|
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. |
7th January 2016, 12:36 AM | #281 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,893
|
Truethat,
Wow. Enabling police corruption. Impressive. |
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th January 2016, 12:42 AM | #282 |
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 |
|
7th January 2016, 12:42 AM | #283 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
LOL Stranger things have happened. Remember the case in Australia where the guy was on trial for murder and then it turned out the girl had been hiding out in a house for the last three years. They said it was the only murder trial where the victim was found alive in the middle of the trial. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/11/australia I've never considered that she might still be alive. But again ten years is a long time. As I said, if you could find any evidence that she was involved with anyone in the police force I might have a reasonable doubt. Maybe they went to a morgue or mortuary and grabbed a bunch of cremated bones. But based on the evidence we have I do not think that is likely. |
7th January 2016, 12:44 AM | #284 |
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 |
|
7th January 2016, 12:49 AM | #285 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Like I said, I'm a true crime junky. I'm realizing that's why I'm having a different take on a lot of things about this case. (Namely his interrogation) But yeah it comes up all the time in cases. ALL the time. Think OJ they accused the guy of planting the glove. Think about cop shootings where they say they planted a gun. There's also the issue of "Chain of Custody" where evidence is challenged because they don't think it was kept preserved properly. Or challenges to labs for not properly dealing with evidence. Remember the woman who was accused of killing her husband with arsenic poisoning and it turned out the lab got it wrong and it was tossed out. http://murderpedia.org/female.S/s/sommer-cynthia.htm But for every case like that there is another case where the defense argues that the evidence is tainted or planted or the confession was cooerced etc etc etc. (Amanda Knox) There are many cases where the jury has to decide based on what they have to work with. Sometimes, if there is enough other evidence they convict. Sometimes they don't. But the defense always accuses the evidence of being tainted or not handled properly. |
7th January 2016, 12:50 AM | #286 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Yep. And that's why I think they should be prosecuted. And in fact it makes me understand their motive for planting the evidence and why I think the evidence was planted and why I disregard that evidence.
Again there is still enough other evidence IMO (I know not yours) for me to convict. Thank god we're not on a jury together huh? |
7th January 2016, 12:54 AM | #287 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,893
|
Of course they don't. The whole criminal justice system relies on ethical police behaviour. This is why police forces (professional ones at least) have Ethical Standards or similarly named divisions. The chances of planted or tainted evidence presented? Yes possible. The chances of known tainted evidence being presented (as truethat is advocating)? Virtually zero.
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th January 2016, 12:54 AM | #288 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
"Your honor, we need more jurors. These two have killed each other." |
__________________
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 |
|
7th January 2016, 01:04 AM | #289 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Except her burned remains were intertwined with the steel belts from her vehicle tires. Dassey is the one who told LE they put the tires in the fire, IIUC. That was not public knowledge so it matched the findings the police knew about. I bet burning rubber smells pretty bad too. Maybe even enough to mask other stench.
|
7th January 2016, 01:09 AM | #290 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
I do, however, contend that if she was first burned somewhere else, then brought to the property and burned a second time, a tire would mask the smell. |
__________________
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 |
|
7th January 2016, 01:12 AM | #291 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
But then who is to decide what is tainted, of not the jury. The defense would have you believe everything is tainted. The eyewitness who saw her arrive at the property? Tainted. The phone call evidence? Tainted. The fact that she was specifically requested to come that day? Tainted.
I think it is a slippery slope to have a pre-jury, for lack of a better term, decide what gets let into the trial. That is why it all gets presented to the jury and then they decide. |
7th January 2016, 01:12 AM | #292 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
This is an interesting part of the evidence that I would like to have seen explored more by the defense. For example, as you pointed out before, when was it burned? I have not heard (but have not read all the transcripts) his sister say for example, "is that what you were burning? You said you were burning tires." I think the defense dropped the ball here. |
7th January 2016, 01:14 AM | #293 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
They actually do have this. It's the judges call. I think the judge made the right decision in allowing it all in and allowing the line of questioning suggesting it was planted.
Can you understand DragonLady why I say by not allowing it in, he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial? |
7th January 2016, 01:15 AM | #294 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Evidence that they knew it was tainted? You do realize this documentary took ten years to make and we are viewing it after the fact?
If the evidence was KNOWN to have been tainted then why haven't they prosecuted the people who did it? Even if the entire town was corrupt, the defense made this case loud and clear. Do you think IA just blew it off? |
7th January 2016, 01:21 AM | #295 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,893
|
Where I come from the prosecution has to decide on the veracity of evidence. If the evidence is dodgy, the prosecution doesn't proceed. Some people here seem to be saying "introduce all evidence, regardless of how tainted it is, and let the jury decide". Is this how people want a criminal justice system to work? Really?
