|
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. |
12th January 2016, 03:16 PM | #561 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,725
|
The only reason they say the murder/rape happened in the trailer and then finished in the garage was Brendan's testimony. It is obvious Brendan had no idea how or where TH was murdered. He had no idea that a gun was used even though he was compliant saying they were behind the murder but he just couldn't figure out what they wanted him to say until they explicitly mentioned a gun.
Like what others have already said, I'm much much more disturbed and have much more sympathy for Brendan Dassey than I do Steve Avery. Steve may or may not be guilty but it is clear to me that Brendan does not know where or how she was killed and it was obvious to the cops interviewing him that he had no clue also. It was sickening to watch that interview. No physical evidence supports the scenario they spoon fed him. Like others, the key and the blood in the car are meaningless to me as evidence. The vial of blood was clearly compromised and I think at that point, the burden of proof was on the prosecution, not the defense, to prove the blood was recent blood. Also, leaving blood but no fingerprints? No other evidence of a struggle? The bones being found in two different places also seems highly suspect. Why would anybody bother moving any bones away from the trailer without at least a half hearted attempt to move all of them? I sincerely hope Brendan gets released. |
12th January 2016, 03:23 PM | #562 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
12th January 2016, 03:53 PM | #563 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
Avery has done other heinous crimes, and I can't blame anyone for feeling like he is where he belongs he is, despite the controversial aspects of this case. I don't want to see either of them -or anyone, ever- sitting in prison for something they're innocent of doing, even if they've done other crimes. Ideally, every person behind bars should be guilty of the crime they're convicted for, and not because the evidence they've committed other crimes is just too weak to take to court. |
__________________
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, 04:58 PM | #564 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
Once again playing devil's advocate, how feasible is this (please correct me if there are any mistakes in the timeline)?:
-Blood is taken from Avery in 1996 and ultimately placed into evidence -In 2002 permission was granted to do new DNA testing in the rape case (13 hairs were tested) Now we get into the hypothetical scenario: -Amongst this new round of tests, the evidence container is opened to gain access to the blood vial for testing as well -It is very poorly re-sealed No conspiracy. No blood planting. Just people who possibly got lazy, never knowing back in 2002 that improperly re-packaging evidence could ever have such huge ramifications down the line. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity, etc., etc. Could that be an innocent explanation for the blood vial? |
12th January 2016, 05:10 PM | #565 |
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, 05:47 PM | #566 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
So you're saying there were two holes in the vial? One in the stopper and one in the bottom? Source? My understanding is the hole in the top of the vial is non-probative. The puncture is made at the time blood is drawn. However the broken evidence seal, well.
Would love to know more details about the reportedly new evidence. I was able to find rumours (with no cite of course) that it's to do with the appearance of the Avery blood found in the car. That it would have had a difference appearance if there was no anti-clotting agent. |
12th January 2016, 06:03 PM | #567 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,894
|
Only going on my memory of the documentary. It looked like the bottom. I don't feel inclined to go back, but someone may be able to support my recollection. Or otherwise.
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
12th January 2016, 06:10 PM | #568 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,518
|
The Real World
There is a wide gulf between what occurs in the real world and what is presented on television/movies, and the evidentiary arguments presented by conspiracy theorists. For example, despite almost decapitating Nicole Simpson and engaging in the overkill of Ronald Goldman, there was a very limited amount of O.J. Simpson's blood and/or the victim's blood found inside his vehicle.
