|
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, 10:04 PM | #481 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Hi JK. I notice you are doing something that I see in flawed "discussions" all the time. We're discussing ideas right? But instead you are "debating ideas" and when people DEBATE ideas, they tend to equivocate instead of objectively analyze. The key points you made above were about the SECOND trial, which you seem to be equating to the FIRST trial. When the first trial happened, DNA evaluation was not available. That's how he got exonerated remember? My interpretation of the SECOND trial was more about the CSI affect. That they felt they needed DNA evidence to grant a conviction so they planted it. However, in the last few days I've reconsidered my position. The reason I have done so is that I realize that I got swept up in the drama of the story and just believed the angle of the documentary. That's what we are trained to do by movies and television shows right? Follow the lead, follow the angle. When I see interviews with the investigative team involved, I wonder why I just assumed the evidence was planted. Not just assumed but believed. |
8th January 2016, 10:50 PM | #482 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
I'm thinking about watching the whole thing from the beginning again, because I've had a lot of time to think it over and want to see if the points made still resonate for me. I'm reluctant, though, to sit through Dassey's interviews. I found those to be really disturbing. When I saw his own lawyer getting him to confess, I thought -honestly- that I had either missed something important, or the film was edited badly. I just did not -could not- believe what I was seeing. I still very much believe Avery is probably guilty. But I think the show has really opened my eyes about just how shoddy and unprofessional criminal investigations can be, and I'm appalled. |
__________________
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, 11:01 PM | #483 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
Musings
TRUE: A few thoughts regarding the allegation that evidence was planted on Avery's property.
1) Avery advocates claim that investigators planted Avery's blood inside Halbach's vehicle, yet don't address why these same conspirators deposit Avery's sweat (e.g., Touch DNA) under the hood of the vehicle instead of his blood? 2) In the same vein, why did these conspirators deposit Avery's sweat on Halbach's car key instead of his blood? IMO, both scenarios are illogical and speak to the scattershot mindset of conspiracy proponents. |
8th January 2016, 11:40 PM | #484 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
Again: I think Avery is guilty. But I've concluded there's enough "reasonable doubt" to drive a truck through. In my mind's eye I can see the way it could play out if the LEOs were afraid he would be exonerated or even if one or more really were on a personal vendetta. If Avery is, in fact, guilty it shouldn't be too hard to prove from the "mountain of evidence" they supposedly have that wasn't found or handled by any of the people with conflicts of interest. |
__________________
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 |
|
9th January 2016, 01:34 AM | #485 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
Question: Were any other suspects considered at the time of the investigation? Have people with doubts about Avery's conviction proposed other suspects? Apparently Avery has suggested that his brothers -- criminals themselves -- might have set him up for business reasons. Is that a possibility?
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/...d-him-20160106 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2487493 |
9th January 2016, 01:47 AM | #486 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
|
From the documentary, nobody else was considered. Halbach's ex-boyfriend had no alibi.
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
9th January 2016, 02:21 AM | #487 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Her current boyfriend and either some friends or family members were allowed to search the yard. I believe the woman who found the car was a friend of the victim?
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th January 2016, 02:22 AM | #488 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
|
9th January 2016, 02:25 AM | #489 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
I just remember she was connected somehow, and -I think- she had with her a camera the victim's boyfriend loaned her.
I probably really do need to watch the whole thing again, because I know there are a lot of details I've simply forgotten. I have no memory of what Avery claimed he was doing between the time he claimed the victim left his house, and the time he was out in the yard with Dassey at the "bomb fire". |
__________________
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 |
|
9th January 2016, 05:31 AM | #490 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
So were Harry Gleeson, Timothy Evans, George Kelly, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, Derek Bentley and George Stinney. They were executed despite being innocent.