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th January 2016, 01:25 AM | #296 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Yes as long as you point out that the evidence is tainted. It's important to do so.
Many times in trials (and has been the case in this one) the police zero in on ONE suspect and don't investigate other people who had Motive, Means and Opportunity. If they get an appeal, they present ALL the evidence and discredit it. It's what the defense is supposed to do. For example in the Ryan Ferguson case the janitor who identified him was called back to the appeal. They presented his original testimony where he identified Ryan Fergus and then the defense tore it apart. The witness tearfully admitted on the stand that he had felt cooerced into identifying Ryan Ferguson by the DA's office. They presented the testimony and then challenged it. It's how you show the jury the truth. |
7th January 2016, 01:25 AM | #297 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
For it to be KNOWN tainted evidence, you'd have to prove it. I don't think you can prove any of it is absolutely tainted. Do you want to have a pretrial on the pieces of evidence to be admitted?
Look at the spray tan murder case. The cops did not collect the magazines in the magazine rack which reportedly had spray tan on them. This was all part of the evidence phase of the trial and it left enough doubt for the husband to be acquitted. Evidence is usually presented by one side and then refuted by the other, as was done in the Avery case. It is common for the jurors to be the ones to hear both sides of the evidence and then make their decision. I don't know what the alternative is in this case. The defense claims the key was planted. They give the reasons someone would want to plant it, the fact it has no DNA belonging to the owner of the key and it was not found on three prior searches. Then it is up to the jury to give it the weight it deserves. That's the way it works. |
7th January 2016, 01:27 AM | #298 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
I was actually thinking about the Spray Tan murder case when we were discussing "tainted evidence." Remember how they nailed the chick for having a relationship with one of the cops. She was PISSSED OFF. LOL These trials always dig in and try to find any way to prove the evidence or testimony is tainted, biased, wrong etc etc etc. I honestly think that in this case it's what got the guy off. (That and the ******* DA insulting the grandmother in front of the jury) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...detective.html |
7th January 2016, 01:31 AM | #299 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
I'm not positive, but I don't think judges decide on actual pieces of evidence unless there is a Brady violation of some sort. Or maybe if there is some other rule of law regarding the piece of evidence, but I can't think of a piece of evidence ruled on by a judge and I bet you I am a bigger trial junkie than you are
|
7th January 2016, 01:33 AM | #300 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
|
7th January 2016, 01:33 AM | #301 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
|
7th January 2016, 01:37 AM | #302 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Maybe you'll understand what I mean by his interrogation. It's funny (and I know I know it's woo) but like I said, when I started watching this it was at the suggestion of Ryan Ferguson. So my attitude going in was that Avery was completely innocent.
I was totally on his side for not "confessing to a crime he didn't commit" for the first part. But when it got to the scene where he was being interviewed by the media about the woman showing up on his property that day, I was sitting there mind blown, going "Holy **** this guy is lying through his teeth." It was only then that I looked up the case and saw that he was convicted. |
7th January 2016, 01:38 AM | #303 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,893
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th January 2016, 01:38 AM | #304 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
I will have to think on this for a bit, but I can day no, there is not always a discussion about what can be admitted and what can't unless there is a motion filed for some reason.
There would be in cases of prior convictions coming in and things which might not give the perp a fair trial, but certainly not over every piece of evidence and not usually over any one piece of evidence, but let me think on this a bit. |
7th January 2016, 01:42 AM | #305 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
Is this a moral question? I thought those didn't matter.
Actually the reality of it is the DA is trying to get a conviction. I do agree with you that no evidence should ever be presented to a jury that is KNOWN to be tainted, wrong, contaminated. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way which is why the defense is allowed to challenge it. That's how it works. But I think we all are hearing the evidence and deciding that it's tainted. There is not evidence that it was known by the DA to be tainted. The cop who did it is NOT the person who presented the case. You don't think the cop told the DA that he planted it do you? Why would he do that? If he did the DA would prosecute him. (Unless it's your opinion that they all were in on it and it's a conspiracy. I can see that argument but it wasn't what was presented at trial.) |
7th January 2016, 01:43 AM | #306 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North of the White Line of Toldt
Posts: 3,141
|
Yes and no. Yes, the prosecution decides what to present to support their charges. Don't forget though, the prosecution takes what is presented to them by the cops and makes a case. They are not a neutral party, but more of a team on the same team as the cops, an extension if you will. I'm not sure they would scrutinize the evidence and admit it was planted. If they had enough other evidence and felt something was potentially damaging to the case, they might decide not to use it.
|
7th January 2016, 01:46 AM | #307 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,893
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th January 2016, 01:47 AM | #308 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
I think this is more likely the case. Why risk an appeal? DAs like convictions and they don't like issues that could potentially overturn that conviction.
