|
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. |
9th January 2016, 03:02 PM | #521 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
That's patently false. A pedophile that goes to court would require a child to testify. So would a perp that was accused of rape, the victim would have to testify.
That's why I used that example. If a victim is unwilling to testify then you really don't have a case unless you have DNA etc. etc etc. There are statutes of limitations etc as well. I mean think of Cosby. |
9th January 2016, 03:04 PM | #522 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
|
9th January 2016, 03:06 PM | #523 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
9th January 2016, 03:08 PM | #524 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
9th January 2016, 03:27 PM | #525 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
Ah, here's the start of that "documentary was done by and for the defence" tactic. Ken Kratz attempted to subpoena all the footage alleging that the filmmakers were acting as an investigative arm of the defence, but his claim was thrown out of court. So for him to still be saying it now seems a bit cheeky.
http://www.indiewire.com/article/wha...derer-20160108 |
9th January 2016, 03:44 PM | #526 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
9th January 2016, 05:23 PM | #527 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Originally Posted by Matthew Best
I also read that the possibility of contamination existed because when the lab technician was looking for DNA in Halbach's vehicle (not until April, apparently) s/he had been going over another car of Avery's and didn't change gloves in between. |
9th January 2016, 06:27 PM | #528 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
off topic but statute of limitations is bs, imo. my opinion doesnt mean crap, but its fun to voice it now and then.
so a person is raped and if you dont report it in time (set by people who havent been raped) it doesnt mean anything (legally). What kind of logic is that? |
9th January 2016, 06:30 PM | #529 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
9th January 2016, 06:35 PM | #530 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
You can bet this FBI oddball testing will be gone over with a magnifying glass, and I suspect it will be found to be shady work. The test was obviously rushed after not having been done for 10yrs the show said.
I wonder if the defense has samples of the vile and the recovered suv to avoid depending on the police of Manitowoc's honesty. add: the testing for the edta was stopped being performed because it was unreliable, per the defense. |
10th January 2016, 05:52 AM | #531 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
|
10th January 2016, 05:56 AM | #532 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
I read that too, he seems to have tried to block them from filming by using the legal system to interfere with their work. Another example of him using the legal system to try to manipulate beyond it's design. I love how it got tossed because they basically were using the phone recordings from prison which he could access as well.
One interesting point that people may not know, the film makers never actually interviewed Avery. All his commentary on the video is clipped from conversations he was having with other people during the taped phone calls. So in a way this isn't a real "documentary" because they reused previously made statements but presented them in the film as if he was answering questions (albeit not asked directly) the film makers were asking. Well this speaks to the question of burden of proof. As has been said by others in other threads regarding reality of prosecution, it costs money to prosecute a case. And the DA is not likely to take a case to trial if they don't think they have a good chance of conviction. So if an incident happened years ago, and the victim never had a rape kit done but instead went home and showered then you're basically down to He said She said. So again speaking to the HYPOTHETICAL question I raised earlier, what if you did know that a pedophile hurt a child. But the child was too emotional and the parents didn't want to put them through a trial. You have several instances and you know. You also have the perp with a history of other violent crimes for which he isn't getting a long term sentence. I do agree that creativity is an important part of trying to catch the guy and get him off the streets. It should always be done legally. The point I was trying to make is how people are less likely to care if it's a criminal in some regard who got busted. We ignore it as a society. That's why the Avery case is so interesting. The documentary reveals it to us in "real time" because we watch all the episodes one right after the other, but this took ten years to put together. |
10th January 2016, 09:01 AM | #533 |
sinning sybarite
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,398
|
I've had to avoid this thread because I was in the middle of watching the documentary. Now I'm done and I'm completely disgusted. No way either of them is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" in my opinion.
Reasonable doubt in spades in this case. |
10th January 2016, 09:59 AM | #534 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
Isnt it amazing, and yet its a real-life event and not entertainment.
So for me it goes form entertaining to interesting to disgusting really fast. All the professionals seem to already have a callous and skeptical perception of the system, the systems power, and the marketed to the idiots FBI. Its always a conflict of the mind of a crime tourist, that all cops arent good, all judges arent fair, and conspiracy's are very very real. Its fascinating this was all recorded and taped before knowing the outcome. The new lawyer claims "whoever deleted the voicemail is the killer". Watching this for the third or fourth time, at least the interesting evidence parts, the phone logs are possibly bigger than I had noticed. The Prosecution Kratz really had crap in his mouth, when this came up and he was obviously hiding something or a total idiot for not investigating the phone records closer. The disgusting Judge Willis remained obstinate. But I wonder, wouldnt it be fairly easy to look up the details of the prank calls? Teresa was standing by that coworker when she got a call, that would be easy to trace who was calling all hours of the night and day? A simple issue to resolve, isnt it? Who was the creep/stalker....the ex-boyfriend? |
10th January 2016, 10:12 AM | #535 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
10th January 2016, 10:19 AM | #536 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
Faydra, its not a courtroom! your inputs on the case are as good as anyone elses, imo.
