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, 03:28 PM   #441
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
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.
It's just painful. I'd like to see those detectives behind bars. I wonder what Jim Clemente or John Douglas would think about the interrogation.
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, 03:28 PM   #442
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
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.
You just said a preponderance of evidence was enough for you (in a murder case no less). That, by the way, is not how we do criminal cases in North America. At least you're making progress and now saying beyond a reasonable doubt.

Last edited by Samzilla; 8th January 2016 at 03:45 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, 03:45 PM   #443
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
Originally Posted by JREF2010 View Post
Baetz said he found it troubling that the key and keychain contained DNA from Avery, but no one else, not even Halbach
And? The prosecutors go with the evidence they have, not the evidence they wish they had. Believe it or not, not all evidence holds up in court - even that which the prosecutors think is rock solid.

Perhaps if it was so 'troubling' they should have excluded it. Or perhaps it's not as 'troubling' as one person thinks it was. If 'the police' cleaned the key and put Avery's DNA on it, why not put Halbach's DNA on it too? And where did they get the key from? But somebody had possession of that key and cleaned it - the most obvious culprit being Avery himself (since he is the one most likely to have wanted to erase any evidence of its former owner).
__________________
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 8th January 2016, 03:48 PM   #444
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
But somebody had possession of that key and cleaned it - the most obvious culprit being Avery himself (since he is the one most likely to have wanted to erase any evidence of its former owner).
Begging the question is a logical fallacy.
Matthew Best 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, 04:03 PM   #445
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
Originally Posted by Samzilla View Post
You just said a preponderance of evidence was enough for you (in a murder case no less).
preponderance
1: a superiority in weight, power, importance, or strength

Like most jurors, I weigh up the evidence for and against. That which has the greatest power and importance wins. I would have convicted O.J. Simpson despite the glove not fitting.

Quote:
That, by the way, is not how we do criminal cases in North America.
If you take the legal definition of 'preponderance' then theoretically that's true. However having been on a jury I can tell you that in practice - it isn't.
__________________
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 8th January 2016, 04:06 PM   #446
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
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!
Actually, that's not too far from how it's supposed to work.

Quote:
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 going to overlook the straw man about the necessity of a "flawless" investigation, and just ask you how you are supposed to differentiate the good evidence from the bad if it all comes from the same compromised source?

Quote:
I'm more inclined to believe it was an oversight rather than a deliberate lie.
I tell you I'm not going to eat a donut.

I then eat seven.

Oversight or deliberate lie?
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, 04:13 PM   #447
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
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.
It's not about freeing murderers but rather keeping the power of the state in check.

No one wants murderers roaming the streets.

But each of us as individuals are in much more danger from a criminal justice system that blithely steamrolls due process in order to secure convictions.
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, 04:16 PM   #448
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
Perhaps if it was so 'troubling' they should have excluded it.
Don't look now, but you might be approaching the point...

Quote:
Or perhaps it's not as 'troubling' as one person thinks it was. If 'the police' cleaned the key and put Avery's DNA on it, why not put Halbach's DNA on it too? And where did they get the key from? But somebody had possession of that key and cleaned it - the most obvious culprit being Avery himself (since he is the one most likely to have wanted to erase any evidence of its former owner).
So you're theorizing that Avery wiped it clean and then re-applied his own DNA?
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, 04:21 PM   #449
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Begging the question is a logical fallacy.
Yes, it is a form of circular reasoning.

"But somebody had possession of that key and cleaned it".

But who was that somebody? No circular reasoning here.

"the most obvious culprit being Avery himself (since he is the one most likely to have wanted to erase any evidence of its former owner)."

Its circular reasoning to suggest that the person who had the key cleaned it? Or that the perpetrator would be the one most likely to clean forensic evidence off something he took from the scene of the crime?

Oh right, I get it now. You think it's just as likely that the police would wipe clean all the evidence that they collect!
__________________
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 8th January 2016, 04:22 PM   #450
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,112
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I tell you I'm not going to eat a donut.

I then eat seven.
Must. Resist. Eating. Donut!
__________________
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 8th January 2016, 04:29 PM   #451
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
preponderance
1: a superiority in weight, power, importance, or strength

Like most jurors, I weigh up the evidence for and against. That which has the greatest power and importance wins. I would have convicted O.J. Simpson despite the glove not fitting.

