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 13th September 2020, 02:43 AM   #441
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Keep It Simple Stupid

ESSEXMAN: In response to those who advocated for the innocence of convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald, the late, great Joe McGinniss stated, "facts are facts, and when they cut this deep, they cannot be overcome by hype." Similar to the MacDonald Case, the inculpatory evidence that led to Avery's conviction didn't just prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it proved his guilt beyond ALL doubt. I applaud your decision to adhere to the KISS philosophy when responding to advocates for Avery's innocence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com

Last edited by JTF; 13th September 2020 at 02:49 AM.
JTF 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 September 2020, 03:59 AM   #442
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,253
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
ESSEXMAN: In response to those who advocated for the innocence of convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald, the late, great Joe McGinniss stated, "facts are facts, and when they cut this deep, they cannot be overcome by hype." Similar to the MacDonald Case, the inculpatory evidence that led to Avery's conviction didn't just prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it proved his guilt beyond ALL doubt. I applaud your decision to adhere to the KISS philosophy when responding to advocates for Avery's innocence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
It is the great art of conjuring, you see what they choose you see.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2020, 06:24 AM   #443
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
FBI laboratory

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
ESSEXMAN: In response to those who advocated for the innocence of convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald, the late, great Joe McGinniss stated, "facts are facts, and when they cut this deep, they cannot be overcome by hype." Similar to the MacDonald Case, the inculpatory evidence that led to Avery's conviction didn't just prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it proved his guilt beyond ALL doubt. I applaud your decision to adhere to the KISS philosophy when responding to advocates for Avery's innocence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
No one has advanced an explanation of why a comparison to the MacDonald case is in any way helpful in understanding the Avery cases. In comment #432 I wrote, " If Diogenes with his lamp can find one piece of evidence in this case that is utterly untainted by incompetence or conflict of interest or both, he is skillful indeed." No one responded. Let me expand a bit on the topics of conflict of interest and bias.

"Moreover, even experts assembling, interpreting, and presenting forensic evidence at trial are also subject to all-too-human bias. In the case of Steven Avery, the use of certain pattern evidence, such as tire tracks, bite marks, fingerprints, and ballistic markers has come under fire for general inaccuracy.1 The use of DNA evidence, a generally very accurate tool, has also posed problems, including fraud and the inability of juries and judges to properly weigh the methodology of testing. When looking at DNA exoneration cases, 63% of wrongful convictions surveyed were the result of forensic science testing errors, with false and/or misleading forensic expert testimony being the fifth most common error.2 Considering that experts who knew that Avery was the suspect in the case developed forensic evidence, the probative value of forensic evidence in the Avery case seems very questionable and, thus, deserves discussion...In discussing bias, it is important, first, to distinguish conflict of interest from bias.3 A conflict of interest is different from bias—conflict of interest is a tendency toward bias." Link to a course at Cornell.

Over the last six months I have read about the work of the FBI laboratory over th approximate period of time of the second Avery case. This includes the Brandon Mayfield fingerprint case, compositional bullet lead analysis, and hair comparison. All of this work was problematic for a variety of reasons. Just because something came from the FBI laboratory does not make it necessarily correct.
__________________
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; 13th September 2020 at 06:50 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 13th September 2020, 07:13 AM   #444
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
ESSEXMAN: In response to those who advocated for the innocence of convicted murderer Jeffrey MacDonald, the late, great Joe McGinniss stated, "facts are facts, and when they cut this deep, they cannot be overcome by hype." Similar to the MacDonald Case, the inculpatory evidence that led to Avery's conviction didn't just prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it proved his guilt beyond ALL doubt. I applaud your decision to adhere to the KISS philosophy when responding to advocates for Avery's innocence.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com
The question needs to asked, why so much crucial detail was omitted from the MAM series.

Over seven hours they include so much irrelevant details like Pa Avery growing cabbages in the allotment. Yet

No mention of the EDTA testing.

No mention of Avery's blood stains in his own car.

No mention of the calls he made to lure Halbach to his trailer.

No mention of Halbach's work employers saying Avery was creeping her out.

No mention of Avery denying the bonfire he had.

No mention of Brendan knowing about the bones in the quarry.

No mention of Brendan confessing to Kayla before he was interviewed.

No mention of Avery cleaning up and returning the rug cleaning machine to Walmart the day after the crime.

I could go on. Its not mentioned because it cannot be reasonably explained in the defense narrative. And the whole show was made to entertain, not to inform.
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 September 2020, 01:30 AM   #445
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,253
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
The question needs to asked, why so much crucial detail was omitted from the MAM series.

Over seven hours they include so much irrelevant details like Pa Avery growing cabbages in the allotment. Yet

No mention of the EDTA testing.

No mention of Avery's blood stains in his own car.

No mention of the calls he made to lure Halbach to his trailer.

No mention of Halbach's work employers saying Avery was creeping her out.

No mention of Avery denying the bonfire he had.

No mention of Brendan knowing about the bones in the quarry.

No mention of Brendan confessing to Kayla before he was interviewed.

No mention of Avery cleaning up and returning the rug cleaning machine to Walmart the day after the crime.

