IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 8th January 2016, 01:45 AM   #401
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
Quote:
But you don't necessarily have anger, deep seeded hatred or resentment towards the person who called it in. You are just worried about the fall out.
Necessarily? No.

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
DragonLady 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 8th January 2016, 05:49 AM   #402
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
How this dumpy sadist
Amateur psychoanalysis.

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
I'll try again. The murder of Teresa Halbach was a henious crime and speaks to the fact that the perp who committed the crime is a psychopath.
More amateur psychoanalysis.

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
Ergo, if you believe that the perp is Steven Avery, there is no need to prove why he did it because psychopaths have a specific psychological make-up.
Oh good grief.

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
As I stated in my prior post, psychopaths derive pleasure from inflicting emotional and physical pain.
Not according to actual psychologists.

Originally Posted by JTF View Post
The evidence of his guilt is so overwhelming
And what is this "overwhelming evidence" then?
__________________
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.
catsmate 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 8th January 2016, 05:52 AM   #403
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
You don't see a problem with members of the jury being related to people the defendant was suing?
Yes but the defense knew of the relationship and chose not to use one of their strikes on that juror.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 06:58 AM   #404
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Cool story. If you ignore the fact that the Manitowoc Police Department was told that, 10 years before Avery was released that a nearby police force had someone in custody who raped a woman in their town. The person who actually did it, Gregory Allan. What was the response of the police - "we have our man" or words to that effect. Now why wasn't this properly investigated? I have an answer, what's yours?

Why did you ignore this? It was prominently featured in the documentary. Did you watch it all? Doesn't seem so.
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.
truethat 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 8th January 2016, 07:00 AM   #405
truethat
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Necessarily? No.

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.
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.
truethat 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 8th January 2016, 08:32 AM   #406
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
Yes but the defense knew of the relationship and chose not to use one of their strikes on that juror.
A lesser of two evils... or seven:
Quote:
[Strang] confirmed that he and Buting had concerns about the juror revealed to be the father of a Manitowoc County sheriff’s deputy—but not as much as they had over the six potential jurors they struck during jury selection, exhausting their maximum strikes. “You don’t pick a jury. All you can do is unpick the people you think are least fit to serve on the jury,” he explained. “But the concerns about six other potential jurors were greater.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ery-again.html
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 09:28 AM   #407
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
First I agree with this statement.

I'd love to actually have a conversation about this if you don't mind. As I said the reaction to this documentary reminds me of the reaction to the other documentary "The Impostor" It's on Netflix and it's a lot shorter. (take a look if you want)

There's a couple of things that the documentary seems to present as FACTS that might not be facts.

Think of our reaction to the first episode. We see a guy get exonerated after serving 18 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.

The perspective is that of Steven Avery who obviously sat there every single day of his sentence knowing he did not do it. And then he gets out. So we put ourselves in his position and think about how he felt and walk away with anger, suspicion and disgust towards the police.

But indulge me for a moment. The police either knew 100% he did not do it and decided to "get him" because they thought he was bad news. Or maybe they really thought he did it, and they interpreted everything that way because they thought he did.

Our assumption was it was a deliberate frame job because that's how Avery interpreted it. But is it true? For example the sketch of the suspect looked a lot like Avery's mug shot. So it was presented like the guy made it look like his "mug shot" but in reality the man may have known Avery, have known what he looked like and as he's sketching he's thinking "Wow she's describing Avery" and so he sketches it out to look like him.

Can you see the difference between them
  1. Knowing he did not do it and framing him.
  2. Thinking that he did do it and honestly interpreting the evidence that way.


Let's play devils advocate for a second. Confirmation bias happens to everyone. if in their mind he did it, it may not have been a situation of them forcing or manipulating the evidence to "frame him" but "tunnel vision" and interpreting all the evidence with him in mind.

They were wrong. They find out years later, almost two decades later they were wrong. Now they have not sat for 18 years brooding over this because they really thought they got the right guy.

So if they really thought they got the right guy, why would they have animosity towards him if they made a mistake?

