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 "Making a Murderer" , Brendan Dassey , documentaries , murder cases , Steven Avery , Teresa Halbach , tv shows

Closed Thread
Old 24th May 2017, 07:17 PM   #3681
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
one day turn around for dna?
one day turn around for metals?

we know exhibit 277 is the bullet and the Judge approved this request by Zellner and paid for by defense.
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 Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 08:04 PM   #3682
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
The EDS detector separates the characteristic X-rays of different elements into an energy spectrum and EDS system software is used to analyze the energy spectrum in order to determine the abundance of specific elements. A typical EDS spectrum is portrayed as a plot of X-ray counts vs. energy (in keV). Energy peaks correspond to the various elements in the sample. Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy can be used to find the chemical composition of materials down to a spot size of a few microns and to create element composition maps over a much broader raster area. Together, these capabilities provide fundamental compositional information for a wide variety of materials, including polymers and metals.

SEM/EDS is the tool Zellner has a pic of.
Fairly quick test for metals.
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 Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 08:34 PM   #3683
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by JREF2010 View Post
The EDS detector separates the characteristic X-rays of different elements into an energy spectrum and EDS system software is used to analyze the energy spectrum in order to determine the abundance of specific elements. A typical EDS spectrum is portrayed as a plot of X-ray counts vs. energy (in keV). Energy peaks correspond to the various elements in the sample. Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy can be used to find the chemical composition of materials down to a spot size of a few microns and to create element composition maps over a much broader raster area. Together, these capabilities provide fundamental compositional information for a wide variety of materials, including polymers and metals.

SEM/EDS is the tool Zellner has a pic of.
Fairly quick test for metals.
What do you expect such tests to demonstrate?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 08:58 PM   #3684
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
What do you expect such tests to demonstrate?
This is what Zellner said in her original request:

No presumptive blood testing was performed on the bullet or fragment nor was any scientific testing done to determine the organ (i.e., heart, liver, brain) from which Ms. Halbach’s cells, from the bullet fragment, originated. No ballistic expert testified to the fact that it is highly improbable that any .22 LR, much less two, could have exited Ms. Halbach’s skull.
/
Mr. Avery is requesting Neutron Activation Analysis (“NAA”) to compare the elements contained within Item FL, the bullet fragment recovered from his garage, and the unspent .22 LR shells taken from his bedroom.
/
Mr. Avery requests the following items for ballistic testing:
A. Item FL: the bullet fragment recovered from Mr. Avery’s garage.
B. Unspent .22 LR shells from Steven Avery’s bedroom (contained within Calumet County inventory no. 8436).
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 09:08 PM   #3685
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
So for me the questions are:
Why was this test approved this time, but not the last time?
Why was this test approved and carried out so fast?

Both Zellner and the State know the results of the previous re-tests as the results were sent to Zellner and the State simultaneously. Zellner and Avery seem very happy with the results. Asking once again for this previously denied test is in line with Zellner's past behavior of seeking to overturn every single piece of evidence.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 09:14 PM   #3686
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
This is what Zellner said in her original request:

No presumptive blood testing was performed on the bullet or fragment nor was any scientific testing done to determine the organ (i.e., heart, liver, brain) from which Ms. Halbach’s cells, from the bullet fragment, originated. No ballistic expert testified to the fact that it is highly improbable that any .22 LR, much less two, could have exited Ms. Halbach’s skull.
Probably not related to the test described. Wouldn't the probability of two bullets exiting depend on how many bullets entered?

Quote:
Mr. Avery is requesting Neutron Activation Analysis (“NAA”) to compare the elements contained within Item FL, the bullet fragment recovered from his garage, and the unspent .22 LR shells taken from his bedroom.
That sounds like the test described, although all it could prove is that the bullet fragments recovered either were or were not consistent with the unfired rounds Avery had in the bedroom. If they match, then not too good for Avery, if they don't match, then the prosecution just claims Avery used other bullets.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 10:23 PM   #3687
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
If they match, then not too good for Avery, if they don't match, then the prosecution just claims Avery used other bullets.
I mean sure the prosecution can claim whatever they want - but what matters is whether the judge(s) will believe the claims. And that will depend on what Zellner has found for the other pieces of evidence. If none of the other pieces of evidence show evidence of planting I am sure the State can easily talk their way out of one piece that does hint at that. If several pieces of evidence show evidence of planting than their stories start to look ridiculous.