If you take the legal definition of 'preponderance' then theoretically that's true. However having been on a jury I can tell you that in practice - it isn't.
"Preponderance of clean evidence" (your exact words) is not synonymous with beyond a reasonable doubt. You even admit as much in your last paragraph, so I'm not sure why you're giving the definition of preponderance as if that changes anything.

Preponderance is enough for civil cases. Not criminal cases. End of. Unless you don't care about a just and fair justice system.

The attitudes, biases, and prejudices on show in this thread are a perfect microcosm of exactly why miscarriages of justice occur.
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, 04:50 PM   #452
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Curious to know how many people here believe the murder took place in:

a.) the bedroom
b.) the garage
c.) the crime spanned both scenes

Would love to see some timelines that people have put together.

Last edited by Samzilla; 8th January 2016 at 04:54 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, 04:57 PM   #453
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Its circular reasoning to suggest that the person who had the key cleaned it? Or that the perpetrator would be the one most likely to clean forensic evidence off something he took from the scene of the crime?
It's cicular reasoning to say that Avery is the perpetrator in a thread that is, in part, discussing whether he was or wasn't. But you knew this already...
Matthew Best 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, 05:26 PM   #454
JTF
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
Injustice Followed By Justice

MATTHEW: You clearly didn't read my first few posts on this thread. It seems rather obvious that Avery's rape conviction qualifies as a gross injustice, but unlike the murder charge, there was definitive proof of his innocence. This included DNA evidence and corroborative testimony indicating that local law enforcement ignored exculpatory data.

In the past several pages, I've focused on the lack of hard evidence that would exculpate Avery and the inculpatory evidence that was powerful enough to keep Avery in prison for the past 10 years. Most of the posters on this thread have relied on hyperbolic rhetoric and unsubstantiated conspiracy claims in an attempt to muddy the waters on a relatively straight forward murder case.

Given the evidence found on the Avery compound, any criminal investigator worth a salt would consider Avery the PRIME suspect in the murder of Teresa Halbach. A burned body found in a fire pit, some of the victim's personal belongings found in a burn barrel, the victim's DNA found on a bullet sourced to a weapon owned by the perp, and the perp's DNA found inside the victim's vehicle/under the hood of the vehicle.

Many posters don't trust that evidence, but to an investigator, that evidentiary list is a virtual treasure trove. That same list also convinced a jury, a district court judge, and 3 circuit court judges that Steven Avery is a cold-blooded killer.
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, 05:34 PM   #455
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
MATTHEW: You clearly didn't read my first few posts on this thread. It seems rather obvious that Avery's rape conviction qualifies as a gross injustice, but unlike the murder charge, there was definitive proof of his innocence. This included DNA evidence and corroborative testimony indicating that local law enforcement ignored exculpatory data.

In the past several pages, I've focused on the lack of hard evidence that would exculpate Avery and the inculpatory evidence that was powerful enough to keep Avery in prison for the past 10 years. Most of the posters on this thread have relied on hyperbolic rhetoric and unsubstantiated conspiracy claims in an attempt to muddy the waters on a relatively straight forward murder case.

Given the evidence found on the Avery compound, any criminal investigator worth a salt would consider Avery the PRIME suspect in the murder of Teresa Halbach. A burned body found in a fire pit, some of the victim's personal belongings found in a burn barrel, the victim's DNA found on a bullet sourced to a weapon owned by the perp, and the perp's DNA found inside the victim's vehicle/under the hood of the vehicle.

Many posters don't trust that evidence, but to an investigator, that evidentiary list is a virtual treasure trove. That same list also convinced a jury, a district court judge, and 3 circuit court judges that Steven Avery is a cold-blooded killer.
Can we strike the "victim's DNA found on a bullet sourced to a weapon owned by the perp"? It's legitimately contaminated. Not even in a "well the defense says it's contaminated" sense. The prosecution admits it. It's their own witness. Oh yeah, and then she failed to disclose that she was breaking protocol by admitting the evidence as a match to Avery instead of inconclusive as she should have. When called on why they broke protocol, they said it's common sense. This is mind-boggling.