I could go on. Its not mentioned because it cannot be reasonably explained in the defense narrative. And the whole show was made to entertain, not to inform.
Were these discovered prior or after the blood in the Rav4?
Your list is interesting, so I hope we explore it properly.
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 September 2020, 04:43 AM   #446
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
Michael Griesbach's view of the 1985 rape case

Manitowoc county DA Michael Griesbach wrote about the 1985 rape case, "Each revelation was more disturbing than the last one, and taken together, they suggested that the former sheriff and DA might have knowingly sent an innocent man to prison while letting the real assailant go free...The investigators had uncovered evidence of egregious conduct, but the attorney general ignored it - she effectively whitewashed the entire affair." Mr. Griesbach appears to believe that Mr. Avery is guilty is of the murder of Teresa Halbach.
__________________
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 September 2020 at 04:50 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 14th September 2020, 10:04 AM   #447
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
Article in The Isthmus

Link to Mr. Griesbach's article, which is excerpted from his book.
__________________
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 14th September 2020, 06:41 PM   #448
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
Wisconsin is not the only state with a similar rule

Link to an article where Buting and Strang discuss the court's refusal to let them present evidence of other suspects:

"The legal [and] technical hurdles that you have to overcome for the defence to be able to present that evidence are ridiculously high and there's a real double standard because it requires you as a defence attorney to prove the other suspect had a motive... even though the prosecution never has to prove the defendant had any motive to kill. So it's completely bizarre to most people when they hear about this rule of law."

"It's just, I think, another example where with time the deck has gotten stacked against people who are accused of crimes in order to make it easier for the state to obtain convictions.

"Which of course raises the potential of there being wrongful convictions as well."
__________________
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 15th September 2020, 04:36 AM   #449
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
Only Lenk had coupons for McDonald's

At the Post Crecent John Ferak discussed the fact that Deb Kakatsch was barred from participating in the examination of the burn barrel, something that the judge refused to let the jury hear.

John Ferak wrote, "Here's a more in-depth examination of crucial evidence used to convict Avery — most of it was evidence the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office found that has raised conflict of interest questions due to the then-pending lawsuit."

"[Manitowoc County Detective Dave] Remiker testified, "We found some additional shell casings. We were searching on our hands and knees. At one point I remember DCI Agent Kevin Heimerl located what looked to be a bullet fragment near the air compressor, kind of in the back left corner or the garage. ... My job was to specifically collect that item and make sure it was collected properly.""

Lenk testified that he was there to see if they needed any food or supplies.
__________________
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 September 2020, 12:08 PM   #450
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
No one has advanced an explanation of why a comparison to the MacDonald case is in any way helpful in understanding the Avery cases. In comment #432 I wrote, " If Diogenes with his lamp can find one piece of evidence in this case that is utterly untainted by incompetence or conflict of interest or both, he is skillful indeed." No one responded. Let me expand a bit on the topics of conflict of interest and bias.
With all due respect, this is simply not true. Several posters have responded countless times with a list of evidence that cannot be simply explained away due to incompetence or conflict of interest. Essexman posted several of these, again, right after yours.

It seems you are the one operating from a default position of bias, that ALL of the evidence against Avery is "tainted by incompetence, conflict of interest, or both."
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 16th September 2020, 04:39 PM   #451
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
popcorn sounds good about now

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
With all due respect, this is simply not true. Several posters have responded countless times with a list of evidence that cannot be simply explained away due to incompetence or conflict of interest. Essexman posted several of these, again, right after yours.

It seems you are the one operating from a default position of bias, that ALL of the evidence against Avery is "tainted by incompetence, conflict of interest, or both."
One, I posted a link to the evidence that Manitowoc County had a hand in gathering. This article rebutted the claim made by Essexman in comment #204: "The evidence gathered in this case was gathered by CCSO not MTSO." This is yet another example of Essexman's misrepresenting the facts case, sometimes after having been corrected (IMO everything that Manitowoc County deserves to be deeply discounted on the basis of its conflict of interest partially but not wholly resulting from Mr. Avery's suit). My point here is that Essexman's credibility must be gauged in light of this and other statements in this thread.

Two, I posted a number of things relating to the flaws in the EDTA test. Essexman included the EDTA test anyway, not noting the objections.

Three, Essexman's list also included Brendan's supposedly knowing about the bones in the quarry. I have not researched this exhaustively, but in the portion of Dassey's interrogation that I just found, it was Fassbender who first mentioned the "pit." This is not a surprise to anyone who had read the links I provided, to experts both associated with and not associated with this case. The experts indicated that Brendan was fed information, and that seems to be what happened in this instance. For example, Richard Leo's affidavit stated, "Brendan did not volunteer non-public crime facts not likely guessed by chance absent contamination." Elsewhere his affidavit stated, "In this case, Brendan Dassey provided no unique non-public details of the Halbach murder." These are strong statements from a nationally recognized expert in false confessions. Again, there was no mention of the contamination problem in the present list.

Four, Essexman's list mentioned Kayla Avery while ignoring information that I learned and reported in comment #362, namely that she recanted her earlier statement. Either her earlier statement was true, or her testimony was true. Only an omniscient being can known which one it was, but the legal system takes what a witness says under oath very seriously, yet gives little or no weight to statements not made under oath. An honest evaluation of Kayla's claim would have included the inconvenient fact of Kayla's recantation.