Keep in mind that Zellner has undoubtedly come up with a theory of what happened, based on the evidence that she has acquired so far, and she has most likely informed the judge/DOJ of what specific evidence she was looking for with this requested test - which is why the judge/DOJ agreed to this request as quickly as they did and the test was performed as quickly as it was (my understanding is that it was requested and approved on Friday, sent for testing on Monday and returned on Tuesday). This for a test and piece of evidence which she had previously requested and had been denied. She is looking for something specific and that is based on either the results of the other tests or the testimony of witnesses that have come forward (or both).

Now, I could be wrong about all that, and this could have just been a hail Mary, last kick at the can. If the rest of Zellner's evidence is not strong then, for instance, her claims about the cell phone leaving the property will undoubtedly not hold up against any story the State brings to explain them...kind of like your idea that Brendan drives the Rav to account for the cell phone leaving the property which I guess went something like this?:

Bus driver drops off Brendan and Blaine at about 2:30 and sees Teresa taking pictures.
Brendan sprints over to Rav4
Avery: "Go drive the Rav4 away with the cell phone and then after a bit turn the phone off and drive the Rav back, so you can help me rape and kill this girl."
Brendan: "Wait? What?"
Avery: "Just do it. I only have a couple seconds to explain, but look, I am a criminal mastermind who knows that they might be able to trace this cell phone, so if the cell phone leaves the property they won't think it was me."
Brendan: "Ummm...if you worried about things being traced back to you, then why would decide to kill someone who you called to come to our property?"
Avery: "I don't know. I am pretty stupid and definitely not a criminal mastermind."
Brendan: "Ok....but I can't drive, and everyone in this whole area knows me, so aren't you afraid that someone might notice me driving this vehicle? Especially since I don't have a driver's license or even a learner's permit? or that I might get in an accident and then will definitely be traced back to you? Not quite sure why you are putting the driving responsibility on the person who can't drive? Why don't you do it?"
Avery: "Well, I can't do it. What if Jodie calls?"
Brendan: "....."
Avery: "I don't know. I am pretty stupid and definitely not a criminal mastermind. Now get going, while I take Teresa inside to prepare for the raping and killing of her while taking a recorded phone call and while leaving no trace of her behind in the trailer because I am a criminal mastermind."

Last edited by Wayward son; 24th May 2017 at 10:25 PM.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 10:52 PM   #3688
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
I mean sure the prosecution can claim whatever they want - but what matters is whether the judge(s) will believe the claims. And that will depend on what Zellner has found for the other pieces of evidence. If none of the other pieces of evidence show evidence of planting I am sure the State can easily talk their way out of one piece that does hint at that. If several pieces of evidence show evidence of planting than their stories start to look ridiculous.

Keep in mind that Zellner has undoubtedly come up with a theory of what happened, based on the evidence that she has acquired so far, and she has most likely informed the judge/DOJ of what specific evidence she was looking for with this requested test - which is why the judge/DOJ agreed to this request as quickly as they did and the test was performed as quickly as it was (my understanding is that it was requested and approved on Friday, sent for testing on Monday and returned on Tuesday). This for a test and piece of evidence which she had previously requested and had been denied. She is looking for something specific and that is based on either the results of the other tests or the testimony of witnesses that have come forward (or both).
I guess we'll wait and see what she finds. As much as I think the evidence favors Avery committing the crime, no one wants an innocent man in jail.

Quote:
...kind of like your idea that Brendan drives the Rav to account for the cell phone leaving the property which I guess went something like this?:
Not my idea, you've mixed me up with someone else. My comment on the cell phone stuff was that it's pretty darn hard to prove a location with it at all, given the nature of radio signals and the difficulty of reconstructing the situation as it existed ten years ago. Maybe Zellner can do it, maybe not.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 11:00 PM   #3689
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Not my idea, you've mixed me up with someone else.
You are correct. I apologize.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 04:51 PM   #3690
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I guess we'll wait and see what she finds. As much as I think the evidence favors Avery committing the crime, no one wants an innocent man in jail.



