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 30th September 2017, 03:17 AM   #41
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
[quote=Chris_Halkides;12010092]Link.
Quote:
As it stands now, Dassey’s confession is the only legally relevant issue and it is being reviewed through the lens of a controversial statute called AEDPA, which sets an extremely high standard for defendants to receive habeas corpus relief.

Several times during Tuesday’s hearing, the panel of judges made reference to specific sections of AEDPA, prodding the defense and prosecution to explain how Dassey’s case did or didn’t meet at least one of the two standards. Did Dassey’s case “involve an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law?” Or was it “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding?” [endquote]
I read this a few days ago, concern at the profoundest level at

“The investigators made my skin crawl watching this video,” Judge Diane Wood said. “He is obviously racking his brain about how he can answer in a way they will like.”

“There was no promise of leniency,” Judge Diane Sykes, a potential Trump Supreme Court nominee, countered later. “There was a vague suggestion, at best.”

Is Diane Sykes the new Scalia?

Jesus wept.
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 October 2017, 03:54 PM   #42
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
BREAKING: Steven Avery attorney Kathleen Zellner has had her application for a retrial DISMISSED.

Quote:
Given the totality of evidence submitted at the trial, no reasonable probability exists that a different result would be reached at a new trial, the judge said.

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel praised the decision, saying it “brings us one step closer to providing justice to Teresa Halbach’s family.” He said the Department of Justice would continue to vigorously defend Avery’s conviction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/enter...=.7f0eae7465f7


No reasonable prospect of success is the grounds given.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 October 2017, 01:58 PM   #43
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
BREAKING: Steven Avery attorney Kathleen Zellner has had her application for a retrial DISMISSED.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/enter...=.7f0eae7465f7


No reasonable prospect of success is the grounds given.
Yes, it would be unreasonable to grant a retrial after proving the murder was committed at a location far from that suggested by prosecutor Kratz.
Who needs proof of anything in a murder trial?
We should all hang our heads in shame as 21st centurions, behaving like medieaval witches.
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 October 2017, 02:39 PM   #44
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,467
Will this be counted as her first loss ever, or not counted as a loss because she never entered battle because it was dismissed?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 October 2017, 04:51 PM   #45
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Will this be counted as her first loss ever, or not counted as a loss because she never entered battle because it was dismissed?
Like any successful lawyer she will have had many many fails. People, or rather the media, only remember the successful cases.

Her turnover is circa US$12m pa, so she won't care too much, except she won't get her contingency fee (no win-no fee) this time.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 October 2017, 04:58 PM   #46
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,467
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Like any successful lawyer she will have had many many fails. People, or rather the media, only remember the successful cases.

Her turnover is circa US$12m pa, so she won't care too much, except she won't get her contingency fee (no win-no fee) this time.
But we were told in this thread that she has never lost an appeal battle. 100% victory rate for her.

Again, is this her first appeal battle loss?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 October 2017, 05:15 PM   #47
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,358
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
But we were told in this thread that she has never lost an appeal battle. 100% victory rate for her.

Again, is this her first appeal battle loss?

Is this the absolute end of the road for the appeal process, or just another rung on the ladder?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
quadraginta 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 October 2017, 05:56 PM   #48
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
"The bottom line is neither we nor Mr. Avery have any intention of giving up or not proceeding to fight for his exoneration – because he is absolutely innocent," Zellner tells Rolling Stone. "It is not uncommon for judges at the trial court level to prematurely dismiss post-conviction petitions and get reversed by a higher court. We will press on regardless of which path we have to take and we will ultimately succeed."


http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...-trial-w507080

This judge was a totally incompetent menace. Sleeping at night must be quite a project for the witch.
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 8th October 2017, 10:25 PM   #49
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
Theres a lot of darkness and not sure the light will make it there.
Dasseys tilt judge is Easterbrook right?

The more I read on this "political group" call the government, I wonder sometimes....
The deck is stacked.

Zellner, who also represented Young, maintains that Avery and Dassey were "both framed". She believes that Manitowoc police planted evidence to implicate Avery in the murder in order to avoid a $36 million lawsuit against them, later involving Dassey to strengthen their case.
The judge Zellner is talking about is Frank Easterbrook, one of three Seventh Circuit Court judges responsible for the ruling. In 2005, Judge Easterbrook denied an appeal from convicted murderer Dan Young Jr. who, like Dassey, had a low IQ score and claims to have been coerced into confessing to a crime he did not commit.

Young, whose verbal IQ score was just 10 points higher than the lowest anyone could score, was sentenced to life in prison for a 1990 rape and murder. He served 12 years of his sentence before DNA evidence exonerated both him and and another man.


In 2003, DNA evidence led to Avery's release after spending 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Avery was in the process of suing the Manitowoc County Sherif's Department for the wrongful conviction when he was arrested for the murder of Halbach.