Simpson's advocates argued that the limited amount of blood in his vehicle demonstrated that the LAPD planted the blood evidence. The same was true of the bloody socks found in Simpson's bedroom. Sound familiar? In regards to how much forensic evidence is deposited at a crime scene, there are no absolutes. Ironically, both Simpson and Avery had significant finger lacerations, yet only limited traces of their blood were found inside vehicles that they drove to a different (e.g., Simpson's home, separate spot on Avery's compound) location. In terms of the Avery case, why did conspirators decide to be selective about the evidence they planted? Why plant Avery's blood inside Halbach's vehicle, yet somehow obtain sweat from Avery to plant Touch DNA evidence under the hood of that same vehicle? Why deposit Avery's Touch DNA on Halbach's key instead of depositing minute traces of Avery's blood on that particular key? Why plant a singular piece of DNA evidence (e.g., bullet fragment with traces of Halbach's DNA) in Avery's garage when you could have deposited Halbach's blood on other items in that garage? IMO, there is a singular answer to ALL of these red herrings. Law enforcement did NOT plant evidence in Halbach's vehicle, Avery's garage, or in Avery's trailer. The victim's remains were found entwined with tire belts in a fire pit located on Avery's property and the victim's personal belongings were found in a burn barrel located within shouting distance of the fire pit. That alone could have convicted Avery, so when you add the rest of the case against Avery, you are left with a case strong enough to withstand multiple appeals by the defense in the past 8 years. |
12th January 2016, 06:18 PM | #569 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
If Avery is innocent and framed by the police then the same could be true for OJ Simpson.
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
12th January 2016, 06:24 PM | #570 |
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, 06:25 PM | #571 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
You're comparing a secondary scene (the bronco) in the OJ case to what is claimed to be the primary scenes (trailer/garage) in the Avery case.
Was there only a limited amount of blood outside the condo where the Brown/Goldman murders occurred? Was there any blood inside the trailer/garage where the Halbach murder is alleged to have occurred? |
12th January 2016, 06:29 PM | #572 |
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 |
|
13th January 2016, 05:23 AM | #573 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
Most would ask this question, I know I did anyway..
Ive watched this series several times, especially episode 5,6,7 trial. I noticed a interesting bit when Kratz refuses to divulge his slippery trickery manuever of the crime scene, his crime scene surprise. Even though he already vomited the vulgar fiction murder on TV in a most unprofessional and disgusting way. Kratz has another trick up his sleeve, so he refused to answer the journalists question about the Prosecutions layout of the crime. Kratz refused. The trick was he swapped the crime scene scenario from the trailer/bedroom to the garage at closing. All of a sudden thats why there was no blood in the trailer! The old move the goal post prosecution theory, the standard shell-game accusation trickery of the prosecution = keep changing the accusations! the whole tv scenario to frame Steve and Brendan was the bedroom blood bath, but not one spec of anything was found. so when the defense brought this up, the prosecutor Kratz slithered his new-story to the garage! (they didnt really find anything in the garage either for months of looking, after numerous honest investigators and numerous honest police looked through the garage= nothing.....until later the magic-bullet shows up... and guess who had been around in March? (answ: Lenk) |
13th January 2016, 07:53 AM | #574 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
This is a good question and one that doesn't match the narrative that's being laid out.
I find it hard to believe that cops in the middle of a Multi Million Dollar law suit that are going around planting evidence would be so careless with this. Again it doesn't match the narrative. And to the bolded, this is what I pointed out before. You can have your own "dictionary definition" of what reasonable doubt means, but from what I've seen with juries, most juries don't consider "possible doubt" the same thing as "reasonable doubt." Like I said before if you were on a jury you'd have a very different result, but based on the way you are answering these questions, I doubt very much that you would get on a jury for a case like this. The only time I've seen a jury do this is in the Casey Anthony case. |
13th January 2016, 07:54 AM | #575 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
|
13th January 2016, 08:04 AM | #576 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Exactly. For example, although I really do believe there is planted evidence, I've come to this conclusion watching a documentary that has been developed for over ten years and with the additional ability to google information, know the character of the prosecution and cops. One of the questions I asked about Avery's small swath of blood being found in the car was "Did he have any cuts on his hands." And then it turned out that he did. As the narrative of this story is being presented via documentary, we see that the perspective presented to us is that in the first case they framed him. That he was sent to jail as the result of a frame up by the original cops. That narrative is what lends itself to believing that the second case was a retaliation for the his law suit and that the cops deliberately framed him both times. I went along with that for most of the documentary. But then I started questioning the evidence for the first conviction as having been deliberately framed as opposed to "they thought they had the right guy!" When I saw the interview with the sketch artist I began to change my mind. The defense was pushing the angle that the guy deliberately sketched it to look like Avery's mug shot. This was a risky move that I don't think played well with the jury. If I were the defense I would have not tried to play that angle. Ex.