Here is what I found with respect to the burning: Link. It is my understanding that the interview happened on November 9th. "During the interview, Investigator Wiegert acted as the primary questioner, while S/A Fassbender took notes. The following is a synopsis of the information provided by Steven and is not verbatim. A transcript will be prepared at a later date...Steven advised that he has not burnt anything in his burn barrel for quite a while, probably longer than a week. He did not burn anything that night. His burn barrel is out in front of his house. Steven said the week before last or over a week ago and before Teresa was there, he burned brush, some tires and some garbage in an area behind his house right by his dog." It is unclear whether Mr. Avery was denying using the burn barrel or denying all burning that night. That is one reason that I would prefer an actual transcript to Fassbender's synopsis. A second reason is Fassbender's actions concerning Brendan Dassey. Even if a transcript were available and showed that the synopsis was accurate, the information is not very probative.

If others want to dissect the rest of the list this evening, they are welcome to do so; for the moment, I prefer to pop some popcorn.
__________________
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 September 2020 at 06:03 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 17th September 2020, 02:49 PM   #452
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
One, I posted a link to the evidence that Manitowoc County had a hand in gathering. This article rebutted the claim made by Essexman in comment #204: "The evidence gathered in this case was gathered by CCSO not MTSO." This is yet another example of Essexman's misrepresenting the facts case, sometimes after having been corrected (IMO everything that Manitowoc County deserves to be deeply discounted on the basis of its conflict of interest partially but not wholly resulting from Mr. Avery's suit). My point here is that Essexman's credibility must be gauged in light of this and other statements in this thread.
What does Essexman's credibility have to do with it? If you want to attack the facts of the case then please do so, but discounting those facts entirely due to a possible conflict of interest is in itself a form of bias. The situation being what it was at the time, what should Manitowoc County have done? Avery is certainly not free to commit any crime he wishes in Manitowoc due to a pending lawsuit against them, and Manitowoc County and the State of Wisconsin had a duty to investigate the crime and bring the perpetrator to justice. I'm tired of the argument that Manitowoc County should not have investigated this case because of Avery's suit...to make that claim and assert without evidence that there was some sort of vast conspiracy against Avery and the entire county was involved runs along the lines of CT nonsense. Further, this argument has been made several times to the courts by Avery's defense team. It hasn't worked, and it likely never will. Why does anyone continue to make this argument? Do you know something we don't? If so, please share.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Two, I posted a number of things relating to the flaws in the EDTA test. Essexman included the EDTA test anyway, not noting the objections.
Objections noted. Why does the flawed EDTA testing matter? How does it change anything? If the EDTA testing was so flawed, then why hasn't it been done again? Why wasn't it done multiple times by independent labs? The defense certainly had the opportunity to do so. Without a test that shows there was EDTA in the blood then there is no evidence it was planted. Do you have anything new to share that indicates the blood was planted? Without bias driving your belief that all evidence is suspect, would you be pointing out flaws in the EDTA test if it came back as positive?

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Three, Essexman's list also included Brendan's supposedly knowing about the bones in the quarry. I have not researched this exhaustively, but in the portion of Dassey's interrogation that I just found, it was Fassbender who first mentioned the "pit." This is not a surprise to anyone who had read the links I provided, to experts both associated with and not associated with this case. The experts indicated that Brendan was fed information, and that seems to be what happened in this instance. For example, Richard Leo's affidavit stated, "Brendan did not volunteer non-public crime facts not likely guessed by chance absent contamination." Elsewhere his affidavit stated, "In this case, Brendan Dassey provided no unique non-public details of the Halbach murder." These are strong statements from a nationally recognized expert in false confessions. Again, there was no mention of the contamination problem in the present list.
What contamination are you referring to here? Or are you suggesting that the conflict of interest extends to Brendan Dassey as well? As much as people want to believe it does, pointing out that Brendan likely made a false confession doesn't really help Avery, and neither does it strengthen any argument that Manitowoc county framed him due to a conflict of interest.

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Four, Essexman's list mentioned Kayla Avery while ignoring information that I learned and reported in comment #362, namely that she recanted her earlier statement. Either her earlier statement was true, or her testimony was true. Only an omniscient being can known which one it was, but the legal system takes what a witness says under oath very seriously, yet gives little or no weight to statements not made under oath. An honest evaluation of Kayla's claim would have included the inconvenient fact of Kayla's recantation.
Again, how does this help Avery? You're talking about Dassey's trial here. Even if Kayla never makes either statement, how does this strengthen your argument that there was a conflict of interest that would now have to extend to Brendan Dassey, or of incompetence on the part of Manitowoc County?