We also could wonder why they submitted the confession. I think that has more to do with ego than deliberately submitting a coerced confession. Cops like to think they are masters are getting confessions. Most of the interviews I've seen with them they don't act like there's even the possibility that it's coerced, whereas the rest of us are looking at it like WTF? |
7th January 2016, 03:05 AM | #309 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
We hold people to an oath to tell the truth and we prosecute perjury because we don't want the jury to sift through lies. Shouldn't we hold evidence to the same standards for the same reasons? Granted, people do lie under oath. Granted, evidence may be tainted. But if we KNOW that going in, shouldn't we rule it out the same way we would rule out compulsive liars? |
__________________
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 |
|
7th January 2016, 03:22 AM | #310 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
|
7th January 2016, 03:23 AM | #311 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,942
|
Noble cause corruption, which is what may have occurred here, must be incorporated into any human jungle. It is self evident that Avery, if guilty yet acquitted, would offend again. How does society prevent this? Lenk is evil or benelovent.
It is the jury system that is useless. These cases should be decided only by scientists. |
7th January 2016, 03:27 AM | #312 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
That's kind of why I dig the Italian system. A panel of judges would be more knowledgeable but we've got what we've got.
|
7th January 2016, 03:56 AM | #313 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,611
|
Quote:
Of course, that only applies to evidence that was subjected to the dubious circumstances. We can say "This evidence from Ohio, which arrived via Greyhound, was tainted by the blood of a suspected pterodactyl. Therefore, ALL the evidence which arrived via the same Greyhound is presumed tainted." The evidence from Ohio that arrived via carrier pigeon is allowed, unless someone can show the pigeon was in or on the bus in question, and so is evidence that arrived on other buses...." It's simple: remove all reason for doubt, and you'll be left without reasonable doubt. If the prosecution couldn't find a case against Avery without using the tainted evidence, they were probably in the wrong line of work. |
__________________
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 |
|
7th January 2016, 03:57 AM | #314 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 11,942
|
I invite people to decide if they would fly on an airplane where a jury had determined the reason there had been a crash. I would prefer scientists to study the wreck. We have incalculable judicial crashes yet we keep doing the same thing. It does not work. Usually doesn't fly with air investigations, nor should it when good people are being pitchforked by villagers.
|
7th January 2016, 04:21 AM | #315 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
Wow, what a wonderful idea. Let's abandon any pretense of justice and imprison.torture/kill people we don't like or find irritating.
Worrying. Then why do you keep ignoring people's responses? Why not? I have some and I haven't killed anyone so far. |
__________________
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. |
|
7th January 2016, 04:25 AM | #316 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
I see you're continuing to put words into the mouths of other people
Not it's not. It's people questioning dubious and contradictory evidence. Seriously? The only support you can cite for your belief is a prosecutor's opinion? |
__________________
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. |
|
7th January 2016, 05:23 AM | #317 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,893
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
7th January 2016, 05:24 AM | #318 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,389
|
I'm asking if you know that even one piece was. Like I said I think it was was but how do we know. The only thing I can think of would be that if any evidence was gathered by members of the police officers responsible for his previous conviction, that would be enough for me to consider it tainted.
|
7th January 2016, 06:22 AM | #319 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,147
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
7th January 2016, 07:07 AM | #320 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
We do. It's the same process. Evidence does not come into the trial naked. It only comes in by way of testimony from some witness.
"Is this the gun you found?" "Did you test this for DNA?" and so on.
Quote:
This is bogus, especially when various pieces of evidence come from various sources. I can impeach a witness who messed up a DNA test, but that doesn't "taint" the fingerprint evidence gathered and analyzed by someone else. (Which is what you say below.)
Quote:
There may be examples of this though. If, for political or other reasons, a prosecutor feels they have to try a case, but don't really believe the person is guilty, they might very well present easily impeached evidence or witness with the expectation it will help lose the case. I sometimes think this happens when the public is out for blood (like in a cop shooting) and not charging will only inflame public outrage. The prosecutor may know the case is weak and go ahead anyhow, just to appease the mob. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|