This narrative doesn't stand up well to the questions asked above. Namely, why so sloppy with the blood vial? How did the woman die? Why is the woman's death part of their frame job? Are you suggesting that the cops murdered her and tried to frame him? Why not just kill him? Did she just "coincidentally get murdered?' The Narrative doesn't hold up. My defense would have been "shoddy police work leads to unfair convictions"
Hindsight and all that. But his defense took the wrong line of defense IMO. |
13th January 2016, 09:02 AM | #577 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
If we look at the 3rd grader work, you can look at Lenk and Colburn possibly.
Other cases where the mistake was, "no one will ever know", "no one will find this out" = sloppy work. The slick response was done by the hired prosecution team, they responded to the opened box, they manuevered well....but for Lenk to screw up and leave a tampered box there from 10-15yrs ago, he probably just screwed up. Whose to say how smart Lenk was. Thats one perspective, Lenk screwed up and was the 3rd grader. The fact Colburn called in the SUV, before it was found, and that tape recording pretty much proves these guys were not perfect at covering up everything. Sure they might have planted some things and gotten it hidden well, maybe they drove the car in and parked it without being caught etc.. but of 10 things they might have done they got sloppy and became obvious. The key laying on the floor, for everyone to see, is a joke and proof Lenk was the key to the dishonesty of the police. Its sad a few can make the whole look bad. 90% of the police are probably upstanding and honest. All the previous investigations turned up nothing, all the investigators, forensic, honest police found nothing of any murder....until the 7th or 8th try...the magic Key is found, and guess who found it? ANSW: LENK It is 3rd grader like, I agree. |
13th January 2016, 09:17 AM | #578 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Again, I have no issues with the idea that there may have been a cover up and that stupid people make stupid mistakes and even smart people make stupid mistakes.
I'm only interested in how that narrative is explained to the jury. When I look at the arguments made about the cover up, it comes across as "throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. And if anything sticks, that's "reasonable doubt!!!" It doesn't work that way. You have to follow it through all the way to the end and give the jury a narrative that answers every single question. If you don't, they don't usually consider it "reasonable doubt." IMO. That's why he got convicted. |
13th January 2016, 09:30 AM | #579 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
|
13th January 2016, 09:37 AM | #580 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
Interesting perspective, the fact was that these things were presented in the Netlix show, the cut finger and more, and it was what added to the honesty of the show/journalists, imo. The journalists were the unbiased sector, they act as the "media/journalist/juror" and present us their perspective.
So Kratz cant 100% convince the show was totally biased. They included their perspective and that perspective was shown to us and so here it is. In a courtroom you would think they would study the cut, they would have experts stating how old the cut was, etc... and the blood being such a main piece of the case, that all requests for both side, defense and prosecution would be encouraged...but it wasnt. We have a Judge that allows a process of testing thats been determined non-reliable, non-consistent, the edta test. Then when other requests and studys are asked the same Judge refuses. This is inconsistent, and unfair. Its also suspicious due to this being such a huge critical evidence piece. Its only fair the defense is allowed the same testing and at least be allowed to be present during the testing. Neither was allowed = sketchy, unfair. This isnt made up by the show, it was fact of Judge Willis helping the prosecution. I think the Netflix show eventually seems to be anti-prosecution but ... I dont assume to know anything, but one thing is obvious that Lenk shows up too often. The Netflix show nor the Defense made this up, they didnt make it up LENK is on the tampered blood vile box paperwork, they didnt make it up Lenk was the Key Evidence, and also the bullet shows up later when Lenk was present. (all we are missing is some traffic film of Lenk and Colburn driving the SUV to Averys place..(kidding) Judge WIllis was closing doors for the Defense and openning new ones for the prosecution (edta testing example).... The Judge Willis was obviously anti-defense. For a common person, why would a Judge turn down more tests of blood, or more possible evidence like cell phone calls? The Judge will almost always assume the prosecution is innocent and the police are Andy Griffith. imo... its like 3 cases in one- 1) murder..that seems to be unsolved 2) a few crooked cops retaliation / corruption to save face 3) then a system thats railroading the accused/poor, to save from a lawsuit and protect its own system's appearance ex. ludicrous Judge WIllis Prosecution: Can we test the blood with a crazy edta undeveloped lab procedure that hasnt been used in 10yrs because its proven to be non-repeatable, by the fbi? Judge WIllis : YES Defense : Can we test the blood too? Judge WIllis: NO Defense : Can we at least be present during the blood testing? Judge Willis: NO |
13th January 2016, 11:16 AM | #581 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 193
|
Avery's ex-wife Jodi Stachowski, who gave every appearance of being loyal to him in Making a Murderer, now tells (sigh) the Nancy Grace show that he's a "monster" and "not innocent".
