Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:28am PT
|
If you were innocent and framed and sitting in jail and your wife was leaving you and taking your kids away, you might write some very ugly things yourself. He showed the letters. He apologized. They didn't hide that. this guy isn't perfect. Please show me someone who is.
Edit: she doesn't appear to have any money. Where did she get money? Steven paid the money that he got to his lawyers. So what money?
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:35am PT
|
what does the new lawyers motive for taking the case have to do with whether Steven is innocent or not? Maybe now she believes that she can get a new trial because of the publicity of this film. Maybe before the film she didn't believe there was a chance in hell of getting him a new trial. Have you noticed how biased the judges are? The one judge saw no reason to throw out Brendans confession, though he is very low IQ and had no attorney present during the first 3 times he was interviewed. And once he had an attorney, that fool allowed him to be interviewed without him present again. Do you have to be dense to not see how that can taint the whole confession? Can you not see the travesty of that?
I'm sorry, but this whole thing stinks and it bothers me very much.
|
|
this just in
climber
Justin Ross from North Fork
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:46am PT
|
When Brenden asks what time he'll be back at school to turn in a project, after just confessing to a rape and murder, it shows he doesn't get at all what's going on.
Funny thing about being a troll, are you being serious or just being your regular, troll, self? Makes me read everything you say as worthless drivel.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:53am PT
|
When Brenden asks what time he'll be back at school to turn in a project, after just confessing to a rape and murder, it shows he doesn't get at all what's going on.
He had at the time a verbal IQ of 69. which is extremely low. He could be led to say anything.
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:06pm PT
|
The film is a nice piece of advocacy for their client. It is far from objective, and is completely laughable at times how far they will go to draw a weak inference or connection. Entertaining as fiction, but wished they would have offered up/explained the evidence the jurors relied upon in convicting Avery.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:33pm PT
|
Example ,Making A Murderer did mention Avery’s whole “young and stupid” phase that led to him being charged with animal cruelty, but what the show didn’t mention was how explicitly cruel it actually was. In the show, the animal cruelty incident was depicted as Avery just having some youthful fun of chucking a cat over a bonfire, assumingly to watch it freak out when it lands on the other side, and accidentally misjudged his throw.
What actually happened was that Avery and his friends found some gasoline and oil, drenched the cat and then threw it in the fire to watch it burn.
"When they brought out the fact that he lit a cat on fire, I think that's when people started to turn against him," said Chris Avery, 57, Avery’s aunt by marriage, according to Madison.com. "It's almost hard to put your face out there.
That's the whole purpose of such testimonty WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACCUSED CRIME. It is why such "testimony" is routinely excluded, unless it can be tied to the crime.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:36pm PT
|
What's happening with Avery's suit against the county related to his earlier wrongful conviction for rape?
Why would his subsequent arrest/imprisonment affect that suit?
Under what rule of evidence would it even be admissible? To the extent it is admissible as relating to damages, I could see his later crime as helping his case--he could plausibly argue that the years of unjust imprisonment caused him to go batshit crazy, culminating in the murder.
Also, what's the theory (if there is one) as to who is the real killer? Completely random stranger? (seems impossible)
Someone else in the Avery clan? (possible, I suppose)
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 12:45pm PT
|
What's happening with Avery's suit against the county related to his earlier wrongful conviction for rape?
He settled the lawsuit for 400,000 dollars, which he used to hire the lawyers that defended him in the second case. He said he decided to settle because he knew he had no chance with a public defender. They had him over a barrel.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 02:15pm PT
|
He settled the lawsuit for 400,000 dollars, which he used to hire the lawyers that defended him in the second case. He said he decided to settle because he knew he had no chance with a public defender. They had him over a barrel.
Not really.
If his case was objectively worth significantly more than $400k but he needed the money fast (to pay an attorney in the 2nd case or for whatever reason), he could have obtained a loan with his fist lawsuit as collateral or could have received litigation financing.
A meritorious lawsuit with significant damages is a valuable asset and they're monetized all the time in different ways--he did not have to settle for something like pennies on the dollar because he needed the money fast. (Obviously the financing takes a "piece of the action," but so what, that's business.)
Perhaps there is a law that prevents litigation financing in this type of case, but I'd doubt it.
Sounds like a lot of you guys are just buying this guy's story without a lot of critical analysis?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 08:43pm PT
|
This thing was brutal and so disturbing to watch such a miscarriage of justice.
I think C. Schwarma did it.
Who else has so much invested in this thing ......
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2016 - 09:12pm PT
|
holy sh#t that's a great insult. I'm going to borrow that.
Chris Schwarma were you in the middle of bumf*ck nowhere on halloween, 2006????
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:39pm PT
|
Bullsh!t
You've never climbed anything except into a pit of bullsh!t ......
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 09:46pm PT
|
I don't think Avery has to be innocent for the documentary to have made its point.
I think there's a decent chance he was guilty, and am pretty sure that at the same time there was all sorts of prosecutorial and police misconduct. Even if there wasn't, its not all that often that you see just how beside the point justice is for our justice system.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2016 - 10:09pm PT
|
I don't think Avery has to be innocent for the documentary to have made its point.
I think there's a decent chance he was guilty, and am pretty sure that at the same time there was all sorts of prosecutorial and police misconduct. Even if there wasn't, its not all that often that you see just how beside the point justice is for our justice system.
yes! though I believe that there is a decent chance that he is innocent.
we have a messed up judicial system. Don't get sideways of it. Especially if you have little to no power. You could end up with a public defender who actively works against you.