Dan Young Jr. was released from prison in 2006, but was killed by a hit-and-run driver. At the time of his death, he and Zellner had filed lawsuits against both Chicago and Cook County law officials for malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment. Young was also about to receive a $130,000 restitution from the state for his wrongful imprisonment. The driver responsible for his death was never found.
JREF2010 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 9th October 2017, 02:19 AM   #50
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
Originally Posted by JREF2010 View Post
Theres a lot of darkness and not sure the light will make it there.
Dasseys tilt judge is Easterbrook right?

The more I read on this "political group" call the government, I wonder sometimes....
The deck is stacked.

Zellner, who also represented Young, maintains that Avery and Dassey were "both framed". She believes that Manitowoc police planted evidence to implicate Avery in the murder in order to avoid a $36 million lawsuit against them, later involving Dassey to strengthen their case.
The judge Zellner is talking about is Frank Easterbrook, one of three Seventh Circuit Court judges responsible for the ruling. In 2005, Judge Easterbrook denied an appeal from convicted murderer Dan Young Jr. who, like Dassey, had a low IQ score and claims to have been coerced into confessing to a crime he did not commit.

Young, whose verbal IQ score was just 10 points higher than the lowest anyone could score, was sentenced to life in prison for a 1990 rape and murder. He served 12 years of his sentence before DNA evidence exonerated both him and and another man.


In 2003, DNA evidence led to Avery's release after spending 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Avery was in the process of suing the Manitowoc County Sherif's Department for the wrongful conviction when he was arrested for the murder of Halbach.

Dan Young Jr. was released from prison in 2006, but was killed by a hit-and-run driver. At the time of his death, he and Zellner had filed lawsuits against both Chicago and Cook County law officials for malicious prosecution, false arrest and false imprisonment. Young was also about to receive a $130,000 restitution from the state for his wrongful imprisonment. The driver responsible for his death was never found.
I read about the death of
JOHN THOMPSON
who wrote this

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/op...0thompson.html

The link to the judgement of Clarence Thomas, the dissenting view of Ginsberg and the affirmation of Thomas by the late Antonin Scalia should scare the hell out of all Americans.

This is where Scalia says if we can void Brady by any legal argument we should execute an innocent man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xci1a3yE0PM
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 9th October 2017, 08:53 AM   #51
Liamo
Occasional Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 121
Which cases are the failures?
Liamo 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 9th October 2017, 01:51 PM   #52
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,745
With Zellner continuing to legally pursue Avery's case, I've been trying to speculate a rough time frame for court. It always seems that those justice-wheels can move slowly. However, she seems to have a spark and can get things moving. Does anyone have an idea of how long before we can expect to see Zellner and Avery back in court?

Thanks.
__________________
Julia
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 9th December 2017, 06:53 AM   #53
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
NEWSFLASH: Appeal court reinstates Brendan Dassey's conviction.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:2074184:S:0

Excerpt:

Quote:
Whether Dassey’s confession was voluntary or not is
measured against a general standard that takes into account
the totality of the circumstances. See Withrow v. Williams, 507
U.S. 680, 693–94 (1993); Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 55
(1962); see also Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 727 (1979) (ad‐
missibility of juvenile confession). Some factors would tend to
support a finding that Dassey’s confession was not voluntary:
his youth, his limited intellectual ability, some suggestions by
the interrogators, their broad assurances to a vulnerable sus‐
pect that honesty would produce leniency, and inconsisten‐
cies in Dassey’s confession. Many other factors, however,
point toward a finding that it was voluntary. Dassey spoke
with the interrogators freely, after receiving and understand‐
ing Miranda warnings, and with his mother’s consent. The in‐
terrogation took place in a comfortable setting, without any
physical coercion or intimidation, without even raised voices,
and over a relatively brief time. Dassey provided many of the
most damning details himself in response to open‐ended
questions. On a number of occasions he resisted the interro‐
gators’ strong suggestions on particular details. Also, the in‐
vestigators made no specific promises of leniency.
After the state courts found the confession voluntary, a
federal district court and a divided panel of this court found
that the state courts’ decision was unreasonable and that Das‐
sey was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. We granted en banc
review to considerthe application of the deferential standards
No. 16‐3397 3
of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and the implications of the panel deci‐
sion for interrogations of juvenile suspects. The state courts’
finding that Dassey’s confession was voluntary was not be‐
yond fair debate, but we conclude it was reasonable. We re‐
verse the grant of Dassey’s petition for a writ of habeas cor‐
pus.
He committed the crime together with his Uncle Steven, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact the police might have - arguably made some mistakes - doesn't cancel out Dassey's culpability, albeit he was led on by the evil Avery.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 9th December 2017, 08:18 AM   #54
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,342
dissenting opinions from the court

From Chief Judge Diane Wood: “Psychological coercion, questions to which the police furnished the answers, and ghoulish games of ‘20 Questions,’ in which Brendan Dassey guessed over and over again before he landed on the ‘correct story’ (i.e., the one the police wanted), led to the ‘confession’ that furnished the only serious evidence supporting his murder conviction in the Wisconsin court,” Wood’s blistering dissent reads. “His confession was coerced, and thus it should not have been admitted into evidence. Dassey will spend the rest of his life in prison because of the injustice this court has decided to leave unredressed.”