Then there are Kirk Bloodsworth, Delbert Tibbs, Walter McMillian, Joseph Burrows, Gary Gauger, Ron Williamson, Ray Krone, Anthony Graves, Carl Dausch, Debra Milke, Michael Shirley, Stefan Kiszko, Patrick Molloy, Jim Robinson, Michael and Vincent Hickey, Andrew Evans, Winston Silcott and dozens more. At least they weren't wrongfully executed. |
__________________
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. |
|
9th January 2016, 05:35 AM | #491 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Oh wonderful, he was a criminal so it's fine that he was wrongfully convicted.
Based on your opinion? Is that all that should be needed to convict someone? Great, the "obvious suspect". I hope for your sake you're never in that position. |
__________________
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. |
|
9th January 2016, 07:08 AM | #492 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Well let me ask a question. (And this is HYPOTHETICAL and JUST A QUESTION not a statement about Avery)
How do you handle someone who is definitely criminal, predatory but you don't have enough evidence to convict them? Let's say for example you have a pedophile, he's hurt several children. But you don't have enough evidence to convict him. Then you get him on dealing drugs (let's say he uses them on the kids as well) but you don't have enough evidence to convict him. So you have an opportunity during an arrest for possession to up the amount of drugs or use a search warrant to plant the evidence to upgrade the charges so that he will wind up getting many years in prison. In essence get him on "anything" to keep him off the streets, to protect people and in this case children. Now what I'm noticing in the Avery case is that some people have sort of switched to not caring. For example in the beginning it was a case of "Innocent man exonerated after 18 years" but then as more and more came out it was shifted to "creep belongs in prison but they shouldn't have done that!" The issue about the planted evidence for the murder is that it occurred in "real time" and so it unfolded before our eyes and made us participants in watching it happen. We can ignore it when someone else does it behind the scenes, but it bothers us to have to watch it happen in front of us. Maybe a comparison is the way Americans like to eat meat. They like those clean looking packages where the dirty work was handled behind the scenes. But if they had to walk through it from start to finish, the killing of the animal, the slaughterhouse, the cutting it up. The blood, the mess. We know it happens but we don't want to see it. So this is why many people are struggling to figure out the narrative in this story. It's all about cognitive dissonance. |
9th January 2016, 07:37 AM | #493 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
I think there's also the realization of how messy the task actually is, not in the poor methodology, but in the impossibility of getting a "scientifically certain" answer, or anything close to it. There's an uncomfortable reliance on human judgement by way of a jury who is deciding what to extract from the mess. The subjective element is not popular in this forum, but that's all they have to go on. One might as well change "jury of one's peers" to "community bias."
Cognitive dissonance not just because the subjective happened here, but because it seems so necessary. |
9th January 2016, 07:38 AM | #494 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
|
9th January 2016, 08:43 AM | #495 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
9th January 2016, 09:11 AM | #496 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 826
|
|
__________________
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires. --Susan B. Anthony |
|
9th January 2016, 10:17 AM | #497 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
And let's not forget Brendan Dassey's stepfather and older brother who also had no alibis, or at least whose alibis (they alibied each other) were refuted by a third party. Which was discovered relatively easily by the defense during the trial.
It was the ex-boyfriend who was allowed access to the salvage yard... a potential crime scene. This, after not being asked for an alibi or being treated as a suspect. I believe it was an aunt and a cousin who were searching, and the aunt who actually found it. It should be noted she found it inside of ten minutes on a multi-acre lot, and on the stand credited divine intervention for her amazing good fortune. Again, more people connected to the victim being allowed access to a potential crime scene. Speaking of the salvage yard search, I found this news report from 2005. I thought this bit was interesting:
Quote:
|
9th January 2016, 10:22 AM | #498 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Here's a fun hypothetical for the "He's guilty anyway so none of the police and prosecutorial misconduct matters" crowd.
Suppose Avery is guilty. Now suppose this lawyer who specializes in getting convictions overturned frees Avery on a technicality based on said misconduct. Then suppose Avery goes out and commits another heinous crime. Does police and prosecutorial misconduct matter now? |
9th January 2016, 11:08 AM | #499 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
Your premise is faulty. If you don't have enough evidence to persuade a jury that he's guilty, then you don't know that he has done those things. You might suspect, you might guess, but you don't know. A reasonable response might be to investigate him intensely and watch him closely, but when you start manufacturing evidence because of what you think you know you become a criminal yourself.