Not my idea, you've mixed me up with someone else. My comment on the cell phone stuff was that it's pretty darn hard to prove a location with it at all, given the nature of radio signals and the difficulty of reconstructing the situation as it existed ten years ago. Maybe Zellner can do it, maybe not.
She claims to have done it.
People who doubt Zellner probably doubt the repeatable nature of gravity.
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 Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 05:48 PM   #3691
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
She claims to have done it.
People who doubt Zellner probably doubt the repeatable nature of gravity.
You mean astronauts?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 03:33 AM   #3692
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
You mean astronauts?
Zellner is predictable like gravity in all it's manifestations. Astronauts are always falling, like the Manitowoc coppers into Zellner's web.
You have to love the idea that people who put people in cages for their nefarious ends end in cages, probably hanged live from meat hooks.
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 Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 08:05 AM   #3693
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,247
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
You mean astronauts?

Sure.

They're gonna be the very first ones who doubt the repeatable nature of gravity.

That's why they're stuck up there ... forever ... after all.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 01:00 AM   #3694
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,919
Originally Posted by JREF2010 View Post
one day turn around for dna?
one day turn around for metals?
I can't say about metals, but one day turnaround for DNA is entirely possible. You need 2-3 hours for extraction, about 3 hours for amplification, 45 minutes for detection and maybe half an hour to interpret the result and write a report.

A skilled expert can do it in one day without any overtime.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 06:08 AM   #3695
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,042
"to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty"

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
No, I have not. However I might consider it if you can convince me that the claims on stevenaverycase.com are false. Specifically, I need solid evidence of the following:-

SNIP
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.
SNIP
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."

Broadly speaking forensic analysis involving pattern matching can be influenced by domain irrelevant information; therefore, I see no reason not to be skeptical about the rifle. Moreover, why should one trust the State Crime Lab given their track record in this case (see my posts on DNA contamination), or given the general problem that state crime labs are part of law enforcement, not independent entities?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:33 AM   #3696
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,042
A chapter on firearms in a book on forensic science reform

Here is a passage from a new book Forensic Science Reform, 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"

Cooper goes on to discuss the 2009 NAS report on strengthening forensic sciences in the US, which suggests that only DNA profiling has been shown to be able to individualize evidence. The courts have apparently not been using the 2009 report, from what I can gather. Professor Paul Giannelli also discussed firearm evidence and the law and quotes from the 2009 NAS report. At the Washington Post, Spencer Hsu and a colleague reported on the error rate in a forensic laboratory in the District of Columbia.
__________________
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; 29th May 2017 at 09:46 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 Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 12:00 PM   #3697
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
[quote=Chris_Halkides;11859276]Here is a passage from a new book Forensic Science Reform, 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" [quote]

In other words, “to a reasonable scientific certainty.”
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 12:15 PM   #3698
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
[quote=marplots;11859473][quote=Chris_Halkides;11859276]Here is a passage from a new book Forensic Science Reform, 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"
Quote:

In other words, “to a reasonable scientific certainty.”
Exactly. The work was still to be done in 2008, yet Avery was convicted on this bogus evidence in 2006.
But this still fails at the higher standard that the word reasonable is to be regarded as inadequate for convicting if I understand Chris.

Last edited by Samson; 29th May 2017 at 12:17 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 Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 02:29 PM   #3699
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,042
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
In other words, “to a reasonable scientific certainty.”
In my personal experience, scientists often characterize their answers probabilistically, such as speaking in terms of 95% confidence. I have never heard anyone talk about a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, a phrase which is more and more dubious, the more I think about it. The passage above is concerned with whether or not ballistic analysis produces individualization, as much as it is concerned with the error rate of this determination. So, no, I don't agree that the two passages are even talking entirely about the same thing.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 03:06 PM   #3700
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
In my personal experience, scientists often characterize their answers probabilistically, such as speaking in terms of 95% confidence. I have never heard anyone talk about a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, a phrase which is more and more dubious, the more I think about it. The passage above is concerned with whether or not ballistic analysis produces individualization, as much as it is concerned with the error rate of this determination. So, no, I don't agree that the two passages are even talking entirely about the same thing.
I don't think you can escape the notion.

If I say there is a 95% probability for an event (based on confidence intervals) I am still expressing an opinion about "scientific certainty" since such an interval is set with that idea in mind. In the end, we are talking about the judgement of the witness on the stand. Their opinion.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 02:33 AM   #3701
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,373
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
I see no reason not to be skeptical about the rifle.
What reason is there to be skeptical?
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:05 AM   #3702
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
What reason is there to be skeptical?
Roger Ramjets:

You may take aspects of the case in isolation and suggest plausibilty about rifle forensics, but they must mesh with a complete narrative.