http://www.hlntv.com/shows/morning-e...sive-interview |
13th January 2016, 12:05 PM | #582 |
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 |
|
13th January 2016, 12:05 PM | #583 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
From your link:
Quote:
I have no idea if she is afraid he will get back out of jail, or if she stands to gain anything from any aspect of this mess, but I have a hard time believing anyone -anywhere- would eat rat poison -twice- just to go to the hospital. It speaks of a deep problem somewhere. |
__________________
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 |
|
13th January 2016, 12:46 PM | #584 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 193
|
And who knows what a man might be capable of if he could marry a freak like that, right?
|
13th January 2016, 12:55 PM | #585 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
I wouldn't call her a "freak". I'm just saying "While she might well have been afraid of him, I'm pretty sure she could have found a better way to handle the situation than by eating poison. Maybe she did eat poison, but I doubt it was HIS fault."
Of course, one of the wonderful things about the medical privacy laws are: no one will know exactly what happened, or when. But I really have doubts she walked into an emergency room saying "I need to escape my abusive fiancé, so I've eaten rat poison & please make sure I don't die so if he hasn't learned his lesson I can go back and do it again." I suppose it could happen. But I don't think it's very likely. |
__________________
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 |
|
13th January 2016, 02:58 PM | #586 |
... and your little dog too.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
|
Nothing says "hard evidence" like unsubstantiated character assassination from an alcoholic ex.
|
13th January 2016, 03:00 PM | #587 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 16,613
|
Not having seen the show, I must ask: Did the defense actually claim that Avery had been deliberately framed? I would speculate a juror would be much more willing to believe that a defendant had been unjustly accused as a result of a sloppy investigation rather than believe that their own, small-town police force was framing people. Some jurors who might say "This guy could be guilty, but the state hasn't proven it" wouldn't go as far as saying "This guy is innocent and the cops are all out to get him."
|
13th January 2016, 10:10 PM | #588 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,786
|
Its not all the cops, actually if you watch the show the cops who were "babysitting" Lenk and Colburn seemed typical honest and maybe naive.
We usually assume cops are honest, and types that arent make use of this. Just read the ex-wife is slamming Avery to Nancy Graces payola...the case goes on. She seems wasted and possibly pressured. In the show she became a bullied woman the police pushed around and intimidated until she was run out of town with some obnoxiously manipulated "restriction" charge for her seeing her husband. Ive never heard of local cops who can file charges through a court to restrict a wife from seeing their husband, but these cops did it...and when she didnt do as the police say they put her in jail. They pretty much made her a weak, scared puppet in the prosecutions play. Either you witness for the prosecution or they put you in jail and ruin your drunk, goober life. |
14th January 2016, 12:08 AM | #589 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
I can't say whether or not Avey killed her. But I'm pretty damn certain he did not stab her in the trailer, and did not shoot her to death in the garage. I cannot come up with any reasonable explanation for why some of her bones were in the burn site at the quarry. Since I really believe any theory has to fit ALL of the facts, not just the convenient ones, that second burn site bothers me just as much as the lack of evidence in the trailor or the garage. There's something fishy, somewhere...or something is missing from the puzzle. |
__________________
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 |
|
14th January 2016, 01:59 AM | #590 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 196
|
I can't remember everything about the documentary, but amongst all the cell phone talk I don't recall hearing about any attempts to check cell phone tower pings. Surely this was done with Teresa's phone to investigate her last known locations, no?
