|
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. |
8th January 2016, 01:45 AM | #401 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
But I've seen LOTS of people be angrier than hornets when they were called out doing something wrong. They're even angrier if they believe the whole world -including their own families- will find out what they've done. It's certainly not the only way to react, but it is common. |
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499 “She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One |
|
8th January 2016, 05:49 AM | #402 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
8th January 2016, 05:52 AM | #403 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
|
8th January 2016, 06:58 AM | #404 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Because their statement reflects that they thought they "had their man" which is why I'm saying they "thought they had their guy."
In addition, do you know how many criminals say they didn't do it? There's not a question here that they screwed up. It's the motive that I'm addressing. |
8th January 2016, 07:00 AM | #405 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
That's actually a good point but for a different reason. I could see this kind of cover up if it wasn't as publicly known. But at the time this is all going down they have a documentary crew that moved to Wisconsin to film it, it's all over the news. It was already out there and known by everyone.
|
8th January 2016, 08:32 AM | #406 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
8th January 2016, 09:28 AM | #407 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Well, for starters I don't feel a particular obligation to prove Manitowoc County Sheriff's department was angry with Steven Avery, or really prove anything that I haven't claimed.
Secondly, I don't see much utility in assuming best intentions for people we know acted improperly and unethically. What I find interesting is this "honest mistake" business. What do you think was an "honest mistake"? The key you believed was planted? The blood you believe was planted? Or the fact that Manitowoc County officers took part in the investigation after it was announced to the world that they would not take part in the investigation? |
8th January 2016, 09:45 AM | #408 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Also, it was pretty clear by statements made by Lenk and Manitowoc County Sheriff Tom Kocourek that the reaction to Avery's exoneration wasn't "Gosh, I guess we got the wrong guy". They clearly weren't happy about it. Someone even implied the evidence that exonerated him wasn't legitimate. I'll try to dig up some quotes.
|
8th January 2016, 09:57 AM | #409 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
I find the situation odd that anyone would go to such great lengths of burning and dismembering a body and then leave a key in plain site in their own bedroom.
Its a frame job, is my position. And to add a lot of salt to the police wound, the key was found by the suspicious cops..etc..etc.. |
8th January 2016, 10:13 AM | #410 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
This part I cannot address, since I haven't got far enough into the documentary.
Quote:
First, conflicts of interest are unavoidable. Everyone from the cop who wants a big case solved to advance her career to the juror who votes with whatever the majority is so he can get back to his normal life. Every day we are faced with such stuff. If I dent the floor model I might get a discount at the cash register. If I run this stop sign, I can get to work on time. What prevents us from acting on these matters of interest to us? Lots of things, but primarily our own concept of who we are - call it our conscience or moral leanings, whatever. The point is that conflicts of interest are the norm and provide motivations for bad actions all the time. That means you need more than a mere conflict of interest to trigger a do-over. You have to prove someone actually acted on this motivation. Suspicion isn't enough, or shouldn't be.
Quote:
1) The incident they are being sued for happened 20 years ago - many/most of those concerned are gone. 2) The civil case isn't a slam-dunk and the $36 million figure, in my view, is wishful thinking. They would have to prove, not just that the man was wrongly convicted, but that the defendants railroaded him and acted with ill intent. From what I've seen, the case for that was weak. $400,000 is a reasonable settlement. 3) If there is no ax to grind, then separating out the investigation is more of a PR move than anything else. From another angle, the argument seems to parallel the "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit" defense. One (of a few) bits of questionable evidence should infect the entire process - here is where I disagree strongly. That isn't to say poor policing shouldn't enter into the process and be evaluated by the jury - it should. I assume it was. |
8th January 2016, 10:15 AM | #411 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Does anyone know which episode has the confession of the other guy? This seems essential to me, in a "fruit of the poisoned tree" fashion. If he describes the crime (with Avery included) and it matches the facts, then it would be very strong evidence against Avery. I should like to see that part.
|
8th January 2016, 10:29 AM | #412 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the premise to his whole line of thinking. Some conflicts of interest are completely avoidable. And they were easily avoidable in this case. All they had to do was the thing they said they were going to do: Prevent the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department from taking part in the investigation.
While some conflicts of interest are unavoidable, let's not pretend this was one of them. |
8th January 2016, 10:38 AM | #413 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Hollow Chatter
Avery advocates can weave conspiratorial narratives until the cows come home, but the FACT remains that Steven Avery was convicted of murdering Teresa Halbach. The main reason for this conviction was the physical evidence that linked Avery to this horrific crime. The strength of the evidence can be measured by the FACT that the conviction was upheld by the appellate courts.
The defense had their chances at trial and before the Circuit Court to state their case for law enforcement framing Steven Avery. Their arguments were deemed to lack merit, so all of the claims leveled by Avery's advocates are nothing more than hollow chatter. Assumption, allegations without corroboration, and hyperbole resonate with those who have an aversion to critical thought. They do not, however, sway appellate court judges. |
8th January 2016, 10:41 AM | #414 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
The larger point is whether it's material. How does having another agency investigate avoid conflicts of interest, since they are all cops anyhow? The other county isn't all that far removed, certainly not as separate as the FBI would be. There's no end to it. Forgive me if this sounds a bit like a 9-11 truther charge and request for more investigation, since there is "relational taint" to the one available.