The entire Brendan thing is disturbing, at least they recorded the interrogations so people can see how the "state interrogator" coerced the kid. Add in the phone clips to his mom and its really obvious the kid is just being an appeasing mentally challenged patsy. What alarms me after a few viewings is the Judge allowing this to go on and on, in the face of obvious dishonesty by the prosecution. However the defense lawyers seem totally used to this as our Court Systems "normal" day to day dysfunctional operation. The System vs the People? |
10th January 2016, 12:41 PM | #537 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
Apologies, earlier in this thread I mistakenly said Avery's DNA was found on the bullet in the garage.
|
10th January 2016, 01:57 PM | #538 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
|
|
10th January 2016, 07:27 PM | #539 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
This is all over the news now. Twice now I've seen Krantz interviewed and both times he emphatically states the local police were not prohibited from being on the scene. So far none of the interviewers asked why they bothered to have the press conference if they were going to do the opposite of what they told the public at said conference.
|
10th January 2016, 07:30 PM | #540 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
Reading about the new legal team, I wonder if they will have to solve the case.
Due to the local cops not doing their job and the biased outside investigators framing people they chose, it seems someone will have to find the real killer/s to get attention from the sleeping, rotting, Justice system. Another mystery in this is the jury... 7 Not Guilty 3 Guilty 2 Undecided was the first jury vote for Avery, per the defense. What happened in that room? |
10th January 2016, 09:45 PM | #541 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
I'm guessing because he's an unethical scumbag.
And on a side note, it's "Kratz" not "Krantz". I'm not usually so pedantic, but I can think of few people more deserving of having the word "rat" in their name, and I don't think we should deny him the honor he has very much earned. Speaking of which, here's a news story about how he abused the power of his office to try to intimidate the documentarians during filming:
Quote:
|
10th January 2016, 09:49 PM | #542 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
10th January 2016, 09:56 PM | #543 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
|
Sorry, you might as well give us a few Websleuths™ links ...
|
10th January 2016, 10:27 PM | #544 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
10th January 2016, 11:50 PM | #545 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
|
|
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping. |
|
11th January 2016, 06:15 AM | #546 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
I agree that in general the viewer picks up and goes along with the "cops are bad" mode. I brought that up before as a question, why do we assume that the cops deliberately framed Avery in the previous trial? That's his and his family's perspective. They don't like the cops.
(At the same time the filmmakers defend the family to the hilt as a kind loving family when there is evidence of multiple members of the family committing crimes including sexual assault of children. So that's why I brought up the pedophile issue before as well.) Yes Faydra! Chime in, the more the merrier. As to the deleted phone messages, again they were allowed in. So I'm not sure what the issue is here. I did say I watched a lot of true crime (I like your turn of phrase crime tourist) and many times in cases when you see a defense attorney do this BOMBSHELL moment, it's done to manipulate the jury into thinking that something else is going on. The jury feels they are being manipulated and disregard it. (From my perspective, if the ex boyfriend deliberately deleted the messages, I see no reason why he could't say "I was trying to get through to the last messages so I deleted a few of the earlier ones that were just short messages from her mom over and over again. The fact that he didn't say he deleted them, indicates to me that he may not have realized he did. A deliberate attempt would have been thoughtful and covered up easily.) I agree with you that the judge tied their hands in this case by not allowing them to accuse another suspect outright and to lay out evidence for that person. But (I could be mistaken here) from what I understand courts are reluctant to "put another person on trial." This is what I find interesting about the point of "Reasonable Doubt" as I mentioned before. It seems a LOT of people misunderstand what "reasonable doubt" means. They take it as if you can't 100% prove that this is the only possibility, there's not enough evidence to convict. Perhaps someone can clarify what I mean. But they misinterpret "Reasonable Doubt" as "Possible Doubt" so in their minds as long as you have another "possible theory" and "another possible suspect" you have Reasonable Doubt. So in many premeditated murders where the perpetrator tries to set up another theory they think "HA! This is reasonable doubt.", and they are shocked when they get convicted because in their minds they established it. Think of a scale. The prosecution piles up the evidence one side. The defense piles up evidence on the other. It seems to me that many people think that as long as there is a some evidence on the other side of the scale, we've got reasonable doubt. That's not what I've observed watching the juries over the years. Casey Anthony is a rare example of this happening. From what I've seen the only time it would be considered "Reasonable Doubt" would be if the defense piled up the same amount of evidence on the scale and it was balanced evenly. Sometimes even in these cases it just takes that one small thing to TIP IT in the other direction. In the Steven Avery cases I think the thing that tipped it was the fact that he blocked his phone number the two times he called the victim. |
11th January 2016, 02:09 PM | #547 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
Here is a proper definition of reasonable doubt:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...asonable+Doubt
Quote:
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
11th January 2016, 02:56 PM | #548 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,942
|
|
11th January 2016, 09:50 PM | #549 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
Because it would seem more realistic. If only one type of DNA is found then it is going to be a red flag, especially considering that his finger wound was not that bad. The more likely DNA that would be found on the key and car is not blood so why complicate the set up with blood on those objects.
