WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I'm curious if people are coming to this guys defense because the show peaked an interest and they went out and thoroughly researched the case or if it's based solely on watching the show.

I watched the show and was outraged. So I wanted to look it up online to see if there's anything the documentary missed. I found some articles claiming that the doc left out important evidence. When said evidence was revealed, it turned out to be utter bullshit.

But even if there was more evidence that actually mattered, he should have been found not guilty. There's no way a rational human being can consider him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt.

I disagree. If a juror is convinced that the evidence wasn't planted then there is enough to convict on. The fact is that if a body is found in your yard, with the victims belongings found in your house and your DNA on it, and your DNA found in the victims car you'd better have a really good explanation for all of that otherwise start packing for a long stay in prison. In this case the jury didn't find Avery's explanation for those pieces of evidence convincing enough.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
And that interrogation of that low-iQ kid? Holy fucking shit. A recipe for false convictions.

purplerat wrote:The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted on the basis of his confession and the admissibility of his confession was held up on appeal. That's going to be really tough to overturn even if Avery is exonerated.

The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted based on a false confession forced on him by corrupt cops who will use any trick in the book to achieve a confession no matter what. It's clear from the transcripts and videos of the interrogation that it's the cops that are designing the "confession".

The kind of interrogation they were using is a recipe for false confessions and bogus information. Science has clearly demonstrated that such interrogations are completely and utterly useless if you want to extract reliable information from someone.

Dassey is a victim of dangerous police methods that should have been banned ages ago.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted on the basis of his confession and the admissibility of his confession was held up on appeal. That's going to be really tough to overturn even if Avery is exonerated.

The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted based on a false confession forced on him by corrupt cops who will use any trick in the book to achieve a confession no matter what. It's clear from the transcripts and videos of the interrogation that it's the cops that are designing the "confession".

The kind of interrogation they were using is a recipe for false confessions and bogus information. Science has clearly demonstrated that such interrogations are completely and utterly useless if you want to extract reliable information from someone.

Dassey is a victim of dangerous police methods that should have been banned ages ago.

I don't disagree but the problem for him as it sits today is that the courts have basically validated the confession via his original trial and appeals. You can say it's unfair or appeal to science but that doesn't really help him much. His options for getting out are quite limited right now. Basically he would have to prove somebody else did it and that he could not have been involved. I think it's an extreme long shot at this point that his confession will be thrown out.

When the facts so clearly shows that the confession must necessarily be bogus - when you can demonstrate that the very thing the entire conviction rests on is false - is that not reason enough to free him in the US Justice (ha-ha) System?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:When the facts so clearly shows that the confession must necessarily be bogus - when you can demonstrate that the very thing the entire conviction rests on is false - is that not reason enough to free him in the US Justice (ha-ha) System?

Apparently not because if I recall correctly he's exhausted all of his appeals trying to do so unsuccessfully.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I'm curious if people are coming to this guys defense because the show peaked an interest and they went out and thoroughly researched the case or if it's based solely on watching the show.

I watched the show and was outraged. So I wanted to look it up online to see if there's anything the documentary missed. I found some articles claiming that the doc left out important evidence. When said evidence was revealed, it turned out to be utter bullshit.

But even if there was more evidence that actually mattered, he should have been found not guilty. There's no way a rational human being can consider him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt.

And that interrogation of that low-iQ kid? Holy fucking shit. A recipe for false convictions.

Ploice now have the way clear to cllear all the crimes on their books - just troll the area for children with low IQs and feed them enough 'facts' to repeat on tape and the case is solved.

Sure beats trying to chase real criminals!

proudfootz wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I'm curious if people are coming to this guys defense because the show peaked an interest and they went out and thoroughly researched the case or if it's based solely on watching the show.

I watched the show and was outraged. So I wanted to look it up online to see if there's anything the documentary missed. I found some articles claiming that the doc left out important evidence. When said evidence was revealed, it turned out to be utter bullshit.

But even if there was more evidence that actually mattered, he should have been found not guilty. There's no way a rational human being can consider him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt.

And that interrogation of that low-iQ kid? Holy fucking shit. A recipe for false convictions.

Ploice now have the way clear to cllear all the crimes on their books - just troll the area for children with low IQs and feed them enough 'facts' to repeat on tape and the case is solved.

Sure beats trying to chase real criminals!

FWIW, for all their hideous wrong doing here the police were not "trolling" for Dassey. His cousin who he was apparently close with came forward on her own and claimed he confessed to her with no apparent motivation for her to lie about it.