ONLY ONE THING HAPPENED.

The website Kaosium posted is excellent for detail such as access to the blood vial, and this needs resolving.
But the website is very specific, the primary burn site was close to Steve Avery's cabin, and 5 steel belt tyres were the fuel.

For your part, are you buying this, given that this wrecking yard was essentially a commune?

At some point you must show your workings surely, how all flesh is eliminated from the bones, and that Steve took bones from here and distributed to the quarry and the burn barrel.

Please explain, because handwaving is how these absurd convictions are sustained.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th May 2017, 04:10 AM   #3703
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,042
more work is needed

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
What reason is there to be skeptical?
The quote I provided from the book chapter by Sarah L. Cooper indicated that the research that would perhaps allow one to individualize the marks on a bullet to a particular gun or rifle had not been done as of 2009. The article by Paul Giannelli (see link above) suggested the same thing. One person (at minimum) was wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous testimony on firearm markings and spent almost thirty years in prison (his name escapes me at the moment). There has been research done since then to establish error rates but I am not in a position to evaluate it.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 06:14 AM   #3704
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,373
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Please explain, because handwaving is how these absurd convictions are sustained.
I don't need to 'explain' anything - that's your job. The only hand-waving here is being done by people with absurd theories about how all the evidence against Avery was either planted, tainted, or made up.

I can understand why someone might do that though. If you start with the conclusion that the perp is innocent then all the evidence must be invalid. Then you must invent improbable conspiracy theories to explain as much of the evidence as you can, and handwave away the rest.

I have been a juror on a few criminal trials so I know how defense lawyers work. Doesn't matter how airtight the evidence, just cast some doubt in the jurors minds and your client may get away with murder, literally. But their tricks didn't work on me, and they won't work here either.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 12:05 PM   #3705
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,247
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I don't need to 'explain' anything - that's your job. The only hand-waving here is being done by people with absurd theories about how all the evidence against Avery was either planted, tainted, or made up.

I can understand why someone might do that though. If you start with the conclusion that the perp is innocent then all the evidence must be invalid. Then you must invent improbable conspiracy theories to explain as much of the evidence as you can, and handwave away the rest.

I have been a juror on a few criminal trials so I know how defense lawyers work. Doesn't matter how airtight the evidence, just cast some doubt in the jurors minds and your client may get away with murder, literally. But their tricks didn't work on me, and they won't work here either.

When you are a juror in a criminal trial you are supposed to start with the premise that the accused is innocent.

If the defense lawyer can establish reasonable (not 'some", of course) doubt then he isn't trying to "trick" you, he's doing his job as an effective defense attorney.

Do you recognize that the prosecution is, by the same token, trying to "trick" you by presenting the evidence he can in as slanted a fashion as he can manage to get away with?

Is it okay to be tricked by the prosecution because you don't want to assume the defendant's innocence (which is your legal obligation in a criminal trial), but somehow wrong to let the defense establish reasonable doubt using the same tools and techniques?

It's pretty apparent that if you sit on a jury with the preconceived notion that the accused is a "perp" and not a defendant then you aren't going to spend much time analyzing the defense case anyway.

I expect prosecutors love to see you on a jury.
__________________
"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."

Last edited by quadraginta; 31st May 2017 at 12:11 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 03:18 PM   #3706
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I don't need to 'explain' anything - that's your job. The only hand-waving here is being done by people with absurd theories about how all the evidence against Avery was either planted, tainted, or made up.

I can understand why someone might do that though. If you start with the conclusion that the perp is innocent then all the evidence must be invalid. Then you must invent improbable conspiracy theories to explain as much of the evidence as you can, and handwave away the rest.

I have been a juror on a few criminal trials so I know how defense lawyers work. Doesn't matter how airtight the evidence, just cast some doubt in the jurors minds and your client may get away with murder, literally. But their tricks didn't work on me, and they won't work here either.
It is statistically very likely you correctly convicted.
Agreeing on this contributes nothing to the case of Steven Avery.

The prosecution relies on the burn pit as the primary burn site because they realise Avery would not bring those bones there from elsewhere, but science says this can't be so. Ignoring this datapoint allows you to continue spouting nonsense.
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 03:53 PM   #3707
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,373
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
When you are a juror in a criminal trial you are supposed to start with the premise that the accused is innocent.
Did I say otherwise? But that 'presumption' doesn't mean what you might be implying - it's just the default position to take before seeing the evidence.