[Judge] Rovner also blasted the majority’s ruling in her dissent.

“No reasonable state court, knowing what we now know about coercive interrogation techniques and viewing Dassey’s interrogation in light of his age, intellectual deficits, and manipulability, could possibly have concluded that Dassey’s confession was voluntarily given,” she wrote. “His confession was not voluntary and his conviction should not stand, and yet an impaired teenager has been sentenced to life in prison. I view this as a profound miscarriage of justice.”
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 9th December 2017, 01:37 PM   #55
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Ampulla of Vater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,053
Unbelievable.
Ampulla of Vater 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 10th December 2017, 03:18 AM   #56
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
This panel comprised 4 women and 3 men.
The 3 dissenters were women.
The other woman, Judge Diane S. Sykes, was a justice of the Wisconsin supreme court till 2004.

Bio
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Terence T. Evans, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 1984-1985
Private practice, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1985-1992
Judge, Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, 1992-1999
Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1999-2004

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/sykes-diane-s.

Brendan was shafted by a rogue assembly of bad people.

Last edited by Samson; 10th December 2017 at 03:22 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 10th December 2017, 03:53 AM   #57
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
This panel comprised 4 women and 3 men.
The 3 dissenters were women.
The other woman, Judge Diane S. Sykes, was a justice of the Wisconsin supreme court till 2004.

Bio
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Terence T. Evans, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 1984-1985
Private practice, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1985-1992
Judge, Wisconsin Circuit Court, Milwaukee County, 1992-1999
Justice, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1999-2004

https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/sykes-diane-s.

Brendan was shafted by a rogue assembly of bad people.
Nonsense. It was a fair hearing and the finding by a majority was that there is no evidence the confessions were coerced.

As for 'having a low IQ', that is not a 'get out of jail' card.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 10th December 2017, 03:57 AM   #58
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
From Chief Judge Diane Wood: “Psychological coercion, questions to which the police furnished the answers, and ghoulish games of ‘20 Questions,’ in which Brendan Dassey guessed over and over again before he landed on the ‘correct story’ (i.e., the one the police wanted), led to the ‘confession’ that furnished the only serious evidence supporting his murder conviction in the Wisconsin court,” Wood’s blistering dissent reads. “His confession was coerced, and thus it should not have been admitted into evidence. Dassey will spend the rest of his life in prison because of the injustice this court has decided to leave unredressed.”

[Judge] Rovner also blasted the majority’s ruling in her dissent.

“No reasonable state court, knowing what we now know about coercive interrogation techniques and viewing Dassey’s interrogation in light of his age, intellectual deficits, and manipulability, could possibly have concluded that Dassey’s confession was voluntarily given,” she wrote. “His confession was not voluntary and his conviction should not stand, and yet an impaired teenager has been sentenced to life in prison. I view this as a profound miscarriage of justice.”

We need to separate (a) the issue of guilt and (b) the sentencing.

Whilst AFAICS Dassey is guilty as charged, I don't agree with 'life without parole', as IMV there should always be left hope for (1) remorse (2) reform, and (3) redemption, especially where the offender was at a young age as of the time of the crime.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 10th December 2017, 04:05 AM   #59
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Nonsense. It was a fair hearing and the finding by a majority was that there is no evidence the confessions were coerced.

As for 'having a low IQ', that is not a 'get out of jail' card.
"The principal issue in this habeas corpus
appeal is whether that finding was based on an unreasonable
application of Supreme Court precedent or an unreasonable
view of the facts."

If you are ok with the first part, how about a view of the facts?
The facts that are adduced from the undisputed evidence at the crime scene say that Brendan was nowhere near the trailer or the deceased.
My view is that the importance of not disturbing the verdict to the woman from Wisconsin and the three old white male judges led them on a scenic route of wild impossibilities, and this offended every principle that Williams Wood and Rovner, as women and decent people, see as their duty to the courts.
As an aside, I had not realised that any member of ISF actually believed Brendan had anything to do with the crime.
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 10th December 2017, 04:29 AM   #60
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
"The principal issue in this habeas corpus
appeal is whether that finding was based on an unreasonable
application of Supreme Court precedent or an unreasonable
view of the facts."

If you are ok with the first part, how about a view of the facts?
The facts that are adduced from the undisputed evidence at the crime scene say that Brendan was nowhere near the trailer or the deceased.
My view is that the importance of not disturbing the verdict to the woman from Wisconsin and the three old white male judges led them on a scenic route of wild impossibilities, and this offended every principle that Williams Wood and Rovner, as women and decent people, see as their duty to the courts.
As an aside, I had not realised that any member of ISF actually believed Brendan had anything to do with the crime.

I saw 'Making a Murderer' and I felt desperately sorry for Dassey and in particular, his mother. However, it was clear to me that his confession was sincere. His cousin testified in court that for two weeks after the crime, Dassey was beside himself with grief symptoms (crying and severely depressed). In the witness box, she said she wanted to retract this claim. However, from her body language and intense emotion, it was clear she was only doing that to save him.

