
Of course its possible. They do it in India all the time.
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 15th July 2020, 08:08 AM   #348
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
For one (mentioned above). They found human bones where Brendan said Avery hid some of them (the quarry). Brendan volunteered that information, nobody in the questioning suggested it to him.
Thanks, but I was quite sure this would be your response as you have made your position clear. I was curious as to why Samson now feels Dassey's confession is credible when he hasn't had this opinion in the past.
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 15th July 2020, 08:11 AM   #349
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 656
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I was making a simple point.
It is believable she was shackled and raped but unbelievable her body was reduced to bones that night in a shallow open pit.

Of course I am quite certain neither happened.

Modal logic lets one through the gate.
What point would that 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 15th July 2020, 05:06 PM   #350
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
affidavit of Richard Leo; link to 7th circuit decision

"Once Fassbender and Wiegert elicited Brendan’s admission that he had seen the body (February 27 interrogation, p. 458), they used highly suggestive post- admission interrogation techniques in which they relied on leading questions, prompted Brendan with desired answers, corrected him, and pressured him to agree to and provide an account that matched their theory of how the crime occurred. For example, in the February 27 interrogation, Fassbender and Wiegert suggested to Brendan that he saw Teresa Halbach’s bones and body parts in the fire and later suggested specific body parts not included in his account, and he agreed." At paragraph 39 of the affidavit of Richard Leo, previously linked.

There is a helpful table starting on p. 49 in a dissenting opinion at the 7th circuit which explains some of the information that Mr. Dassey was fed. 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; 15th July 2020 at 05:43 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 16th July 2020, 03:15 AM   #351
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Thanks, but I was quite sure this would be your response as you have made your position clear. I was curious as to why Samson now feels Dassey's confession is credible when he hasn't had this opinion in the past.
Just catching up and I thought I was lucid.
Brendan Dassey's "confession" is obviously false but the best thing to consider is Fassbender and Weigert laìd a curate's egg.
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 16th July 2020, 05:01 AM   #352
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Just catching up and I thought I was lucid.
Brendan Dassey's "confession" is obviously false but the best thing to consider is Fassbender and Weigert laìd a curate's egg.
How is Dassey's confession false? It reflects the facts of the crime and lead to more evidence unknown to law enforcement. He confessed to Kayla before Fassbender and Weigert questioned him. His admissions to Kayla is why they questioned him in the first place.
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 16th July 2020, 05:19 AM   #353
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,898
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
How is Dassey's confession false? It reflects the facts of the crime and lead to more evidence unknown to law enforcement. He confessed to Kayla before Fassbender and Weigert questioned him. His admissions to Kayla is why they questioned him in the first place.
Well said. Dassey is guilty of the charges. He participated with the torture, rape and murder. Samson will never grasp that.
.
__________________
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 16th July 2020, 05:23 AM   #354
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
How is Dassey's confession false? It reflects the facts of the crime and lead to more evidence unknown to law enforcement. He confessed to Kayla before Fassbender and Weigert questioned him. His admissions to Kayla is why they questioned him in the first place.
Who is Kayla?
I appreciate you bringing important data to the thread as I am interested in the case. Unlike Chris I am currently not open minded but am prepared to consider essaying that status.
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 16th July 2020, 05:56 AM   #355
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Who is Kayla?
I appreciate you bringing important data to the thread as I am interested in the case. Unlike Chris I am currently not open minded but am prepared to consider essaying that status.
Kayla Avery is Brendans niece. She is the one who alerted the police to Brendan.

She testified at Brendan's Trial.


Q: You also told the officers that Brendan told you he saw Teresa alive and pinned up, didn't you?
A: Yes.
Q: All right. And you love Brendan; right?
A: Yes. Very much.
Q: And you wouldn't tell -- You wouldn't say anything like that to get him in trouble, would you?
A: No. Not really.
Q: All right. But yet you told the officers that those were the conversations you had with Brendan; isn't that right?
A: Yes.
Q: All right. You told -- You told the officers that Brendan told you he had seen Teresa pinned up in Steven's trailer, didn't you?
A: Yes.


She also told the school staff who also testified at Dassey's trial.

Q: Directing your attention to January of 2006, early January, did you have occasion to have contact with a student by the name of Kayla Avery?
A: Yes.
Q: Urn, would you describe for us, urn, first and foremost, how that contact occurred?
A: Kayla came into the counseling office and asked to speak to a counselor.
Q: All right. And, urn, who was present when she came in and asked to speak with a counselor?
A: It was myself and Karen Baumgartner.
Q: Tell us what happened?
A: Kayla came in, urn, to the office, and, urn, she was asked by Ms. Baumgarner -- Ms. Baumgartner if she minded that I was there, and Kayla aid, no. And she said she was there because she Was feeling scared.
Q: All right. Let me stop you there, first, and ask who else, if anyone, was present for this conversation?
A: No one else.
Q: All right. So there's just the three of you?
A: Correct.
Q: All right. And did Kayla reveal to the two of you why she was feeling scared and why she wanted to talk?
A: Yes.
Q: And what did she tell you?
A: She told us that she was scared, urn, because her uncle, Steven Avery, had asked one of her cousins to help move a body.
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 16th July 2020, 06:18 AM   #356
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
More discussions of the confession

Here is a link to a Cornell course that discussed the Dassey confession. Here is a link to a different discussion (I probably provided them previously). As is true of Professor Kassin, the individuals associated with the links have no affiliation with the cases. These are the headings of the three columns in the dissent from members of the Seventh Circuit. The 4-page table itself is too long to reproduce here, but I provided a link to this table in a previous comment, and I made a Word document out of it.

“Critical” Fact; Why It Is Not Critical; How It Was Coerced;
__________________
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; 16th July 2020 at 06:20 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 16th July 2020, 06:37 AM   #357
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Here is a link to a Cornell course that discussed the Dassey confession. Here is a link to a different discussion (I probably provided them previously). As is true of Professor Kassin, the individuals associated with the links have no affiliation with the cases. These are the headings of the three columns in the dissent from members of the Seventh Circuit. The 4-page table itself is too long to reproduce here, but I provided a link to this table in a previous comment, and I made a Word document out of it.

“Critical” Fact; Why It Is Not Critical; How It Was Coerced;
None of what you have provided grapples with the following facts

He confessed to his cousin Kayla pior to talking to police.

They found human bones in the quarry where Brendan said Avery hid some.

They found a bullet with the victims DNA on where Brendan said the victim was shot.

The bullet was matched to the gun that Brendan said Avery used.

Brendan said the victim was shot in the left side of the head and they found bullet holes to the left of the victims skull.
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 16th July 2020, 08:59 AM   #358
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,885
Kayla's testimony

Here is a link to trial transcripts. At Day 3 one can find Kayla's testimony.
__________________
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 16th July 2020, 12:53 PM   #359
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 7,920
Thanks for that Chris - it puts a rather different complexion on things than what is implied by Essexman's bland statements.
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 16th July 2020, 02:57 PM   #360
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,150
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Thanks for that Chris - it puts a rather different complexion on things than what is implied by Essexman's bland statements.
255 pages in that PDF. Can you quote the bits that 'puts a rather different complexion on things'?
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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
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 03:11 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.