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
Here is what I found with respect to the burning: Link. It is my understanding that the interview happened on November 9th. "During the interview, Investigator Wiegert acted as the primary questioner, while S/A Fassbender took notes. The following is a synopsis of the information provided by Steven and is not verbatim. A transcript will be prepared at a later date...Steven advised that he has not burnt anything in his burn barrel for quite a while, probably longer than a week. He did not burn anything that night. His burn barrel is out in front of his house. Steven said the week before last or over a week ago and before Teresa was there, he burned brush, some tires and some garbage in an area behind his house right by his dog." It is unclear whether Mr. Avery was denying using the burn barrel or denying all burning that night. That is one reason that I would prefer an actual transcript to Fassbender's synopsis. A second reason is Fassbender's actions concerning Brendan Dassey. Even if a transcript were available and showed that the synopsis was accurate, the information is not very probative.
This is only relevant to the case because they found her remains there. He has no reason to deny anything otherwise and if so, it's likely never even mentioned. I fail to see though how this evidence can also be explained away by an apparent conflict of interest or incompetence. What is their angle here? "We know he didn't have a fire that night because we planted the bones there!! All we need now is for him to lie about it!! Sorry, but I just don't buy it.
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 17th September 2020, 03:48 PM   #453
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,459
Bellwether Fallacy

The Avery Case is just another in a long line of cases (e.g., Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffrey MacDonald, O.J. Simpson) where the evidence of guilt is so overwhelming that advocates for the accused and/or convicted perp engage in a cognitive process known as the Bellwether Fallacy. The essence of the Bellwether Fallacy is that one bit of evidence is made inappropriately to represent the entire question -- to become a bellwether, in essence, for a larger evidentiary picture. If the bellwether proposition can be refuted or upheld, then allegedly so goes the whole question, and the rest of the evidence is just expected to sort itself out somehow to match that direction.

A prime example of how advocates for Avery's innocence become partners in this fallacy lay in the claim that Avery's lawsuit was the impetus for law enforcement planting evidence. It matters not to these same advocates that not a single piece of evidence was sourced to an individual not named Steven Avery or Teresa Halbach. To make matters worse, these same advocates can't seem to come to a consensus as to who "really" murdered Teresa Halbach. I've heard some advocates argue that Manitowoc County police officers murdered Halbach whereas others argue for the likes of Teresa's ex-boyfriend.

The expansive landscape of the case against Avery has resulted in advocates relying on hyperbole and specious challenges to the sourced evidentiary items. What is not taken into account is that there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. In addition, high profile murder cases rarely leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives. It's important to note that the burden of proof is now on Avery's defense team and the appellate courts have ruled that Kathleen Zellner's legal briefs have not established by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found Avery guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach.

https://macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/bellwether.html

Last edited by JTF; 17th September 2020 at 03:52 PM.
JTF 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 17th September 2020, 06:17 PM   #454
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
Meritorious Service Award for cooperation between law enforcement agencies

"In 2008, the Wisconsin Association of Homicide Investigators presented Fassbender and Wiegert with the statewide organization's prestigious Meritorious Service Award. 'This case exemplifies cooperation between law enforcement agencies,' stated former Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen." Post-Crescent.
__________________
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 18th September 2020, 01:16 AM   #455
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,253
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
"In 2008, the Wisconsin Association of Homicide Investigators presented Fassbender and Wiegert with the statewide organization's prestigious Meritorious Service Award. 'This case exemplifies cooperation between law enforcement agencies,' stated former Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen." Post-Crescent.
I read that link which is clearly crafted by MAM shills....
Except Brendan Dassey is the subject of the most withering dissenting judgement I ever read, 3 to 4 and a suggestion someone should atone and be accountable.
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 18th September 2020, 09:10 AM   #456
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The Avery Case is just another in a long line of cases (e.g., Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffrey MacDonald, O.J. Simpson) where the evidence of guilt is so overwhelming that advocates for the accused and/or convicted perp engage in a cognitive process known as the Bellwether Fallacy. The essence of the Bellwether Fallacy is that one bit of evidence is made inappropriately to represent the entire question -- to become a bellwether, in essence, for a larger evidentiary picture. If the bellwether proposition can be refuted or upheld, then allegedly so goes the whole question, and the rest of the evidence is just expected to sort itself out somehow to match that direction.

A prime example of how advocates for Avery's innocence become partners in this fallacy lay in the claim that Avery's lawsuit was the impetus for law enforcement planting evidence. It matters not to these same advocates that not a single piece of evidence was sourced to an individual not named Steven Avery or Teresa Halbach. To make matters worse, these same advocates can't seem to come to a consensus as to who "really" murdered Teresa Halbach. I've heard some advocates argue that Manitowoc County police officers murdered Halbach whereas others argue for the likes of Teresa's ex-boyfriend.

The expansive landscape of the case against Avery has resulted in advocates relying on hyperbole and specious challenges to the sourced evidentiary items. What is not taken into account is that there are always inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. In addition, high profile murder cases rarely leave antiseptic data sets that point inexorably toward a single conclusion to the exclusion of all contemplated or speculated alternatives. It's important to note that the burden of proof is now on Avery's defense team and the appellate courts have ruled that Kathleen Zellner's legal briefs have not established by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found Avery guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach.

https://macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/bellwether.html
The bellwether keeps changing too...when it doesn't work with the bones in the burn pit then it moves to the DNA on the bullet. When it doesn't work with the DNA on the bullet it moves to the EDTA testing. When it doesn't work with the EDTA testing it moves to Brendan's confession...and on and on and on
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 18th September 2020, 03:00 PM   #457
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
What's the difference?