I think anyone who has worked for a company knows what it is like to have a huge **** up happen and then you wonder how the chips are going to fall and whose heads are gonna roll. But you don't necessarily have anger, deep seeded hatred or resentment towards the person who called it in. You are just worried about the fall out.

So in order for the "Steven Avery was deliberately framed for the murder of Teresa H." to work, you have to start from the mindset that they were bitter, resentful and angry that their original frame up got revealed.

But if it wasn't a frame up and it was an honest mistake, then there's not a reason for this kind of a reaction.

The documentary told you that they had the reaction. Steven Avery told you that they had this reaction.

But what evidence outside of these biased perspectives do you have that show this is really what happened?
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?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 09:45 AM   #408
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
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.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 09:57 AM   #409
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Cool story. If you ignore the fact that the Manitowoc Police Department was told that, 10 years before Avery was released that a nearby police force had someone in custody who raped a woman in their town. The person who actually did it, Gregory Allan. What was the response of the police - "we have our man" or words to that effect. Now why wasn't this properly investigated? I have an answer, what's yours?

Why did you ignore this? It was prominently featured in the documentary. Did you watch it all? Doesn't seem so.
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..
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 8th January 2016, 10:13 AM   #410
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
It's not "simple incompetence" to announce to the world that a sheriff's department with a conflict of interest will not be taking part in an investigation, and then allowing them to take part in the investigation.

That's blatant malfeasance.
This part I cannot address, since I haven't got far enough into the documentary.

Quote:
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this line of questioning. Are you saying conflicts of interests in the criminal justice system such as this one are okay as long as we can assume no one is acting with ill intent? Because that seems like a bizarrely naive position to take.

Personally, I take the position that it is best to avoid these conflicts of interest in the first place, and not worry about intent.
Since it seems naive to you, I shall attempt to flesh out my thinking.

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:
My objections are based on the idea that a law enforcement agency with a very big axe to grind against someone shouldn't also be allowed to investigate them.
I would also dispute this "very big ax to grind" business.
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.
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 8th January 2016, 10:15 AM   #411
marplots
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.
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 8th January 2016, 10:29 AM   #412
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
This part I cannot address, since I haven't got far enough into the documentary.

Since it seems naive to you, I shall attempt to flesh out my thinking.

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.

I would also dispute this "very big ax to grind" business.
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.
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.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 10:38 AM   #413
JTF
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.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 10:41 AM   #414
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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.
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.
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 8th January 2016, 10:46 AM   #415
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
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.
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.
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 8th January 2016, 10:52 AM   #416
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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?
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.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 11:12 AM   #417
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
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.
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:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by marplots; 8th January 2016 at 11:13 AM.
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 8th January 2016, 11:18 AM   #418
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
Originally Posted by truethat View Post
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.
This nonsense doesn't address my point. In a post about how the police may not have framed Avery for the rape, you leave out the most important bit of evidence confirming it. Why didn't you include this fact? Why do you think the police ignored it?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 8th January 2016, 11:22 AM   #419
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Well the highlighted is wrong. This is why they were asked not to be involved in the investigation. Further, taint is enough. Cases are thrown out of court all the time due to tainted evidence.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 8th January 2016, 11:31 AM   #420
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
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.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 11:33 AM   #421
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Well the highlighted is wrong. This is why they were asked not to be involved in the investigation.
Exactly. It's tough to argue there wasn't a real conflict of interest when the very people running the investigation acknowledged it.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 11:38 AM   #422
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Quote:
Marplots
"people without a direct and compelling interest"
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Well the highlighted is wrong. This is why they were asked not to be involved in the investigation. Further, taint is enough. Cases are thrown out of court all the time due to tainted evidence.
Could you state clearly what you believe the direct and compelling interest was to commit felonies and frame an innocent man? I'm asking for this separately from the general charge of "taint" because I think it's the substance of the argument, the very core of the objections.

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.
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 8th January 2016, 11:57 AM   #423
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Could you state clearly what you believe the direct and compelling interest was to commit felonies and frame an innocent man?
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.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 12:06 PM   #424
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Another juror comments.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/making-a...avery-verdict/
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 8th January 2016, 12:19 PM   #425
Samzilla
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.