Last edited by Samzilla; 8th January 2016 at 05:36 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, 05:38 PM   #456
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by JTF View Post
That same list also convinced a jury, a district court judge, and 3 circuit court judges
As has happened with a vast number of miscarriages of justice. This point means nothing, unless you are claiming that miscarriages of justice don't happen.
__________________
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, 05:40 PM   #457
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Samzilla View Post
Can we strike the "victim's DNA found on a bullet sourced to a weapon owned by the perp"? It's legitimately contaminated. Not even in a "well the defense says it's contaminated" sense. The prosecution admits it. It's their own witness. Oh yeah, and then she failed to disclose that she was breaking protocol by admitting the evidence as a match to Avery instead of inconclusive as she should have. When called on why they broke protocol, they said it's common sense. This is mind-boggling.
The bullet is the most dubious piece of evidence, but the key isn't far behind. How could these fundamentally crucial items be overlooked for so, so long by forensic experts?
__________________
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, 05:52 PM   #458
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater View Post
It's just painful. I'd like to see those detectives behind bars. I wonder what Jim Clemente or John Douglas would think about the interrogation.
After watching two hours of it I have to agree. I don't find much of probative value in it at all. It reminds me of a demonstration of recovered memories by hypnosis - garbage in, garbage out.

There seems to be quite a bit of "training" by the cops, correcting where the narrative doesn't fit and reinforcing when it does. Maybe "assisted communication" would be a better analogy, because the kid can't even remember which version was the one the cops wanted to hear the last time through it.
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, 05:55 PM   #459
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The bullet is the most dubious piece of evidence, but the key isn't far behind. How could these fundamentally crucial items be overlooked for so, so long by forensic experts?
It is surely (noble) cause corruption. I guess this happens a lot more than realised, and only a few high profile cases get exposed.
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 8th January 2016, 05:55 PM   #460
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
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.
I've always thought that an odd expression. Because the 100 that go free are going to be preying on the innocent. It would seem the innocent will suffer no matter what you do. Perhaps simply minimizing the innocents who suffer is the better course of action.
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, 05:55 PM   #461
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
MATTHEW: You clearly didn't read my first few posts on this thread. It seems rather obvious that Avery's rape conviction qualifies as a gross injustice, but unlike the murder charge, there was definitive proof of his innocence. This included DNA evidence and corroborative testimony indicating that local law enforcement ignored exculpatory data.

In the past several pages, I've focused on the lack of hard evidence that would exculpate Avery and the inculpatory evidence that was powerful enough to keep Avery in prison for the past 10 years. Most of the posters on this thread have relied on hyperbolic rhetoric and unsubstantiated conspiracy claims in an attempt to muddy the waters on a relatively straight forward murder case.

Given the evidence found on the Avery compound, any criminal investigator worth a salt would consider Avery the PRIME suspect in the murder of Teresa Halbach. A burned body found in a fire pit, some of the victim's personal belongings found in a burn barrel, the victim's DNA found on a bullet sourced to a weapon owned by the perp, and the perp's DNA found inside the victim's vehicle/under the hood of the vehicle.

Many posters don't trust that evidence, but to an investigator, that evidentiary list is a virtual treasure trove. That same list also convinced a jury, a district court judge, and 3 circuit court judges that Steven Avery is a cold-blooded killer.
Can you give me a list of the evidence against Dassey?
Matthew Best 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, 05:57 PM   #462
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is surely (noble) cause corruption. I guess this happens a lot more than realised, and only a few high profile cases get exposed.
That would almost have to follow if the crooked cops scenario is true. A guy that will risk his career because the county is getting sued will risk it for many other things more pressing.

Last edited by marplots; 8th January 2016 at 05:58 PM.
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, 06:03 PM   #463
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
That would almost have to follow if the crooked cops scenario is true. A guy that will risk his career because the county is getting sued will risk it for many other things more pressing.
If it did happen, its far more likely to have been done to ensure Avery (who the cops simply knew did it) went down. As was pointed out earlier, the implicated cops were not parties to the law suit.
__________________
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, 06:11 PM   #464
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It is surely (noble) cause corruption. I guess this happens a lot more than realised, and only a few high profile cases get exposed.
I'm sure the cops in the Amanda Knox case thought their cause noble. You no doubt disagree.

This is not off topic, by the way, but illustrative of how people can either dismiss tainted evidence as irrelevant or demand that cases be thrown out because of such evidence depending on their biases.
__________________
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, 06:24 PM   #465
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,941
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I'm sure the cops in the Amanda Knox case thought their cause noble. You no doubt disagree.