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The Avery Case is just another in a long line of cases (e.g., Lee Harvey Oswald, Jeffrey MacDonald, O.J. Simpson) where the evidence of guilt is so overwhelming that advocates for the accused and/or convicted perp engage in a cognitive process known as the Bellwether Fallacy. The essence of the Bellwether Fallacy is that one bit of evidence is made inappropriately to represent the entire question -- to become a bellwether, in essence, for a larger evidentiary picture. If the bellwether proposition can be refuted or upheld, then allegedly so goes the whole question, and the rest of the evidence is just expected to sort itself out somehow to match that direction.
https://macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/bellwether.html
JTF,

Your linked essay used the term "bellwether fallacy" and called it "common pattern of argumentation." Can you find a source that defines this term lists it among informal logical fallacies? I don't mind someone's offering a new informal logical fallacy, but that it is a common pattern of argumentation is an assertion without evidence.

This essay used its own definition of conspiracy theory. Neither the essay nor your comment differentiated between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy. For once Wikipedia does a pretty good job: "A conspiracy theory is not simply a conspiracy. Barkun writes that conspiracies are "actual covert plots planned and/or carried out by two or more persons". A conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is 'an intellectual construct' according to Barkun: a 'template imposed upon the world to give the appearance of order to events'. Positing that "some small and hidden group' has manipulated events, a conspiracy theory can be local or international, focused on single events or covering multiple incidents and entire countries, regions and periods of history. Conspiracy theorists see themselves as having privileged access to socially persecuted knowledge or a stigmatized mode of thought that separates them from the masses who believe the official account." This definition, especially the last sentence, clearly differentiates conspiracy theorists from Mr. Avery's supporters.

Unfortunately for the sake of your argument, the disagreement over who killed Avery is evidence against the notion that Avery's supporters are conspiracy theorists. The disagreement is over the relative weight of evidence against one or another alternative suspect, whereas conspiracy theories are sometimes described as being falsifiable. Your last few sentences (which are more of an observation about the legal system) have nothing to do with the rest of the discussion. As such it weakens your comment even further.
EDT
With respect to Mr. Avery or to Mr. Dassey, which evidence if any do you think is weakened by incompetence or bias?
__________________
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; 18th September 2020 at 03:50 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 18th September 2020, 03:14 PM   #458
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
contamination

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
What contamination are you referring to here? Or are you suggesting that the conflict of interest extends to Brendan Dassey as well? As much as people want to believe it does, pointing out that Brendan likely made a false confession doesn't really help Avery, and neither does it strengthen any argument that Manitowoc county framed him due to a conflict of interest.
I am not sure what your question means. I discussed contamination in comments #94, #210, and #253. If you want specific instances, I suggest you read Richard Leo's affidavit, which refuted the claim that Brendan's statement had seventeen instances in which he had given the investigators new information. I cannot force anyone to read a particular comment or a linked essay, but if they would, it would facilitate the discussion.

IMO the balance of probability is that Mr. Dassey's false confession was the product of incompetence on the part of those asking the question. Mr. Dassey's statement has been cited as evidence of Mr. Avery's guilt, within this thread and elsewhere. Mark Godsey's book discussed its effect on public opinion.
EDT
Do you accept Mr. Dassey's confession as genuine, or do you think that it is a false confession?
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 18th September 2020 at 03:51 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 18th September 2020, 03:27 PM   #459
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
Simples

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Objections noted. Why does the flawed EDTA testing matter? How does it change anything? If the EDTA testing was so flawed, then why hasn't it been done again? Why wasn't it done multiple times by independent labs? The defense certainly had the opportunity to do so. Without a test that shows there was EDTA in the blood then there is no evidence it was planted. Do you have anything new to share that indicates the blood was planted? Without bias driving your belief that all evidence is suspect, would you be pointing out flaws in the EDTA test if it came back as positive?.
The flawed EDTA testing matter because the results of the test were taken as evidence against planting. I am surprised that I even had to say this. My next point is general, not specific to this or any other case: Testing is both expensive and requires people with the right expertise and sufficient time; by the time one gets to post-conviction appeal, the defendant may be out of funds (court cases are expensive--consider the Esposito arson case). Now in the present case, maybe there could be some sort of crowd funding, but I don't have any knowledge of its being done in this instance.

You wrote, "Without bias driving your belief that all evidence is suspect, would you be pointing out flaws in the EDTA test if it came back as positive?" Here you accidentally made a good point. Yes of course I would. A forensic scientist is a scientist, not an advocate, and a flawed test is still a flawed test. You may recall that one of my objections was that the person who performed the test was not behaving in a professional manner during cross-examination. Anyone who does not take seriously the problem of confirmation bias in forensic science is dangerously naive.
__________________
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; 18th September 2020 at 03:33 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 18th September 2020, 04:01 PM   #460
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
a mundane reason

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Again, how does this help Avery? You're talking about Dassey's trial here. Even if Kayla never makes either statement, how does this strengthen your argument that there was a conflict of interest that would now have to extend to Brendan Dassey, or of incompetence on the part of Manitowoc County?
I brought this point up to rebut Essexman's list, which I surmise included it to bolster the claim that Dassey's confession was genuine. The effect on Mr. Avery's case was indirect.