Quote:
If the defense lawyer can establish reasonable (not 'some", of course) doubt then he isn't trying to "trick" you, he's doing his job as an effective defense attorney.
If the defense promotes lies to get a guilty person off then they are scum. I don't care if that is doing their job - it's wrong. I'm not just talking about sowing reasonable doubt, but deliberate attempts to make the jury reject solid facts - using any trick they can get away with. And yes, this actually happened in trials I was on.

Quote:
Do you recognize that the prosecution is, by the same token, trying to "trick" you by presenting the evidence he can in as slanted a fashion as he can manage to get away with?
If the prosecution tries to sway the jury with lies to convict someone they know is innocent, then they are also scum.

But that's why we have juries - so disinterested parties can apply their intelligence and knowledge of human nature to prevent miscarriages of justice. Sadly however, most jurors are swayed by emotion, and few are able to think logically. Some of the arguments I heard in deliberation were appalling.

Quote:
It's pretty apparent that if you sit on a jury with the preconceived notion that the accused is a "perp" and not a defendant then you aren't going to spend much time analyzing the defense case anyway.
Since that doesn't apply to me it's irrelevant. But when the trial is over and the judge has made it plain that the accused was guilty all along, and a fellow juror remarks on what a good job the defense did of getting her off, I am perfectly happy using the word 'perp'.

Originally Posted by Samson
Agreeing on this contributes nothing to the case of Steven Avery.
I agree. Every case stands on its own merits. Some other convictions being overturned due to factual innocence doesn't have any bearing on this one.

I came into this discussion thinking that Avery may be innocent (since that is what this forum is about) but the evidence for it is unconvincing. We are not in a courtroom now, but if we were I would ask how do you justify accusing various people of being part of a massive conspiracy without the evidence to back it up? Let's turn this around and say that they were the ones on trial - would you convict?
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

Last edited by Roger Ramjets; 31st May 2017 at 03:54 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 04:03 PM   #3708
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,373
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The prosecution relies on the burn pit as the primary burn site because they realise Avery would not bring those bones there from elsewhere, but science says this can't be so.
So you assert. I have yet to see the evidence which shows this to be the case.

But hey, I am old and probably a candidate for Alzheimer's. Perhaps the evidence is in this very thread, but I missed or forgot it. So if you or someone else has presented it already, a link would be appreciated.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 04:09 PM   #3709
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So you assert. I have yet to see the evidence which shows this to be the case.

But hey, I am old and probably a candidate for Alzheimer's. Perhaps the evidence is in this very thread, but I missed or forgot it. So if you or someone else has presented it already, a link would be appreciated.
I will see what I can find from Jerry Buting's book. Sorry to hear about the dementia, I think a lot of us are past our prime around here.

Last edited by Samson; 31st May 2017 at 04:10 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 Back to Top
Old 31st May 2017, 10:45 PM   #3710
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,247
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
<snip>

I came into this discussion thinking that Avery may be innocent (since that is what this forum is about) but the evidence for it is unconvincing. We are not in a courtroom now, but if we were I would ask how do you justify accusing various people of being part of a massive conspiracy

How did it graduate to "massive" conspiracy? A couple of people move a few things around. Then a tenuous if not non-existent case looks a bit stronger. Enough so that a jury who is already primed for guilt (after all, the bastard got off on a technicality once already. Right?)

It isn't exactly a "massive" conspiracy if a cop or two 'salts the mine', so to speak. Kinda 'helps' things a little bit just to firm up a shaky case.

Do you think that is something really unusual?

Not least when there is a lot of impetus to discredit the guy anyway.

Zellner seems to believe that there was some hanky panky going on. She doesn't take cases for people she doesn't believe are innocent. She has one hell of a track record of reversal and even exoneration.

When I stand this up against the weaknesses in the the evidentiary trail that we know about, and the proclivities of small town law enforcement then I have to think that the odds of Avery's innocence are not that unlikely.

Quote:
without the evidence to back it up? Let's turn this around and say that they were the ones on trial - would you convict?