I was always conscious that I as a viewer was being led and manipulated by the defence -influenced producers (the defence lawyers were the stars of the series and had free reign to pontificate) and they even produced 'the alternative perp' (Halbach's ex-boyfriend). I was led by them to feel sorry for Dassey.

So what hope for the average viewer who takes the contents of a 'reputably-backed' (Netflix) 'documentary' on trust?

It was only because of Netflix viewers' outrage at the 'miscarriage of justice' as portrayed by the defence lawyers, that it was allowed an en banc review at all.

Wise up. Nothing can replace a proper trial in a court of law.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 10th December 2017, 04:55 AM   #61
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I saw 'Making a Murderer' and I felt desperately sorry for Dassey and in particular, his mother. However, it was clear to me that his confession was sincere. His cousin testified in court that for two weeks after the crime, Dassey was beside himself with grief symptoms (crying and severely depressed). In the witness box, she said she wanted to retract this claim. However, from her body language and intense emotion, it was clear she was only doing that to save him.

I was always conscious that I as a viewer was being led and manipulated by the defence -influenced producers (the defence lawyers were the stars of the series and had free reign to pontificate) and they even produced 'the alternative perp' (Halbach's ex-boyfriend). I was led by them to feel sorry for Dassey.

So what hope for the average viewer who takes the contents of a 'reputably-backed' (Netflix) 'documentary' on trust?

It was only because of Netflix viewers' outrage at the 'miscarriage of justice' as portrayed by the defence lawyers, that it was allowed an en banc review at all.

Wise up. Nothing can replace a proper trial in a court of law.
I have now read most of the judgement.
It is an exercise that never collides with facts or common sense. I would deem it ideal as a parody, for law students to marvel at the medieval style of logic of Salem and so on, not believing that it is an actual discarding of a human life for the convenience of a system bereft of morality.

We are plumbing depths of evil I expect the internet age to remedy. Too many people will judge these four judges for their safety to be assumed, if the global response to the netflix documentary is anything to go by.
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 10th December 2017, 05:22 AM   #62
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
These are the statistics ignored by the vested interest judges, but highlighted by the dissenters.

"Some of the factors that induce false confessions are in‐
ternal. Studies have demonstrated that personal characteris‐
tics such as youth, mental illness, cognitive disability, sug‐
gestibility, and a desire to please others may induce false
confessions.10 A survey of false confession cases from 1989–
2012 found that although only 8% of adult exonerees with no
known mental disabilities falsely confessed to crimes, in the
population of exonerees who were younger than 18 at the
time of the crime, 42% of exonerated defendants confessed to
************************************************* 9 See Saul M. Kassin, False Confessions, 8 WIREs Cogn Sci. e1439
(2017).
10 Blandón‐Gitlin et al., supra note 2, at 240.
No. 16‐3397 65
crimes they had not committed, as did 75% of exonerees
who were mentally ill or mentally disabled.11 Overall, one
sixth of the exonerees were juveniles, mentally disabled, or
both, but they accounted for 59% of false confessions.12 In‐
deed, youth and intellectual disability are the two most
commonly cited characteristics of suspects who confess
falsely.13 Dassey suffered under the weight of both charac‐
teristics."
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 11th December 2017, 05:07 AM   #63
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,342
Dassey's lawyers respond

Dassey's lawyers were quoted: "Today's ruling contravenes a fundamental and time-honored position of the United States Supreme Court: interrogation tactics that may not be coercive when applied to adults are coercive when applied to children and the mentally impaired. Indeed, when such tactics are applied to vulnerable populations, the risk of false confession grows intolerably.
"Unfortunately, this time-worn lesson was ignored today by four judges in the case of Brendan Dassey. We at the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth are committed to continuing to fight on behalf of Brendan and others like him to prevent future miscarriages of justice."
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 December 2017, 08:18 AM   #64
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,342
John Adams on protecting innocent people versus punishing guilty ones

IIRC Jerry Buting, one of Mr. Avery's lawyers, quoted John Adams in his book:
"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

"But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 December 2017, 02:17 PM   #65
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
From the hearing posted earlier

“There was no promise of leniency,” Judge Diane Sykes, a potential Trump Supreme Court nominee, countered later. “There was a vague suggestion, at best.”

So
1. She has a history of being part of the Wisconsin system that is dedicated to perpetuating the status quo.
2. She is considered talented enough to be considered for the highest office.
3. She duly decides legal process has been followed and the crime facts can be ignored.

I see no hope for a system that could get to this pass.
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 25th June 2018, 12:48 PM   #66
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,342
The Supremes take a pass

Mr. Dassey's case will not be heard by the Supreme Court. Link.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 25th June 2018, 02:04 PM   #67
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,157
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Mr. Dassey's case will not be heard by the Supreme Court. Link.
It was pure opportunism, anyway.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
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 25th June 2018, 06:51 PM   #68
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,862
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It was pure opportunism, anyway.
What does that even mean, "pure opportunism"?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams 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 25th June 2018, 06:54 PM   #69
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,342
Ken Kratz on twitter

Ken Kratz, the special prosecutor in the Dassey and Avery trials, said Monday that he has "a great deal of sympathy today for Brendan Dassey."