As I have indicated many times, Mr. Dassey's interrogation was fraught with problems. I have supported this point by quoting Saul Kassin, arguably the nation's foremost authority on the subject of false confessions. You are taking what I said about the conflict of interest and applying it willy nilly. Incompetence is mundane but common.
__________________
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 18th September 2020, 04:09 PM   #461
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I am not sure what your question means. I discussed contamination in comments #94, #210, and #253. If you want specific instances, I suggest you read Richard Leo's affidavit, which refuted the claim that Brendan's statement had seventeen instances in which he had given the investigators new information. I cannot force anyone to read a particular comment or a linked essay, but if they would, it would facilitate the discussion.

IMO the balance of probability is that Mr. Dassey's false confession was the product of incompetence on the part of those asking the question. Mr. Dassey's statement has been cited as evidence of Mr. Avery's guilt, within this thread and elsewhere. Mark Godsey's book discussed its effect on public opinion.
EDT
Do you accept Mr. Dassey's confession as genuine, or do you think that it is a false confession?
I have never made such claims (that Dassey provided them with new information). I know other posters have, and it appears you have confused me with those posters. I do not accept his confession as genuine, and I see the actions of the LEOs asking the questions as doing exactly what they had been trained to do, not incompetence. I'm not really interested in discussing the merits of their training at this time, and there are several other threads here that discuss that topic already.

As far as Mr Dassey's statements, it does not matter what other posters have cited as to it being evidence against Avery. They had separate trials...his confession would not be and was not ruled as admissible at Avery's trial. So again, tell me how pointing out his confession is false helps Avery in any way? It matters not what the court of public opinion thinks.
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 18th September 2020, 05:20 PM   #462
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
The flawed EDTA testing matter because the results of the test were taken as evidence against planting. I am surprised that I even had to say this. My next point is general, not specific to this or any other case: Testing is both expensive and requires people with the right expertise and sufficient time; by the time one gets to post-conviction appeal, the defendant may be out of funds (court cases are expensive--consider the Esposito arson case). Now in the present case, maybe there could be some sort of crowd funding, but I don't have any knowledge of its being done in this instance.

You wrote, "Without bias driving your belief that all evidence is suspect, would you be pointing out flaws in the EDTA test if it came back as positive?" Here you accidentally made a good point. Yes of course I would. A forensic scientist is a scientist, not an advocate, and a flawed test is still a flawed test. You may recall that one of my objections was that the person who performed the test was not behaving in a professional manner during cross-examination. Anyone who does not take seriously the problem of confirmation bias in forensic science is dangerously naive.
I will admit my question was for the most part rhetorical. I'm well aware of why it was tested and what the results would mean. I did not expect you to know that the defense team did have adequate time to do their own testing and in fact used the issue of EDTA testing more as a stall tactic. They rolled the dice, and it backfired, and had they gotten their way at the time the prosecution would certainly have been allowed to do additional testing and rebut the results that the defense received. That didn't have to happen though because the results did not come back in favor of the defense.

EDTA testing was uncommon and known to be unreliable in 2007. The defense and the prosecution both knew that. Pointing out that the testing was flawed amounts to very little...it was a gamble that the defense took and lost, and considering that it doesn't seem to fit the narrative of either conflict of interest or incompetence on the part of Manitowoc County.
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 19th September 2020, 04:46 AM   #463
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,253
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
I will admit my question was for the most part rhetorical. I'm well aware of why it was tested and what the results would mean. I did not expect you to know that the defense team did have adequate time to do their own testing and in fact used the issue of EDTA testing more as a stall tactic. They rolled the dice, and it backfired, and had they gotten their way at the time the prosecution would certainly have been allowed to do additional testing and rebut the results that the defense received. That didn't have to happen though because the results did not come back in favor of the defense.

EDTA testing was uncommon and known to be unreliable in 2007. The defense and the prosecution both knew that. Pointing out that the testing was flawed amounts to very little...it was a gamble that the defense took and lost, and considering that it doesn't seem to fit the narrative of either conflict of interest or incompetence on the part of Manitowoc County.
Zellner seems to have abandoned the vial blood and opted for blood recovery from Steve's sink.
This seems a difficult logistical plant.
However there was a specific gods eye narrative from Theresa arriving.
I am fascinated by what this is step by step.
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 19th September 2020, 07:31 AM   #464
Essexman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 140
This is an interesting new video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=lviOEQnl1s8
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 19th September 2020, 03:21 PM   #465
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,253
Originally Posted by Essexman View Post
This is an interesting new video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=lviOEQnl1s8
Interesting.
I think I have solved the crime and motivation.
Steven Avery was missing prison, so he does this interview while waiting for her bones to be discovered right there in the fire pit. This explains perfectly why he did not use the several days to remove them and put them somewhere else.
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 21st September 2020, 07:41 AM   #466
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
evidence with little value

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
One cannot go back in time and undo the damage of a mismanaged crime scene. This alone limits what the prosecution can assert. If Diogenes with his lamp can find one piece of evidence in this case that is utterly untainted by incompetence or conflict of interest or both, he is skillful indeed.
When I wrote this, it was out of dismay at how poorly the burn site(s) had been handled by the police. I wasn't thinking of every last piece of evidence in this case. If I had, I would have at least included a category for evidence that has little probative value, some of which made it into court and some of which did not but is used in on-line discussions (try googling "Steven Avery leg irons" and use the image feature, for an example of the former).