Depends on the evidence, doesn't it?
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2017, 08:09 PM   #3711
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,373
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
It isn't exactly a "massive" conspiracy if a cop or two 'salts the mine', so to speak. Kinda 'helps' things a little bit just to firm up a shaky case.
You make it sound easy, but if all the 'salting' claimed actually occurred it would have taken more than 'a cop or two' to pull it off.

Quote:
Do you think that is something really unusual?
What I find 'really unusual' (ie. unbelievable) is that virtually every piece of damning evidence was 'salted' - as if this is necessary for Avery to be innocent. If you have to prove that someone is innocent, what better way to do it than simply assert that every piece of evidence against them was 'salted'? Just accuse 'one or two cops' of doing it and all the evidence magically disappears!

Quote:
Not least when there is a lot of impetus to discredit the guy anyway.
That's what you say. Others disagree. The 'impetus' wasn't as great as some are trying to make out.

Cops have to deal with scumbags all the time who they would like to 'discredit' (AKA frame for murder) - but they don't. They just keep doing their job and sooner or later they get them legally, because scumbags always screw up eventually.

Quote:
Zellner seems to believe that there was some hanky panky going on. She doesn't take cases for people she doesn't believe are innocent. She has one hell of a track record of reversal and even exoneration.
I don't care what Zellner 'seems to believe'. Just give me facts that prove Avery was set up. Not innuendo, supposition, doubt, conspiracy theories - facts. That is all I ask.

If Zellner can show that evidence was planted or faked then we can agree that there was 'hanky panky'. Until then...

Quote:
When I stand this up against the weaknesses in the the evidentiary trail that we know about, and the proclivities of small town law enforcement then I have to think that the odds of Avery's innocence are not that unlikely.
Great. So we can assume that anyone in a small town who is convicted of murder must be innocent?

Because any evidence can be faked. Blood vials tampered with, keys planted, bodies and vehicles moved, DNA results fudged, weapons fired to collect bullet fragments, eye witnesses bought off (or are in on it), cell phone records invented, people murdered to create a crime. There's no end to the amount of evidence those small-town cops will plant on you!
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 12:32 AM   #3712
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 26,247
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
You make it sound easy, but if all the 'salting' claimed actually occurred it would have taken more than 'a cop or two' to pull it off.

<snip>

Why?
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 01:36 AM   #3713
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
You make it sound easy, but if all the 'salting' claimed actually occurred it would have taken more than 'a cop or two' to pull it off.

What I find 'really unusual' (ie. unbelievable) is that virtually every piece of damning evidence was 'salted' - as if this is necessary for Avery to be innocent. If you have to prove that someone is innocent, what better way to do it than simply assert that every piece of evidence against them was 'salted'? Just accuse 'one or two cops' of doing it and all the evidence magically disappears!

That's what you say. Others disagree. The 'impetus' wasn't as great as some are trying to make out.

Cops have to deal with scumbags all the time who they would like to 'discredit' (AKA frame for murder) - but they don't. They just keep doing their job and sooner or later they get them legally, because scumbags always screw up eventually.

I don't care what Zellner 'seems to believe'. Just give me facts that prove Avery was set up. Not innuendo, supposition, doubt, conspiracy theories - facts. That is all I ask.

If Zellner can show that evidence was planted or faked then we can agree that there was 'hanky panky'. Until then...

Great. So we can assume that anyone in a small town who is convicted of murder must be innocent?

Because any evidence can be faked. Blood vials tampered with, keys planted, bodies and vehicles moved, DNA results fudged, weapons fired to collect bullet fragments, eye witnesses bought off (or are in on it), cell phone records invented, people murdered to create a crime. There's no end to the amount of evidence those small-town cops will plant on you!
You should study carefully the duck rabbit shadow illusion, and decide what you wish to see.
These cases resolve nicely in this manner.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 05:29 AM   #3714
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 10,042
Not just fraud but also bias

IMO there is more to this case than the work of the two gardeners. Here is a link to an article I had not seen before, which was written by four forensic scientists. The problems of bias and of a lack of objective standards applies to the conclusions about the ballistic evidence to which I linked upthread.

"In the evidence against Steven Avery, we saw striking examples of problems we have been studying...According to the Innocence Project, about half of DNA-related exonerations resulted from the authorities’ misapplication of forensic science; one analysis found that forensic scientists overstated their findings in more than 60 percent of cases."
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 06:41 PM   #3715
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
There are a range of ways of studying this case, one is to list what Avery allegedly did.