Kratz tweeted, "His uncle, Steven Avery, made him a murderer--his family and attorneys provided the worst possible advice, ensuring that he will now spend nearly the rest of his life in prison."

Kratz continued, "Knowing he could have been walking out of prison in as little as three years from today, had he followed Attorney [Len] Kachinsky's original plea recommendation, I wonder if his 'advisors' so willing to criticize law enforcement for obtaining his confession will turn the lens of scrutiny on themselves and apologize to Brendan for mishandling his case at almost every turn." Link

I did not think that my opinion of Ken Kratz could go any lower, but I was wrong.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 26th June 2018, 03:46 AM   #70
MetalPig
Illuminator
 
MetalPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 22, Acacia Avenue
Posts: 3,184
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Mr. Dassey's case will not be heard by the Supreme Court. Link.
Originally Posted by That link
Habeas corpus proceedings date back to England.
England isn't really a point in time, is it?

I know what they mean, but it looks strange.
__________________
Just drive.
MetalPig 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 27th June 2018, 05:42 AM   #71
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Ken Kratz, the special prosecutor in the Dassey and Avery trials, said Monday that he has "a great deal of sympathy today for Brendan Dassey."

Kratz tweeted, "His uncle, Steven Avery, made him a murderer--his family and attorneys provided the worst possible advice, ensuring that he will now spend nearly the rest of his life in prison."

Kratz continued, "Knowing he could have been walking out of prison in as little as three years from today, had he followed Attorney [Len] Kachinsky's original plea recommendation, I wonder if his 'advisors' so willing to criticize law enforcement for obtaining his confession will turn the lens of scrutiny on themselves and apologize to Brendan for mishandling his case at almost every turn." Link

I did not think that my opinion of Ken Kratz could go any lower, but I was wrong.
This appears to be a misstep by your supreme court Chris, the institution is due to be fully exposed by series 2 by these film makers, along with the 4 judges that ignored the dissenting 3 women in the circuit appeal.
The stakes look extremely high with public awareness of this case resembling block buster status internationally.
And with the indomitable Sir Peter Jackson to hand, who knows what happens next?

(My apologies as a New Zealander for his wilful and execrable ignorance of his local cases, I noticed a comment you once made).

Last edited by Samson; 27th June 2018 at 05:44 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 9th July 2018, 01:15 PM   #72
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,342
bullet mark analysis

In the first thread (comment #3661) Roger Ramjets wrote, "7. The bullet was not matched to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty to have been fired from Avery's exact rifle, or if it was then the State Crime Lab or Calumet County did participate in the frame-job by providing Manitowoc County officers with a bullet and DNA to plant."

It is up to Mr. Ramjets to support the idea that a bullet can be individualized to a particular rifle (nothing that I have read indicates that this is true). it's too large a subject to capture in one short comment, but here is a start: "Last September the Detroit Police Department's crime lab was shut down after an audit by the state of Michigan found a 10 percent error rate in ballistics identification." A story or two on Anthony Ray Hinton might also be worth pondering.
EDT
I see that there was a discussion of this issue at the time in the first thread (late May, 2017), a discussion that I only vaguely remembered. IMO the burden of proof still lies upon Mr. Ramjets to back up his claim that such individualization is possible (his claim, therefore his burden).
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 9th July 2018 at 02:11 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 9th July 2018, 04:39 PM   #73
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,342
firearm identification and the National Academy of Sciences

Paul Giannelli quoted a 2008 NAS report on ballistics imaging: "Conclusions drawn in firearms identification should not be made to imply the presence of a firm statistical basis when none has been demonstrated. Specifically, . . . examiners tend to cast their assessments in bold absolutes, commonly asserting that a match can be made 'to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.' Such comments cloak an inherently subjective assessment of a match with an extreme probability statement that has no firm grounding and unrealistically implies an error rate of zero."
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 31st July 2018, 03:34 AM   #74
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,987
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Paul [url="https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/cjw11scientificevidence.authcheckdam.pdf"]examiners tend to cast their assessments in bold absolutes, commonly asserting that a match can be made 'to the exclusion of all other firearms in the world.'
I doubt that such assertions are 'common', but even if so I think a rational juror would appreciate its limitations.

It is obviously not possible to match a bullet against all guns in the entire World, but this is not necessary for several reasons. Firstly, the vast majority can easily be eliminated because they are the wrong caliber etc. Secondly, in most cases only a small number of weapons could have been present at the scene of the crime, eliminating over 99.9% of guns 'in the World' with a high degree of certainty.