There may be other categories that I have not yet listed, and when I mentioned incompetence, I did not intend it to apply only to Manitowoc County. I regret any confusion that my statement may have caused.
__________________
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 21st September 2020, 07:45 AM   #467
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
contamination and incompetence

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
I have never made such claims (that Dassey provided them with new information). I know other posters have, and it appears you have confused me with those posters. I do not accept his confession as genuine, and I see the actions of the LEOs asking the questions as doing exactly what they had been trained to do, not incompetence. I'm not really interested in discussing the merits of their training at this time, and there are several other threads here that discuss that topic already.

As far as Mr Dassey's statements, it does not matter what other posters have cited as to it being evidence against Avery. They had separate trials...his confession would not be and was not ruled as admissible at Avery's trial. So again, tell me how pointing out his confession is false helps Avery in any way? It matters not what the court of public opinion thinks.
I can assure you that I did not confuse you with any other poster. One reason why I expounded on Professor Leo's affidavit was to explain further what contamination was. Another was to rebut past and likely future claims in the thread that Mr. Dassey told the interrogators things only a guilty party would know. Your position on the interrogation was not known to me, which is why I asked. Your statement above is paradoxical; if they were trained in a certain way and it produced a false confession, that would fit my definition of incompetence. If you don't want to discuss it further, that is up to you.
__________________
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 21st September 2020, 08:16 AM   #468
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I can assure you that I did not confuse you with any other poster. One reason why I expounded on Professor Leo's affidavit was to explain further what contamination was. Another was to rebut past and likely future claims in the thread that Mr. Dassey told the interrogators things only a guilty party would know. Your position on the interrogation was not known to me, which is why I asked. Your statement above is paradoxical; if they were trained in a certain way and it produced a false confession, that would fit my definition of incompetence. If you don't want to discuss it further, that is up to you.
They did what they are trained to do, which is extract a confession from the suspect. However, this case is not the first example of how the techniques used by law enforcement can and will lead to false confessions. The issue in my view is more with the techniques they use and are allowed to use, and how they are trained to use those techniques if it serves their purpose. I do not place as much personal responsibility on the detectives as you do, to me Brendan's confession appears to be more of a result of a flawed methodology that does not take into account the quality of the result, just that there was a result. If we judge them on the result, they were competent. Brendan confessed.

Does this mean they are incompetent in all other facets of their job? No, and one cannot assume that without starting from a biased position. One should not also make the leap to "Avery is innocent because Brendan's confession is false".
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 21st September 2020, 08:24 AM   #469
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
When I wrote this, it was out of dismay at how poorly the burn site(s) had been handled by the police. I wasn't thinking of every last piece of evidence in this case. If I had, I would have at least included a category for evidence that has little probative value, some of which made it into court and some of which did not but is used in on-line discussions (try googling "Steven Avery leg irons" and use the image feature, for an example of the former).

There may be other categories that I have not yet listed, and when I mentioned incompetence, I did not intend it to apply only to Manitowoc County. I regret any confusion that my statement may have caused.
Which is why I try (I don't always succeed admittedly) to stick to the evidence presented at trial, and to not conflate the two separate trials of Avery and Dassey. The case against Avery is strong from an evidentiary standpoint, while the case against Dassey is comparatively weak.

You've opened up a proverbial can of worms though...if this case suffers from incompetence on the part of multiple parties, who are those other parties?
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 21st September 2020, 03:30 PM   #470
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,135
Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
They did what they are trained to do, which is extract a confession from the suspect. However, this case is not the first example of how the techniques used by law enforcement can and will lead to false confessions. The issue in my view is more with the techniques they use and are allowed to use, and how they are trained to use those techniques if it serves their purpose. I do not place as much personal responsibility on the detectives as you do, to me Brendan's confession appears to be more of a result of a flawed methodology that does not take into account the quality of the result, just that there was a result. If we judge them on the result, they were competent. Brendan confessed.

Does this mean they are incompetent in all other facets of their job? No, and one cannot assume that without starting from a biased position. One should not also make the leap to "Avery is innocent because Brendan's confession is false".

You seem to be suggesting that the interviewers are trained to elicit a confession of some sort at all costs, regardless of its validity. And that doing so is simply part of their job, that determining facts and actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant. And that this is just fine, and perfectly reasonable.

I hope I am misunderstanding you.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
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 21st September 2020, 09:24 PM   #471
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,253
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
You seem to be suggesting that the interviewers are trained to elicit a confession of some sort at all costs, regardless of its validity. And that doing so is simply part of their job, that determining facts and actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant. And that this is just fine, and perfectly reasonable.