That being said, it was a rural area. Who knows how good coverage was out there. Also, how many access points are there to the Avery yard? In essence, how easy would it be to sneak a Rav4 back onto the property (if Teresa Halbach did leave that day) without any of the many people on that property noticing? Wasn't really able to get an idea of that from the few aerial photos of the property seen in the documentary. To get an idea of this would really help determine if we're looking strictly at those on the Avery property as suspects or broadening the scope to outsiders. |
14th January 2016, 03:48 AM | #591 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
I don't recall about the cell phone, or the number of access points to the property.
From what I do recall, I do believe it's possible (although probably not very likely) someone killed her, stuffed her in the car, burned her in the quarry, then gathered up her bones and took her & the car back to the Avery property. Maybe someone just saw the salvage yard and thought it would be a great place to hide the vehicle? From there...it wouldn't be a big leap to imagine them finding the "bomb fire" and mixing the bones into it as a very quick way to get rid of them. In fact...somewhere in there, I'm giving myself an idea that almost, kinda, sorta makes some twisted sense.... Let me think about it for a moment.... |
__________________
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 |
|
14th January 2016, 03:55 AM | #592 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
|
14th January 2016, 03:57 AM | #593 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
What is the point of this lengthy response as a response to my point when it doesn't answer any of the questions I've presented. This is a classic example of what I mean. On and on and on and no clear narrative here. It's just bouncing accusations all over the place, the judge is on it too! All the cops, the prosecution.....they're all in on it and it's a cover up! Ok well WHY? |
14th January 2016, 04:05 AM | #594 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
There was blood from Halbach's hair in the back of her car, and bones in the barrel on Avery's property.
So it kinda makes sense if she was injured or killed, then shoved into the back of her car, driven to the quarry, burned, and then returned to the salvage yard in the bucket, to be added to the pile with the tires. That would also explain why no one reported smelling the body burning. |
__________________
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 |
|
14th January 2016, 04:06 AM | #595 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
This is again another answer that the conspiracy theorists never answer. This is what I mean about throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks without ever fulling explaining that narrative. Exactly. LOL And you've had ten years of hindsight to sort this out. That's not what reasonable doubt means to a jury. And that's how the defense presented their case. But the narrative taken all the way to the end has Steven Avery and his entire family living on two properties on the lot and not one of them noticed this? So someone's got a body to stash and they decide that instead of just leaving the car with the body in it on the lot (which would be simple enough to do) They sneak the car onto the lot, take the body out and burn it elsewhere in the quarry (which is also not noticed by anyone, and left no evidence in the quarry), sneak the body up to his property and leave it there (taking time to pull up pieces of junk from the area to "mix in with the bones) And not one of the Averys saw anyone, anything suspicious? On top of this the cops, in the middle of a Multi Million dollar law suit, KNOW this and decide that they will risk framing Avery when if the other incident happened there are multiple possibilities for the "real story" to come out and get busted wide open. That's why I said that the defense should have presented the case differently. Had they not gone with the conspiracy theory angle, and simply gone with shoddy police work and tunnel vision on the suspect, they might have actually established reasonable doubt. |
14th January 2016, 04:25 AM | #596 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Yes, and when you watch the interrogation of the people they are accusing of framing him, that's when the Defense lost any legitimacy to me. As I mentioned before they repeatedly had incidents where during cross examination you could see them attempting to prove that they were framing him. One example was when they were talking to the cop for calling in the numbers on the licence plate. They basically said "You were standing there looking at the car, weren't you!!!" And the guy is going "No I wasn't" There are several instances in the trial where, (as I said before) you can tell the defense is acting like they are showing this Bombshell moment and it falls flat. IMO it falls flat because the only way it works is if Avery was also framed the first time. It doesn't come across to me that they deliberately framed Avery the first time. It comes across that they thought he did it, and honestly interpreted the evidence that way because of careless police work. So for example, instead of accusing the sketch artist of drawing it to look like Avery, they accused him of drawing it to look like a mug shot he had seen. But the guy is calmly sitting there saying he didn't see the mug shot. They say "You had access to it." Over and over again. But the guy is saying, "It was in the police station but I didn't look at it." They pushed it in that direction so far but again, never completed the narrative. I agree with your last point as well. Pasted here again:
Quote:
A good example of how this narrative would sound different is The guy is innocent and the cops are out to frame him. Question: Then why was the blood vial handled so sloppily? Versus The guy could be guilty but the cops haven't proven it. Evidence: This is why the blood vial was handled so sloppily, it's more evidence of sloppy police work. |
14th January 2016, 04:51 AM | #597 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Whether the LEO's were careless, or whether they acted with malice is probably enough to open a whole 'nother thread.