What has to be done is to show that the suspected conflict of interest actually resulted in criminal behavior. Suspicion isn't enough. Finally, if the other agency oversaw the investigation, why isn't that enough? ETA: Why is the middle ground of tossing suspect evidence not allowed? What's with the all-or-none thinking here? That's the bit that really puzzles me, the idea that the whole thing must be pristine or it has no value. It seems like an improper overlap with formal scientific investigation, where you can control the experiment and get more/better data - completely unlike what has to happen in a criminal trial. |
8th January 2016, 10:46 AM | #415 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
The problem with this is that all of what you say applied to his first conviction, the one where he was exonerated.
This means we cannot merely rely on the system to poop out a just result. The difference has to revolve around what each result was based on. In the first conviction, the primary evidence was an eye witness account (the victim), and this was offset by alibi witnesses. Not very strong. But in this case, the evidence is much, much stronger (at least based on what I've seen so far). That's why it seems apt to look at the details instead of just concluding "they got it right." After all, we know "they got it wrong" before. |
8th January 2016, 10:52 AM | #416 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Sorry, I can't agree with your blasé attitude.
The conflict of interest in this case was deemed important enough to be addressed. It was announced on live television that Manitowoc County police would not take part in the investigation. Manitowoc County police were then allowed to take part in the investigation. And not only that, they were instrumental in the discovery of key pieces of evidence. If you can't see the malfeasance and alarming breach of the public's trust in that, then I can't help you. |
8th January 2016, 11:12 AM | #417 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Can I use the same shallow inferences to decide whether or not Avery did the crime? Because it would be ever so convenient to do so...
Avery is a man. Men are violent. Of course he did it. Case closed. Cause to suspect is rarely the same as cause to conclude. You are asserting that people without a direct and compelling interest planted evidence - quite a charge. Worse, the stand-off, general nature of the assertion means there's no real need to prove anything, suspicion is enough. "Taint" is enough. Worse still, it's a taint that can't be remedied because... reasons. This is just a movie:
|
|||
8th January 2016, 11:18 AM | #418 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
8th January 2016, 11:22 AM | #419 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
8th January 2016, 11:31 AM | #420 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Okay, great... except I'm not making any such "inferences", shallow or otherwise.
My problem begins and ends with an investigation that was compromised because of a clear conflict of interest that those who were running the investigation went on television and lied about avoiding. Anything beyond that, I can't know for sure, and never claimed to. But it can't be denied that the door was opened for questions of malfeasance and corruption by the way the investigation was mishandled. And honestly, it's getting a bit tedious to have to explain my position over and over again to people who seem to want to force me to prove the police framed Avery. Especially people who haven't even watched the documentary. |
8th January 2016, 11:33 AM | #421 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
8th January 2016, 11:38 AM | #422 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Quote:
So far, I've only seen this as implied or inferred, but would like to know what you feel the exact motivation was - that is, the motivation without which they wouldn't have framed him. I'd like to see that bit naked on the table for our collective inspection. |
8th January 2016, 11:57 AM | #423 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
A) They didn't necessarily have to frame an innocent man. They could have just been manipulating evidence to create a stronger case against someone whom they thought to be guilty, and maybe even was.
B) The clear and present conflict of interest has been discussed ad nauseam. Either you accept that, or you don't. I'm not sure from where you derived this "direct and compelling interest" standard, what exactly it's supposed to mean, or why you think anyone has to meet it. |
8th January 2016, 12:06 PM | #424 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Another juror comments.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/making-a...avery-verdict/ |
8th January 2016, 12:19 PM | #425 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
There are some things that occurred in this case that are simply not okay, whether you believe in Avery and Dassey's guilt or innocence.
1.) Admittedly contaminated DNA was allowed into evidence. 2.) The breaking of protocol to say it was Avery's DNA found instead of reporting inconclusive was not originally disclosed. This has disturbing shades of Duane Deaver and Stefanoni letting everyone know presumptive tests for blood were positive but neglecting to disclose that confirmatory tests for blood were negative. Those two get put through the wringer on here. Yet because some on here believe in Avery's guilt unlike Amanda and Raffaele's innocence, their willingness to let this sort of behaviour slide in this trial is fairly upsetting. I guess contamination only counts when you believe they are innocent? I guess fair trials are only for those you believe are innocent? 3.) After a big public showing regarding the conflict of interest and saying they were handing off the investigation, key players in the Avery rape case were the ones who found key evidence in the Avery murder case. Their words (big showing of conflict of interest) and their actions (searching the crime scene anyway) were not congruent. If it was anyone else who found the bullet and key, there would hardly be a discussion here. Manitowoc County could've saved themselves a lot of current trouble, if Avery's truly guilty, by simply staying away from searching the presumed crime scenes. But at the end of the day, what do they care, they got their conviction and no discussion on the internet is going to change that. 4.) Brendan Dassey's public defender was batting for the other team in the Dassey trial. It appears that truethat seems to believe the police padded their case with planted evidence to ensure Avery was convicted. If the police need to pad their case with planted evidence to ensure a conviction, then maybe that says something about their case. If the police are allowed to pad their case with planted evidence because everyone believes the suspect to be guilty anyway, then can we trust them to get it right 100% of the time? We already know the answer to that. |
8th January 2016, 12:22 PM | #426 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
I think there is some confusion in this thread between the first and the second crimes. I do not think they had a reason to frame him the first time. I think they really thought he did it. Once he was in jail, they might have ignored evidence to the contrary to keep him there, but it was not a frame up to begin with.