The problem with this story is most people don't think they could end up like these two, especially Brendan, because they believe they are smarter, and they probably are, thus they can't empathize. Its interesting that there is a thread right now asking if people ever realize how dumb they are. Another question is, can you imagine what its like to not be intelligent and to even be below average, and then go further and be extremely below average. How vulnerable to police interrogation methods one is. Even if those cops have good intentions. They screwed Brendan every which way imaginable. And the judge hearing the appeal was the same judge who tried the case. What is fair about that? A judge oversees himself. Mercy…
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 14, 2016 - 07:46am PT
|
Had he had proper counsel he wouldn't have admitted to a crime he didn't commit in the first place...
|
|
justthemaid
climber
Jim Henson's Basement
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2016 - 09:05am PT
|
Whether or not Avery committed the second crime is (edit:)moot in light of the inappropriate behavior of the prosecutors. The important point in my mind is protect innocent people in the future from this type of mis-justice. They shouldn't be rewarded with a conviction when it is proved through dishonest means.
The real victim is Brendan (and Theresa of course). That kid is so dumb and confused he doesn't know which way is up. Pretty heartbreaking to watch those police interrogations. Brendan simply agrees with anything anyone pressures him to say- whether it me the police, his mother or his lawyer. His testimony flip flops and changes so many times I simply can't understand any honorable judge allowing his statements. I don't think Brendan even knows the truth any longer after all the brain-washing. Kid should be in a psych-ward.
Theresa's family goes through hell over and over again as the case gets re-tried because of prosecutorial mis-conduct leaving doubt in many people's minds.
Edit for sp error
Meh.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2016 - 10:13am PT
|
Interesting contemporaneous account of the trial:
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/08/dasseys-mom-scolds-him-not-being-hero/78508142/
Seems that the notion that Dassey was manipulated in his confession was very much a part of the trial--and the jury obviously didn't buy it.
Here's some interesting testimony in the trial about Dassey lying to investigators about denying that there was a bonfire on Halloween (the murder date)--there was in fact a bonfire, and that's where the victim's remains and phone were found.
Seems odd to me that so many of you seem to believe Dassey now when he was caught lying about a very relevant aspect of the case in which he would have no reason at all to lie if he was innocent (why would anyone care if Avery had a bonfire, in general?).
The best Dassey could do to explain his lie was "Because I'm just like my family. I don't like cops."
Early fabrications
Fallon sought to show that the misinformation from Dassey started early and when he had no reason to lie if he was not involved.
Fallon cited an interview done by a Marinette County sheriff's detective in which Dassey denies there was a bonfire on Halloween night, something he now admits.
"So you lied to (Detective Anthony O'Neill)?" Fallon asked.
"Yes," Dassey said.
"Why did you lie to him?" Fallon asked.
"Because I'm just like my family. I don't like cops," Dassey said.
"Justthemaid"--I think the word you're looking for is "moot," not "mute," but it still doesn't make much sense. It's kind of hard to get too bent out of shape that someone was wrongfully convicted when they were not in fact wrongfully convicted.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2016 - 10:45am PT
|
n which he would have no reason at all to lie if he was innocent (why would anyone care if Avery had a bonfire, in general?).
you need to watch the video and see how they shaped his confession. There is one very clear part where they show this. And you need to try and understand what it means to have a verbal IQ of 69. It doesn't matter if it would have been better for him not to lie, because he was incapable of understanding that. This has been shown in many cases, how its possible and almost probable to lead certain IQ levels and certain age levels to say anything.
Yes it was brought out in trial. Its a difficult subject to try and explain to a layman during a trail, which is why the judge should have done something.
Here is an example of what happens with leading questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial
In this case kids confessed to all sorts of things happening. Most were easy to prove untrue. Brendans confession also went all over the place. Something that didn't come out in Steven's trial because the prosecution did not use his testimony except in an indirect way. That indirect way was the result of what I believe was planted evidence. The two pieces of evidence that made it appear that brendans testimony was at least partially accurate, were the key in Steven's bedroom and the bullet in the garage. Both of these pieces of evidence were found by a manitowoc detective who was not suppose to be investigating because of the conflict with the lawsuit, and they were found after multiple other agencies had already searched the very small bedroom and the garage. Plus the DNA evidence on both pieces was shown to be very suspect. The key had only Steven's DNA on it. It was a key that had been used for 11 years by the woman who was killed. Yet none of her DNA was on it. How is that possible unless the key was first bleached.
we have since learned the things we need to avoid doing with certain ages and certain mental IQ levels. Because they are too susceptible to leading questions. If you know what to look for, its pretty easy to see in the video of his interrogation.
As for the bones being found next to Steven's cabin. This is also muddy water because of the way the police handled the scene. Very incompetent, and that was shown during trial. The guilty verdict is in my opinion more an indictment of what can happen in a jury. I don't trust the average person to understand the concept of leading questions and low IQ. Or be willing to believe that a police force could screw up that bad, or even perhaps even do illegal things. This happened in an area of the country where people still implicitly trust the police.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2016 - 03:06pm PT
|
^ ^
Interesting stuff.
While Avery's guilt seems clear to me unless you believe he was framed by numerous people who had no clear motivation to do so, Dassey is a different question--all they had was his confession, which had obvious problems.
There are still troubling aspects regarding Dassey, and I wouldn't at all assume that he's innocent--just impossible to really say based on what I've seen.
|
|
Coach37
Social climber
Philly
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2016 - 04:16pm PT
|
I wouldn't at all assume that he's innocent
WTF? Go back to law school, you seem to have missed a few days!!
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 which established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!