I hope I am misunderstanding you.
Which is exactly what the state appeal court said.
Nothing wrong nothing to see.
Although one of the three dissenting judges expressed disgust at her peers in her written report.
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 22nd September 2020, 04:01 AM   #472
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
professionalism

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
You've opened up a proverbial can of worms though...if this case suffers from incompetence on the part of multiple parties, who are those other parties?
I will give you a few examples, but I see no point in doing more than that. We will have to disagree about incompetence with respect to Mr. Dassey's interview. I don't recall which investigators mishandled Ms. Halbach's remains, but they were clearly incompetent. Ms. Culhane's claim that she contaminated the DNA sample by speaking over it cannot be proved. In addition speaking over a sample when it is the only sample that you have is reckless. These two facts, among others, calls her competence into question. These things have all been discussed previously.
__________________
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 22nd September 2020, 04:04 AM   #473
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
look before you leap

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
Does this mean they are incompetent in all other facets of their job? No, and one cannot assume that without starting from a biased position. One should not also make the leap to "Avery is innocent because Brendan's confession is false".
If you cannot do part of your job, then even if you can do other facets of it, you are still not wholly competent. I cannot read this comment without wondering whether or not it is you who are leaping to conclusions.
__________________
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 22nd September 2020, 04:09 AM   #474
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
not so fast

Originally Posted by Lerxst View Post
As far as Mr Dassey's statements, it does not matter what other posters have cited as to it being evidence against Avery. They had separate trials...his confession would not be and was not ruled as admissible at Avery's trial. So again, tell me how pointing out his confession is false helps Avery in any way? It matters not what the court of public opinion thinks.
As long as Mr. Dassey's name remains one of the tags in this thread, I will assume that discussing him is not off topic. You have every right not to participate, if you do not care to do so. I don't recall saying that pointing out his false confession did help Mr. Avery directly. However, before giving a final answer, one might consider Mr. Miskelley's confession in the West Memphis 3 case, which made it in through the back door.
__________________
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 22nd September 2020, 07:51 AM   #475
Lerxst
Muse
 
Lerxst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Big D
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
You seem to be suggesting that the interviewers are trained to elicit a confession of some sort at all costs, regardless of its validity. And that doing so is simply part of their job, that determining facts and actual guilt or innocence is irrelevant. And that this is just fine, and perfectly reasonable.

I hope I am misunderstanding you.
On the first part you are correct, that is what they are trained to do. You are incorrect on the rest though.

Flawed methodologies produce flawed results. If you want to attack the officers that are using it instead of the methodology then I don't think things are going to change. Feel free to discuss the methodology in this thread if you wish, but you don't need to convince me, and I think it would be better discussed in a dedicated thread.
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 22nd September 2020, 07:28 PM   #476
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
Locard was circumvented

It has been argued in this thread that all evidence has been sourced to Ms. Halbach or to Mr. Avery. There are at least two reasons not to draw too strong a conclusion from this observation. The first reason is that whenever an investigation is crippled by investigatory tunnel vision, evidence is not collected or it is collected and discarded without being examined fully. An example of the latter are the hairs from Christine Lundy in the Mark Lundy case. With respect to the present two cases (Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey) former FBI agent Steve Moore indicated that they investigators might have been able to examine an electronic device of Mr. Dassey's to learn more about his actual whereabouts. I believe that I made a comment to that effect in the first Avery thread.

The second reason is that in a number of wrongful convictions the victim's body provided clues as to who the real perpetrator was, often in the form of hair, fiber, or DNA evidence and sometimes more than one of these. One naturally recalls Locard's exchange principle Ito explain these situations. I would offer the case of Malcolm Bryant as a good example. Without Ms. Halbach's intact body this avenue of investigation is precluded.
__________________
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; 22nd September 2020 at 07:38 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 26th September 2020, 10:15 PM   #477
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,253
Meanwhile the deification of Ruth Bader Ginsberg assumes her role in the Dassey finalisation is authentic provision of justice.
God help Anerica because that heroine did not.

Last edited by Samson; 26th September 2020 at 10:17 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 2nd October 2020, 04:25 AM   #478
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
Watch your step

Unless I am missing something, the State of Wisconsin's theory of the crime is that both Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey participated; the fact that they had separate trials does not change the narrative. In 2018 Saul Kassin wrote, "The 7th Circuit cited three arguments in support of Dassey’s confession. First, it noted that Dassey was not subject to physical force or mental exhaustion. He wasn’t handcuffed, yelled at or beaten into submission. This is true. But setting the bar this low represents an incomprehensible step backward."
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2020, 04:32 AM   #479
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,253
Three women dissent.
Three men and one woman confirm the conviction.
That latter woman was a state prosecutor.

Surrogate man?

I am not necessarily convinced women are motherly though.
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 October 2020, 10:03 AM   #480
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,922
a Bush league investigation into a hit-and-run

Manitowoc County's investigation into the hit-and-run death of pedestrian Ricky Hochstetler is detailed in Chapters 15 and 16 of John Ferak's book Wrecking Crew. Evidence was shoveled into one of the investigator's cars, not properly tagged, photographed, and logged. Mike Bushman, who came out of retirement to work on the Halbach case, was patrolling that night and Rob Hermann also was part of this investigation. Forensic expert Brent Turvey is quoted as saying that one can get fired for such slipshod work. People can draw their own conclusions about this investigation.
__________________
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 October 2020 at 10:10 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
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 09:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.