The Halbach murder might have been a frame job and the motivations for that might have been pride and/or the lawsuit. |
8th January 2016, 12:25 PM | #427 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
Steven Avery
Quote:
This isn't a case of an ordinary citizen getting caught up in an investigation simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Despite the rape exoneration, Avery is still a dangerous criminal who was certainly capable of committing the crime, and he was the obvious suspect. The alternative - that the police framed him (presumably by monitoring his communications and then intercepting the victim, murdering her, and hiding the evidence) is far less likely. However, it may be that someone did plant evidence to make the case stronger. If this can be proved then those responsible should be punished, and a re-trial ordered. But if Avery manages to get off due to this then a real miscarriage of justice will have occurred. Would any good come of it? Perhaps, if the police come to realize that getting a conviction by foul means is not worth it, even when the perp is definitely guilty. OTOH, a dangerous criminal will be free to kill again... |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
8th January 2016, 12:34 PM | #428 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
|
8th January 2016, 12:38 PM | #429 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
8th January 2016, 01:17 PM | #430 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
This obsession with proving the police framed Avery is a red herring. And it completely misses the point.
Samzilla did a nice job of summarizing the issues with this case we know for a fact indicate gross misconduct. There's no need to go down the rabbit hole any farther. I don't care how despicable a defendant is, or how much other evidence might point to his guilt, once police and prosecutors engage is this kind of behavior, the whole process becomes tainted. And it's stunning to me how casually people can shrug their shoulders at this. |
8th January 2016, 01:23 PM | #431 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
8th January 2016, 02:13 PM | #432 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
Straw man - I never said anyone here believes that.
But some are arguing that the police took advantage of a crime which occurred by pure coincidence, the very next day after Avery sued them. What luck! I don't buy it. If the police needed to set him up to get out of a ruinous lawsuit then they couldn't just sit around waiting for a crime to plant evidence in, they had to manufacture the crime itself.
Originally Posted by truethat
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
8th January 2016, 02:28 PM | #433 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
I don't think you know what a straw man is. You provided two scenarios:
Scenario 1: "Despite the rape exoneration, Avery is still a dangerous criminal who was certainly capable of committing the crime, and he was the obvious suspect." Scenario 2: "The alternative - that the police framed him (presumably by monitoring his communications and then intercepting the victim, murdering her, and hiding the evidence) is far less likely.You said explicitly that the alternative (meaning Halbach was killed by the police) was less likely. You brought it up. I responded to that comment by saying I don't really think anyone here believes that." You're the one who created the straw man by creating Scenario 2 that the police murdered Halbach, knocked it down (saying it was less likely), and declared Scenario 1 the winner. But no one here was arguing Scenario 2. Only you (and Ken Kratz). I'm sure you can find all kinds of crazy posts on Reddit or in the comments section of articles on the case, but here is pretty even-handed. That is the definition of a straw man. You set up an argument as the only alternative, knocked it down, and by process of elimination concluded your preferred scenario was the winner. There are tons of other scenarios possible that don't involve the police murdering Teresa Halbach that still involve a biased or unfair trial. |
8th January 2016, 02:38 PM | #434 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
Exactly. Proof is for private citizens - but when it come to the police just a suspicion is enough. And in any case where there is even a suspicion that a piece of evidence might be 'tainted', we must acquit!
Unlike you, I don't think murderers should be free to roam the streets just because police investigations aren't always flawless. If a preponderance of clean evidence proves that the perp is guilty then he should go down. And if it can be proven that some cops planted evidence or coerced confessions then that should be dealt with separately.
Quote:
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
8th January 2016, 02:46 PM | #435 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Here is Brandon Dassey's entire 4-hour police interview:
http://www.people.com/article/making...ire-confession It's interesting to see how the story develops. |
8th January 2016, 02:54 PM | #436 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
8th January 2016, 03:01 PM | #437 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
8th January 2016, 03:03 PM | #438 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
|
8th January 2016, 03:09 PM | #439 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
But some people do believe that, and scenario 2. has even been floated in this thread. That is what I was addressing, not what people here believe. Your straw man was knocking down an argument that I wasn't making.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
8th January 2016, 03:17 PM | #440 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
Innocent men suffer all the time. If they didn't there would be no point having trials because only the guilty would ever be prosecuted. In reality, 90% of those prosecuted are guilty. If only the guilty are convicted then the system is working as designed.
Show enough evidence to persuade me that Avery isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt and I could change my mind about this case - but I still won't accept that "better that 100 guilty men escape than one innocent suffer" means that murderers should be allowed to get off on a technicality. |
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|