1. While knowing that her last movement is known to all and sundry to be into his precinct, he kills her.
2. He shoots her in his garage.
3. He drives her car off the property and the movements of the car remain unknown for a while.
4. At a point he had her bleeding from the head in the back seat of her car.
5. A few days later (aerial photographs seem to show the car's absence till then), he parks it in a highly visible location back on the property, having obviously concealed it elsewhere meanwhile, and throws a couple of branches on it.
6. He keeps the key which is unable to lock or unlock the rear door and cleans it but forgets to wear gloves.
7. He burns her body by his back door without anywhere adequate fuel, no one notices, and he transports some bones to two other locations.
8. He fits in a phone call to Jodi at 5pm from home after driving the vehicle off the property at 4pm.

I could go on, but these are stark claims, or inferred claims.

I see the same sort of list in the following cases, all of which have excellent and highly researched books to refer to.

1. Mark Lundy
2. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito
3. John Tessier/Jack Daniel McCullough
4. Ewen MacDomnald.
5. Arthur Allan Thomas
6. David Bain.
7. Jeremy Bamber
8. The Norfolk 4
9. The West Memphis 3.
10. Gloria Killian
11. David Wayne Tamihere.
12. Steven Kitchko

13. Teina Pora

The reason I make a long list is partly to emphasise I have done some homework, and I can see essential ingredients common to this case.

Some above are exonerated, some not convicted, some still in jail.

They all were prosecuted and had one or multiple trials and appeals, and in my opinion it is completely impossible any of them did the crimes.

Steven Avery did not do this one either, until one of you can make coherent my activity list for Steve.

It is straightforward to list the evidence that must be explained, far less straightforward how to make sense of it. Invariably there is splendid coherence in the evidence when the police have the right man.
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 Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 06:52 PM   #3716
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
And here is a narrative that does cohere.

1. She drives her car away from Avery's property.
2. She gets out of the car, is shot in the back of the head and her body is rolled into the back seat.
3. The car is driven to a crematorium style burning place.
4. Some bones are planted with the steel radial wire intact in Steve's burn pit.
5. Her car is parked on the property
6. 4 and 5 occur because someone believes that the police will blame Steve, which they indeed do.

Participants and motives are not necessary to show that this involves plausible candidates, and thus the converse with Steve.

Last edited by Samson; 3rd June 2017 at 07:00 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 Back to Top
Old 7th June 2017, 10:18 AM   #3717
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Zellner has filed her brief for Steven Avery according to Ryan Ferguson.
Samzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th June 2017, 11:36 AM   #3718
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Samzilla View Post
Zellner has filed her brief for Steven Avery according to Ryan Ferguson.
More here.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th June 2017, 05:33 PM   #3719
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
wow...

Wiegert substituted the groin swabs for
the hood latch swabs collected by Sgt. Tyson.
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 Back to Top
Old 7th June 2017, 05:50 PM   #3720
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,476
Here is the blood in Rav4 headline argument

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL ..................................... .43
Applicable Law Re: Ineffective Assistance ofCounsel .................................................. ............... .43
Applicable Law Re: Duty to Investigate and To Present Expert Testimony ................................. .45
Failure ofTrial Defense Counsel to Investigate Mr. Avery 's Claim that his Blood Was Removed
from his Bathroom Sink and Planted in the RA V-4 .................................................. ..................... 50
Trial Defense Counsel 's Failure to Present a DNA Expert 's Opinions about Blood Being Planted
in the RA V-4 .................................................. .................................................. ............................... 54
Applicable Law Re: The Admissibility of Conducting Experiments and Recreations ................... 54
Failure of Trial Defense Counsel to Present a Blood Spatter Expert Who Had Conducted
Experiments Which Demonstrated that Mr. Avery's Blood was Planted in the RA V-4 ................ 55
Failure of Trial Defense Counsel to Present a Blood Spatter Expert Who Had Conducted
Experiments Which Refitted The State 's Blood Spatter Expert 's Opinion About Cause of Blood
Spatter on Rear Cargo Door of RA V-4 .................................................. .................... .................... 56
Failure of Trial Defense Counsel, Because of Not Having A Blood Spatter Expert, To Recognize
1996 Blood Vial Was Not the Source of Blood in the RA V-4 ..

So the vial was a red herring no pun intended.
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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 10:30 PM.
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.