That still leaves a bit of wiggle room. Even if all other guns found and tested were eliminated, it could be speculated that an unknown weapon with 'identical' rifling was actually used (just like a suspect who was identified by rock solid DNA evidence could argue that it was his identical twin brother who did it, even though no evidence of said of twin exists). But the question is, how likely is it? Actual guns that could have been used must be given a higher weighting than imaginary ones, no? Clearly it is not possible for an examiner to test imaginary guns, so why should they be included in the statistical analysis?

OTOH, if there really is a reasonable chance of misidentification then it weakens accusations of the police 'planting' bullets (the purpose of which is to taint evidence that cannot otherwise be explained away). The fact that it is still used suggests that even the defense does not consider misidentification to be as likely - IOW they know the bullet came from their client's gun because he did commit the crime!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
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 31st July 2018, 04:42 AM   #75
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,342
firearms identification versus DNA profiling

Roger Ramjets,

Equating ballistics identification to DNA profiling might be exactly the comparison against which Professor Giannelli cautioned. When a DNA profile is from a single individual, is complete, and does not show evidence of degradation, every DNA technician would come to the same conclusion as to whether or not a given individual is excluded as a contributor. In other words DNA profiling is objective as long as certain criteria are met. Moreover as long as the profile is complete, it can probably be related to one individual or to his or her twin. I am not aware of evidence to indicate that firearms identification is this objective, and some of the information that I previously provided indicated the same thing.

I provided at least citations over a year ago which bear the reliability of firearms identification, including a WaPo article coauthored by Spencer Hsu:

"The court opinion was in a case that granted a retrial to an Alabama death row inmate who was then exonerated after 30 years when new firearms experts disagreed with the original examiners’ findings that sent him to prison... Some national studies, she [Janet Mitchell] noted, estimated examiner error rates as high as 1 in 20."
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
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 31st July 2018, 05:39 AM   #76
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,987
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In the first thread (comment #3661) Roger Ramjets wrote, "7. The bullet was not matched to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty to have been fired from Avery's exact rifle, or if it was then the State Crime Lab or Calumet County did participate in the frame-job by providing Manitowoc County officers with a bullet and DNA to plant."

It is up to Mr. Ramjets to support the idea that a bullet can be individualized to a particular rifle (nothing that I have read indicates that this is true)...

IMO the burden of proof still lies upon Mr. Ramjets to back up his claim that such individualization is possible (his claim, therefore his burden).
No, since I never made such a claim.

OTOH you seem to be claiming that it is impossible to match a bullet to a gun with any degree of certainty, which is preposterous. Surely there must be cases where a bullet can be 'individualized' to a particular rifle, for the simple reason that no other gun exists which produces the same markings. Other cases might not be so cut and dried, but still certain enough to eliminate other guns that were suspected to be involved in the crime.

Yet your linked article does not argue that matching bullets to guns is impossible. For example,
Quote:
Mr. Nichols also will not be allowed to testify that he can conclude that there is a match to the exclusion, either practical or absolute, of all other guns. He may only testify that, in his opinion, the bullet came from the suspect rifle to within a reasonable degree of certainty in the fire-arms examination field.
That's what I said!

I note that that article focuses more on shell casings than bullets. I am no firearms expert, but I have always been curious (and a little suspicious) about how casings can be identified by 'tooling' marks. Therefore I am not surprised that there may be some dispute about their accuracy. However since I never made any claims about shell casings this is irrelevant.

In fact I haven't actually claimed anything, only expressed skepticism regarding certain collective 'truths' that are based more on emotion than facts and logic. As for 'burden of proof' that is up to the courts. I am not in a position to 'prove' anything, nor have I ever claimed to. All I can do is look at the available evidence and draw conclusions based on logic, experience, and general knowledge of how people think and behave - IOW what a good juror would do.

One thing that is logically and practically certain is that in general the FBI etc. use certain crime detection methods because they work, and the vast majority of people they catch are guilty. I have also observed first hand the underhand methods defense lawyers use to try to get their guilty clients off (and being the lone voice of reason on a jury is no fun).

So I am not surprised when the same people make contradictory claims that the police are both incompetent and fiendishly clever at the same time. Of course they will do that - anything to taint the evidence and make it look like the guilty party is a victim of injustice. The irony is that this application of 'the end justifies the means' is a major reason that some actual innocents end up in prison.

I came back to this thread see if there were any new developments in the case - ready to accept whatever has been discovered, including any real evidence of police misconduct or even Avery's actual innocence. The lack of news is disappointing, but not surprising. That people defending him had to resort to distortions, lies, and emotional arguments to coerce us into believing he is innocent simply indicates that they don't have anything concrete. But such tactics only make me more skeptical. You want me to 'believe'? Then give me facts, not insinuations.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
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 31st July 2018, 01:55 PM   #77
AlaskaBushPilot
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,160
I was struck by Zellner pointing out so much malfeasance, particularly the treatment of the ex-boyfriend. Normally, that would be suspect #1 in a murder investigation.