Either way, no matter how we slice it, we're missing a crime scene, and missing the explanation for a whole bunch of odd circumstances -among them why Colburn? was calling in the plate number for Talbach's car before it was officially "found". As to Avery being framed repeatedly.... Well.... I grew up in foster care. I don't have any doubts that someone who is rotten to the core will use the general trust & goodwill of a huge group of people to do some unbelievably rotten things, and it only takes ONE person to make a mess that you could swear took a year of planning or a lot of help. I believe the police in that area didn't like Avery -or any of his family. They were seen as the black sheep, they were all convicted of some pretty bad things, and they were probably considered the "usual suspects" for almost anything that happened anywhere around them. I don't think it's a big stretch to believe he was framed. |
__________________
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 |
|
14th January 2016, 06:42 AM | #598 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
It's not a big stretch to believe that anyone was framed. But framed for what? You are asserting that someone else committed the murder and with the help of the cops they framed Avery. That just stretches credibility to the breaking point. Give me a narrative that makes sense all the way to the end and I'll consider it. But again, you seem to think that all you have to do with a jury is show a "possible" doubt. It's not "reasonable" unless you follow it through to the end. So I'm still waiting for your theory. ETA here is an excerpt from an interesting discussion about reasonable doubt.
Quote:
As I said, most people misunderstand it to mean "any doubt." http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.e...91&context=clb |
14th January 2016, 06:52 AM | #599 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
A narrative isn't really needed to prosecute someone. It's handy if you can come up with something the jury can hang the facts on, but the only critical thing is "he killed her" - not exactly how, or even why.
One approach is simply to list the evidence you have - the body, vehicle, phone records, previous interactions between the two people, whereabouts of the defendant (busting any alibi) and so on. If you can pile up enough circumstantial stuff, the jury may be convinced there's no other plausible explanation. The precise sequence of events, or whether someone else is involved wouldn't (in this method) mean the defendant didn't do it, lots of loose ends could remain. |
14th January 2016, 07:06 AM | #600 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
This is actually true which makes it especially interesting when the defense doesn't have a clear narrative.
Let's say Avery did it (as he was convicted) there's actually not a clear narrative of what exactly happened. People are willing to let pieces of evidence go. They let it slide when it's the prosecution. It's only when it's the defense using the story that it seems to require a narrative. Another example of this would be Noura Jackson, her father had been murdered several years prior and was an unsolved murder. Her mother is then murdered in her own home. That alone should have been enough to establish reasonable doubt. But she was found guilty. There was also an ex boyfriend of the mother who certainly looked suspicious. But none of those narratives were clearly explained out to the jury. And again, (as I stated before) it was a small detail that got her convicted. She had cuts on her hand and lied about going to a store to get bandaids. That's the tipping point for the jury. And oddly, there was no blood under her fingernails. So the logic makes no sense. Again, you have a scale and you pile up evidence on either side of the scale and then one small thing TIPS it in the other direction. It's the Defense's job to pile up that evidence on the other side of the scale, not in a random way. Doing so in a random way without the narrative, is like having several different scales and telling the jury "Well one of them might be right!!! I still haven't figured it out yet." Do that? You're likely to get a conviction. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-memp...ther-to-death/ |
Thread Tools | |
|
|