Sometimes prosecutors can be ingenious. Al Capone ultimately went to prison for tax evasion. In Avery's case, maybe a thorough investigation would find stolen cars in his junkyard, or deficient tax records. I don't have any problem with targeting a bad guy. But the evidence and the charges have to be legitimate. Otherwise the cops could do the same thing to any of us. |
9th January 2016, 11:26 AM | #500 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
Filmmakers have spoken out about the presumed sweat DNA under the Rav4 hood (4 minute mark):
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/...y-598845507868 |
9th January 2016, 11:35 AM | #501 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
In truethat's hypothetical, I figured he must have meant an iron-clad previous conviction and the police have cause to suspect the person has re-offended, which is I suppose a slightly better hypothetical in his attempts to excuse and justify police malfeasance. He's just looking for a gotcha moment where we have to say, "you're right truethat, in this instance police malfeasance is okay."
|
9th January 2016, 11:47 AM | #502 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
This, from a Slate summary of the case, seems interesting:
Quote:
So the cops were running the plate number before the victim's car was found? Has that been explained? |
9th January 2016, 11:48 AM | #503 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
9th January 2016, 11:52 AM | #504 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Nope.
But obviously the most plausible explanation is that Colborn was just cruising around and randomly decided to double-check the license plate number on Teresa Halbach's vehicle that he had committed to memory for some reason without informing the dispatcher that's what he was doing. Makes total sense. |
9th January 2016, 12:50 PM | #505 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
|
How many people would want to live in the police state trurthat envisages? A state where evidence is not necessary? Where police just know and act accordingly? It's a laughable premise.
And we are back to jailing him because he's a "creep". Because if you do not have the evidence to convict for murder, what has he done? Not rape. He did time for juvenile crime. Unbelievable. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
9th January 2016, 01:19 PM | #506 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Here are some interesting points from a poster elsewhere:
Quote:
The entire post is here. |
9th January 2016, 01:30 PM | #507 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
|
__________________
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 |
|
9th January 2016, 01:33 PM | #508 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
9th January 2016, 01:38 PM | #509 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Yes - I had that thought too. But then this is supposedly a picture of the car:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXnJ8GNWkAA7m4S.png:large It looks to me like the tires were still on it. |
9th January 2016, 01:38 PM | #510 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
9th January 2016, 01:46 PM | #511 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
Looks like Avery has gotten a new legal counsel, and a ball of fire at that.
Kratz, Lenk and the rest of the team will be answering to a jailer soon. http://www.thenorthwestern.com/story...very/78529270/ |
9th January 2016, 01:47 PM | #512 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
The problem with this is that he knew her employer knew she went to his property. He would have to know the police would retrace her steps and would be knocking on his door pretty quick. If he burned the body, it indicates a frantic fear of discovery. If he really thought he had weeks to deal with it, he could have taken it off his property, buried it under junked cars or done something else that wouldn't be sure to be found, like bones in a fire pit. On the other hand, if somebody was trying to frame him, they might make the body easier to find (stuffing it in a wrecked car, maybe) rather than going to the extreme of burning it.
|
9th January 2016, 01:48 PM | #513 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
In case it hasn't been posted, a lot of detail here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jarettwiesel...ed#.glg1DyyMPX |
9th January 2016, 01:49 PM | #514 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
9th January 2016, 02:07 PM | #515 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
|
9th January 2016, 02:11 PM | #516 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
9th January 2016, 02:33 PM | #517 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
|
9th January 2016, 02:42 PM | #518 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
I don't want to flood this thread, but there are interesting videos uploaded by a news station here:
http://fox6now.com/category/news/steven-avery/ *Post approved by johnny karate |
9th January 2016, 02:47 PM | #519 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
9th January 2016, 02:52 PM | #520 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,890
|
dupe
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|