Skeptics should be able to hold in their head a premise that they disagree with in order to make a point:

If the ex-boyfriend did it, then the two parties most eager to frame Avery are the ex-boyfriend and the cops who were facing lawsuits for... wrongful prosecution. Talk about a recipe for disaster.
They faked like the neighboring county was running the show for just that reason. But they were still running the show and the very people coming up with the direct evidence. Allowing tainted lab reports without even mentioning they were compromised. Etc.

So what one has to do in order to work that premise is go through the whole mess again with attention to the interaction between the cops and this ex-boyfriend. Consider the additional testimonies on vehicle sightings and etc. at the same time.

I don't recall considering him seriously as a suspect at all before the things Zellner pointed out. His direct participation in the search and his hacking of her phone - that is pretty alarming in the context of him as a suspect. Blood relatives were at the yard searching, right? Wasn't there something about switching phones? You'd do that to cover who was calling who and speak about things you don't want the cops knowing.

The cut on Steven Avery's hand was the most damning direct evidence for me and I sure would love to see the precise explanation. I would have loved to see the defense trot right over to the lawn mower he was working on at the time and show the dried blood. Or whatever the exact story is. At the metal shredder or wherever.

So the interest in Zellner's material is more about malfeasance - you just can't frame people, even if they're guilty. I shouldn't have to defend that principle.

Last edited by AlaskaBushPilot; 31st July 2018 at 01:58 PM.
AlaskaBushPilot 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 31st July 2018, 05:07 PM   #78
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
I was struck by Zellner pointing out so much malfeasance, particularly the treatment of the ex-boyfriend. Normally, that would be suspect #1 in a murder investigation.

Skeptics should be able to hold in their head a premise that they disagree with in order to make a point:

If the ex-boyfriend did it, then the two parties most eager to frame Avery are the ex-boyfriend and the cops who were facing lawsuits for... wrongful prosecution. Talk about a recipe for disaster.
They faked like the neighboring county was running the show for just that reason. But they were still running the show and the very people coming up with the direct evidence. Allowing tainted lab reports without even mentioning they were compromised. Etc.

So what one has to do in order to work that premise is go through the whole mess again with attention to the interaction between the cops and this ex-boyfriend. Consider the additional testimonies on vehicle sightings and etc. at the same time.

I don't recall considering him seriously as a suspect at all before the things Zellner pointed out. His direct participation in the search and his hacking of her phone - that is pretty alarming in the context of him as a suspect. Blood relatives were at the yard searching, right? Wasn't there something about switching phones? You'd do that to cover who was calling who and speak about things you don't want the cops knowing.

The cut on Steven Avery's hand was the most damning direct evidence for me and I sure would love to see the precise explanation. I would have loved to see the defense trot right over to the lawn mower he was working on at the time and show the dried blood. Or whatever the exact story is. At the metal shredder or wherever.

So the interest in Zellner's material is more about malfeasance - you just can't frame people, even if they're guilty. I shouldn't have to defend that principle.
It is hard to see how the cut on the thumb overrides the simplest question in the case. Did the two independent witnesses see the car leaving the property or are they both making it up?
That is the bus driver and the gas guy.
If the car left the property the prosecution case is terminated.
Did Zellner fabricate her cell phone pings a long distance away? That does not make sense when her record is considered, which has allowed her to choose only cases where she has no personal doubt of factual innocence.
I can see that the legal process can ignore all this material, but the reasonable man may not.
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 August 2018, 04:58 AM   #79
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,342
National Research Council Ballistic Imaging Report

Roger Ramjets,

The phrase "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" lacks meaning, and an argument has been put forward by the National Commission on Forensic Science that it should no longer be used: "Additionally, the legal community should recognize that medical professionals and other scientists do not routinely use “to a reasonable scientific certainty” when expressing conclusions outside of the courts since there is no foundational scientific basis for its use."

You wrote, "OTOH you seem to be claiming that it is impossible to match a bullet to a gun with any degree of certainty, which is preposterous." No, I never said anything to that effect, and I do not feel a need to defend a position that I did not take. Here is another passage from Professor Giannelli, one that quotes from the 2009 NAS report: "In a different passage, the report remarked that '[m]uch forensic evidence ‘including, for example, bite marks and firearm and toolmark identifications’ is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the limits of the discipline.” (Id. at 107-08.)'" And one more from Professor Giannelli: "Agreeing with its 2008 Ballistics Imaging report, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science summarized the state of the research as follows: 'Because not enough is known about the variabilities among individual tools and guns, we are not able to specify how many points of similarity are necessary for a given level of confidence in the result. Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods. The committee agrees that class char- acteristics are helpful in narrowing the pool of tools that may have left a distinctive mark.'"

Here is a passage from a 2017 book Forensic Science Reform, in which there is a chapter called "Firearms Identification", authored by Sarah L. Cooper:
"With regards to firearms identification evidence, concerns at a national level manifested in 2008. In 2008, the National Research Council of the National Academies published its Ballistic Imaging Report, which focused on the feasibility of a national ballistics database.43 The Committee underscored that the report was not intended to be an overall assessment of firearms identification as a discipline. However, in assessing the feasibility of a national ballistics database, the report also considered the uniqueness of firearms related toolmarks and found that a definitive correlation had not been fully demonstrated.44 In particular, the report found the validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-related toolmarks had not yet been fully demonstrated.45 The Committee was of the view that a significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique, or even to qualitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.46" That people have been allowed to testify to something does not make it true. See below.