This is not off topic, by the way, but illustrative of how people can either dismiss tainted evidence as irrelevant or demand that cases be thrown out because of such evidence depending on their biases.
It looks on topic to me. If Avery factually did this crime it is noble cause corruption. If he didn't but Lenk believed he did, I guess that is cause corruption. But if Lenk did the crime we have to develop a new set of scales to weigh it up.
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 8th January 2016, 06:31 PM   #466
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It looks on topic to me. If Avery factually did this crime it is noble cause corruption. If he didn't but Lenk believed he did, I guess that is cause corruption. But if Lenk did the crime we have to develop a new set of scales to weigh it up.
To me it's simple. If it's corruption, or the strong possibility of corruption (which I believe is the case here) any conviction is unsafe and should be thrown out.
__________________
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, 06:42 PM   #467
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
 
JREF2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
And? The prosecutors go with the evidence they have, not the evidence they wish they had. Believe it or not, not all evidence holds up in court - even that which the prosecutors think is rock solid.

Perhaps if it was so 'troubling' they should have excluded it. Or perhaps it's not as 'troubling' as one person thinks it was. If 'the police' cleaned the key and put Avery's DNA on it, why not put Halbach's DNA on it too? And where did they get the key from? But somebody had possession of that key and cleaned it - the most obvious culprit being Avery himself (since he is the one most likely to have wanted to erase any evidence of its former owner).
That doesnt even make any sense, so the accused wipes off someones DNA and leaves their own DNA on the key. ok.... nevermind.
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, 07:45 PM   #468
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
I haven't seen the movie nor know much of anything about the case. But what evidence showed that a key was cleaned? Traces of solvent or cleanser or what?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 07:53 PM   #469
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I haven't seen the movie nor know much of anything about the case. But what evidence showed that a key was cleaned? Traces of solvent or cleanser or what?
As far as I remember there was nothing like that, it was just reported that there was no other DNA on the key.
Matthew Best 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, 08:13 PM   #470
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
As far as I remember there was nothing like that, it was just reported that there was no other DNA on the key.
Halbach was either an astonishingly compulsive cleaner of a key she used daily, or, far more likely, it was cleaned by the someone else before or after it was (again astonishingly) found in a well-searched place.
__________________
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, 08:17 PM   #471
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
So it's strictly an assumption that the key was cleaned? Was science brought forth in the trial to show that the key was cleaned?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 08:28 PM   #472
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
So it's strictly an assumption that the key was cleaned? Was science brought forth in the trial to show that the key was cleaned?
The untainted key, apart from Avery's DNA was raised by the prosecution, but I can't recall if scientific support was included. Certainly the other crucial piece of evidence, the "magic bullet" was strongly challenged by forensic science experts.
__________________
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, 08:32 PM   #473
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
People are saying that Avery is innocent because they believe police tampered with that key?

Sorry I'm uninformed but this case has been in the news a lot because people watched it on Netflix.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 08:36 PM   #474
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
People are saying that Avery is innocent because they believe police tampered with that key?
Well, there's a little more to it than that.
Matthew Best 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, 08:48 PM   #475
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
If the key was not tampered with by police is Avery guilty?
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th January 2016, 08:54 PM   #476
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
There's a summary available here:

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/8/10734268...murderer-avery
Matthew Best 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, 08:59 PM   #477
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
If the key was not tampered with by police is Avery guilty?
Well, there's a little more to it than that.
Matthew Best 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, 09:00 PM   #478
Samzilla
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
Kathleen Zellner is now representing Avery.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/story...very/78529270/
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, 09:03 PM   #479
Modified
Philosopher
 
Modified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The untainted key, apart from Avery's DNA was raised by the prosecution, but I can't recall if scientific support was included.
There probably is no support because this is something too obvious to study. Test the car keys of 100 people and I bet DNA of the owner will be confirmed on 100 of them, even if you run into someone who regularly wears gloves or regularly washes their car keys.
Modified 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, 09:11 PM   #480
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by Samzilla View Post
Kathleen Zellner is now representing Avery.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/story...very/78529270/
Interesting. I recognise her name from the Ryan Ferguson case.
Matthew Best 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 01:55 AM.
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.