Last edited by Samzilla; 8th January 2016 at 12:37 PM.
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 8th January 2016, 12:22 PM   #426
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Could you state clearly what you believe the direct and compelling interest was to commit felonies and frame an innocent man? I'm asking for this separately from the general charge of "taint" because I think it's the substance of the argument, the very core of the objections.

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.
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.
Ampulla of Vater is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 12:25 PM   #427
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Steven Avery
Quote:
At age 18, Avery pleaded guilty to burglary of a bar and was sentenced to 10 months in prison. When he was 20, Avery and another man pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after pouring gasoline and oil on Avery's cat and throwing it, alive, into a fire; Avery was again sentenced to prison. In 1985, Avery was charged with assaulting his cousin, the wife of a part-time Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy, and possessing a firearm as a felon
...
On June 1, 2007, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder of Halbach. He was also sentenced to 5 years for felony possession of a firearm
So was he framed for all the other offenses as well? If not then I have no sympathy for him. This the kind of criminal who should be behind bars.

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.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 12:34 PM   #428
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Steven Avery
So was he framed for all the other offenses as well? If not then I have no sympathy for him. This the kind of criminal who should be behind bars.

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...
I can't think of a single person on here who believes the police murdered Teresa Halbach.
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 8th January 2016, 12:38 PM   #429
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Samzilla View Post
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.
To be fair, if evidence was planted then it may have only been one misguided cop who thought the case was too weak. 'The police' may well have believed that their more thorough investigation uncovered real evidence.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 01:17 PM   #430
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
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.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 01:23 PM   #431
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
To be fair, if evidence was planted then it may have only been one misguided cop who thought the case was too weak. 'The police' may well have believed that their more thorough investigation uncovered real evidence.
"The police" went on live television and lied to the world about how the investigation would be conducted.

The prosecutor was revealed to be an unethical scumbag who abused the power of his office.

I find it difficult to give any of them the benefit of the doubt.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 02:13 PM   #432
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Samzilla View Post
I can't think of a single person on here who believes the police murdered Teresa Halbach.
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
Some people are suggesting that the cops actually killed her and framed him.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 02:28 PM   #433
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
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.
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.

Last edited by Samzilla; 8th January 2016 at 02:34 PM.
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 8th January 2016, 02:38 PM   #434
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
This obsession with proving the police framed Avery is a red herring.
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:
"The police" went on live television and lied to the world about how the investigation would be conducted.
I'm more inclined to believe it was an oversight rather than a deliberate lie.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 02:46 PM   #435
marplots
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.
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 8th January 2016, 02:54 PM   #436
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
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 a ppellate court judges.
Basically you're saying that miscarriages of justice can't happen.

Maybe a sceptics site isn't really for you?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 03:01 PM   #437
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,891
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
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.

I'm more inclined to believe it was an oversight rather than a deliberate lie.
You don't believe in this then?:

"better that 100 guilty men escape than one innocent suffer"

It's one of the bases of a civilised criminal justice system.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 8th January 2016, 03:03 PM   #438
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
To be fair, if evidence was planted then it may have only been one misguided cop who thought the case was too weak. 'The police' may well have believed that their more thorough investigation uncovered real evidence.
Baetz said he found it troubling that the key and keychain contained DNA from Avery, but no one else, not even Halbach.

“Now, that’s got to be ********,” Baetz said. “It’s her key, she’s been handling it for years.”

(Baetz was a detective in the case)
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 8th January 2016, 03:09 PM   #439
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Samzilla View Post
I responded to that comment by saying I don't really think anyone here believes that."
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:
You're the one who created the straw man by creating Scenario 2
I didn't create scenario 2. But if you believe that 'the police' framed Avery for a crime he didn't commit then you must accept it as the most likely possibility. Why? All the other damning evidence must also have been manufactured. That they would cook up such a scheme but leave the crime itself to chance is unbelievable.

Quote:
You set up an argument as the only alternative
It's not the only alternative, but the others are even less likely.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 03:17 PM   #440
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You don't believe in this then?:

"better that 100 guilty men escape than one innocent suffer"

It's one of the bases of a civilised criminal justice system.
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.
Roger Ramjets is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.