You wrote, "One thing that is logically and practically certain is that in general the FBI etc. use certain crime detection methods because they work, and the vast majority of people they catch are guilty." Your argument about the FBI is contradicted by a review of hair analysis conducted by them. "Here's what we found: of the 268 cases where examiners provided testimony used to inculpate a defendant at trial, erroneous statements were made in 257 (96% of the cases). Defendants in at least 35 of these cases received the death penalty, and errors were identified in 33 (94%) of those cases. Nine of these defendants have already been executed, and five died of other causes while on death row." Link. There are stories in WaPo, the NYT, and Reason about this review that could be consulted for further information. Of course if by "working" one means that they get convictions, then yes, this method worked.

Years of false forensic testimony about arson evidence is another example. I recall a conversation I had with an employee of ATF. He said that he was first taught arson investigation in 1985 and that everything that he learned was wrong. Moreover, in examples from these two disciplines (hair comparison and arson) it is the prosecution that provided false evidence, not the defense.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 1st August 2018 at 05:14 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 August 2018, 05:30 AM   #80
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,172
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Roger Ramjets,

The phrase "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" lacks meaning, and an argument has been put forward by the National Commission on Forensic Science that it should no longer be used: "Additionally, the legal community should recognize that medical professionals and other scientists do not routinely use “to a reasonable scientific certainty” when expressing conclusions outside of the courts since there is no foundational scientific basis for its use."

You wrote, "OTOH you seem to be claiming that it is impossible to match a bullet to a gun with any degree of certainty, which is preposterous." No, I never said anything to that effect, and I do not feel a need to defend a position that I did not take. Here is another passage from Professor Giannelli, one that quotes from the 2009 NAS report: "In a different passage, the report remarked that '[m]uch forensic evidence ‘including, for example, bite marks and firearm and toolmark identifications’ is introduced in criminal trials without any meaningful scientific validation, determination of error rates, or reliability testing to explain the limits of the discipline.” (Id. at 107-08.)'" And one more from Professor Giannelli: "Agreeing with its 2008 Ballistics Imaging report, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science summarized the state of the research as follows: 'Because not enough is known about the variabilities among individual tools and guns, we are not able to specify how many points of similarity are necessary for a given level of confidence in the result. Sufficient studies have not been done to understand the reliability and repeatability of the methods. The committee agrees that class char- acteristics are helpful in narrowing the pool of tools that may have left a distinctive mark.'"

Here is a passage from a 2017 book Forensic Science Reform, in which there is a chapter called "Firearms Identification", authored by Sarah L. Cooper:
"With regards to firearms identification evidence, concerns at a national level manifested in 2008. In 2008, the National Research Council of the National Academies published its Ballistic Imaging Report, which focused on the feasibility of a national ballistics database.43 The Committee underscored that the report was not intended to be an overall assessment of firearms identification as a discipline. However, in assessing the feasibility of a national ballistics database, the report also considered the uniqueness of firearms related toolmarks and found that a definitive correlation had not been fully demonstrated.44 In particular, the report found the validity of the fundamental assumptions of uniqueness and reproducibility of firearms-related toolmarks had not yet been fully demonstrated.45 The Committee was of the view that a significant amount of research would be needed to scientifically determine the degree to which firearms-related toolmarks are unique, or even to qualitatively characterize the probability of uniqueness.46" That people have been allowed to testify to something does not make it true. See below.

You wrote, "One thing that is logically and practically certain is that in general the FBI etc. use certain crime detection methods because they work, and the vast majority of people they catch are guilty." Your argument about the FBI is contradicted by a review of hair analysis conducted by them. "Here's what we found: of the 268 cases where examiners provided testimony used to inculpate a defendant at trial, erroneous statements were made in 257 (96% of the cases). Defendants in at least 35 of these cases received the death penalty, and errors were identified in 33 (94%) of those cases. Nine of these defendants have already been executed, and five died of other causes while on death row." Link. There are stories in WaPo, the NYT, and Reason about this review that could be consulted for further information. Of course if by "working" one means that they get convictions, then yes, this method worked.

Years of false forensic testimony about arson evidence is another example. I recall a conversation I had with an employee of ATF. He said that he was first taught arson investigation in 1985 and that everything that he learned was wrong. Moreover, in examples from these two disciplines (hair comparison and arson) it is the prosecution that provided false evidence, not the defense.
Rick Perry knows little of arson investigation it seems.

What concerns me most in this case is the determination of lawmakers to use legal enterprise to obfuscate justice.
Brendan Dassey now stands as the victim of a very deliberate miscarriage of justice. the 7 to 4 verdict was anchored by a female lawmaker from his county. The other 3 females are disgusted and their dissenting judgement should echo for generations.
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
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 08:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.