Or in short, they know how this kind of thing works and used that knowledge. |
11th January 2016, 10:28 PM | #550 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
Lots of people presenting situations where they ask how Avery could be so smart (cleaning up every physical trace of Teresa's blood in the trailer and garage) and yet so dumb (leaving the car on the property) to conclude his innocence. I'll play devil's advocate and ask the same of the police.
Police officers know how properly packaged evidence is supposed to look. If they're going to tamper with the blood vial, why scotch tape it back up like a third grader? Surely they know better than to leave what amounts to a big neon sign pointing towards tampering. I have a few rebuttals but at this time I purely want to play devil's advocate. Hoping this "epigenetic clock" business gains some traction. That would pretty much settle this whole debate if we could verify the age of Avery's blood in Halbach's car. |
11th January 2016, 11:33 PM | #551 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
Maybe they thought it would be 50 years before anyone ever opened that box again? Maybe they thought it would be easy to claim it came back from the lab that way? Maybe they thought that was standard procedure, and took great care to replicate something they saw in some other case, or something they saw on TV? Maybe they thought they could claim because it was stored in a relatively insecure location anyone could've tampered with it at any time? I'm playing "devil's advocate" as well. I'm just throwing out "maybes" but the fact is: we don't know for sure if the blood is from the vial or not. If it is, we don't know who took it out of the vial, or who put it in the car. All we have is questions -but those questions are all that is required to find a "reasonable doubt". |
__________________
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 |
|
12th January 2016, 05:25 AM | #552 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
Thats how the crooked cops get away with so much, they are rarely the ones on trial. They know the only people are looking at the evidence would be a defense investigator and that the case isnt about them. Its as if they know the Defense would have to create an entirely separate case that could go on years.
So to try to merge a totally different case into the Murder trial, to merge a case of police corruption/conspiracy of 2 or more, would be difficult legally. I would think. How it all happened, we can only wait for Lenk to tell the truth...imo, Lenk is the Lee Harvey Oswald in this case. The system protecting scum like Lenk, or giving him orders to do what he did is the question for me today. Was Lenk acting alone, and then protected by Kratz and Judge Willis and the system, or was Lenk part of a larger cover up to save the Justice Dept millions? If Avery is released this time and his cousin, the state is on the hook for 100's of millions$$$ I would think? And some cops going to prison and losing their pension at the least. Then there is another separate case on who really killed the girl? |
12th January 2016, 10:02 AM | #553 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
We'll see by mid-february what happens with this:
http://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHist...Direction=DESC |
12th January 2016, 12:20 PM | #554 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,741
|
Has there been any explanation for the bleach stains on the nephews jeans?
|
12th January 2016, 12:34 PM | #555 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Apparently he was helping his uncle clean the garage. If the bleach left white stains, it was chlorine bleach -and there would be blood traces left behind. If they used oxygen bleach it would remove the blood more thoroughly, but it wouldn't leave white splotches.
So if there were bleach spots, but no blood traces, the jeans are a red herring. http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/de...bleaching.html |
__________________
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 |
|
12th January 2016, 01:02 PM | #556 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
Not only that, there was deer blood found in the garage. How does one clean all traces of human blood and leave the deer blood? I think we can agree that whatever happened, the murder scene was neither the trailer nor the garage.
"In response, Strang told Kelly: "Steven Avery can be accused of a lot of things, but a really good housekeeper doesn't make the list ... I have no idea when the bleach got on the jeans. I can't imagine, especially where as I recall there was deer blood left in the garage, that all traces of human blood would've been removed from that garage by anybody, let alone Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey." http://www.businessinsider.com/makin...ox-news-2016-1 Of course the rebuttal to that is not all traces of Halbach were removed the garage, and one would simply point to the bullet fragment (which of course had a contaminated negative control). My understanding is it was not Lenk who actually found it, though he was present. Can anyone clarify who exactly found the bullet? |
12th January 2016, 01:18 PM | #557 |
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 |
|
12th January 2016, 02:28 PM | #558 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
12th January 2016, 02:59 PM | #559 |
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 |
|
12th January 2016, 03:08 PM | #560 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|