I think the police really did believe he was involved. It's not like anything they got from Dassey did anything to help convict Avery either. So you'd have to believe they railroaded some dumb kid for no reason whatsoever even while they had somebody else for the crime.

purplerat wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I'm curious if people are coming to this guys defense because the show peaked an interest and they went out and thoroughly researched the case or if it's based solely on watching the show.

I watched the show and was outraged. So I wanted to look it up online to see if there's anything the documentary missed. I found some articles claiming that the doc left out important evidence. When said evidence was revealed, it turned out to be utter bullshit.

But even if there was more evidence that actually mattered, he should have been found not guilty. There's no way a rational human being can consider him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt.

And that interrogation of that low-iQ kid? Holy fucking shit. A recipe for false convictions.

Ploice now have the way clear to cllear all the crimes on their books - just troll the area for children with low IQs and feed them enough 'facts' to repeat on tape and the case is solved.

Sure beats trying to chase real criminals!

FWIW, for all their hideous wrong doing here the police were not "trolling" for Dassey. His cousin who he was apparently close with came forward on her own and claimed he confessed to her with no apparent motivation for her to lie about it.

I think the police really did believe he was involved. It's not like anything they got from Dassey did anything to help convict Avery either. So you'd have to believe they railroaded some dumb kid for no reason whatsoever even while they had somebody else for the crime.

It seems to me that the police were interested in compromising Dassey because he was Avery's alibi. At the outset he was only to be used as a witness against Avery - not as someone involved in the crime.

That turned into leading Dassey to incriminate himself as a perpetrator when over the course of the questioning it became clear he wasn't going to help in the prosecution of Avery.

They never did use Dassey as a witness against Avery, which demonstrates how much faith they put in these 'confessions'.

Some police don't seem to need any reason whatsoever to 'punish' someone when they aren't cooperative enough for their liking. So I don't have to believe they didn't have no reason to act as they did.

purplerat wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I'm curious if people are coming to this guys defense because the show peaked an interest and they went out and thoroughly researched the case or if it's based solely on watching the show.

I watched the show and was outraged. So I wanted to look it up online to see if there's anything the documentary missed. I found some articles claiming that the doc left out important evidence. When said evidence was revealed, it turned out to be utter bullshit.

But even if there was more evidence that actually mattered, he should have been found not guilty. There's no way a rational human being can consider him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt.

I disagree. If a juror is convinced that the evidence wasn't planted then there is enough to convict on. The fact is that if a body is found in your yard, with the victims belongings found in your house and your DNA on it, and your DNA found in the victims car you'd better have a really good explanation for all of that otherwise start packing for a long stay in prison. In this case the jury didn't find Avery's explanation for those pieces of evidence convincing enough.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
And that interrogation of that low-iQ kid? Holy fucking shit. A recipe for false convictions.

We should also not forget that we saw this after it happened and we saw a biased version favouring Avery. What we missed was all the negative publicity leading up to the trial and wouldn't have been privy to so much information.

Had the jurors seen the series before the trial, things might have been different.

Perhaps instead of one trial of a person, they should hold 2? 1 a year later with a different defence and prosecution team to see what was missed out - maybe only for serious cases because as it seems so far, 2nd cases are what proved Avery to be innocent.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted on the basis of his confession and the admissibility of his confession was held up on appeal. That's going to be really tough to overturn even if Avery is exonerated.

The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted based on a false confession forced on him by corrupt cops who will use any trick in the book to achieve a confession no matter what. It's clear from the transcripts and videos of the interrogation that it's the cops that are designing the "confession".

The kind of interrogation they were using is a recipe for false confessions and bogus information. Science has clearly demonstrated that such interrogations are completely and utterly useless if you want to extract reliable information from someone.

Dassey is a victim of dangerous police methods that should have been banned ages ago.

I've got two decades in forensic psychiatry under my belt. What I witnesses in those interviews made the hair on my bpneck stand up, I would lose my licence for doing an interview like that.

proudfootz wrote:

purplerat wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

I watched the show and was outraged. So I wanted to look it up online to see if there's anything the documentary missed. I found some articles claiming that the doc left out important evidence. When said evidence was revealed, it turned out to be utter bullshit.

But even if there was more evidence that actually mattered, he should have been found not guilty. There's no way a rational human being can consider him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt.

And that interrogation of that low-iQ kid? Holy fucking shit. A recipe for false convictions.

Ploice now have the way clear to cllear all the crimes on their books - just troll the area for children with low IQs and feed them enough 'facts' to repeat on tape and the case is solved.

Sure beats trying to chase real criminals!

FWIW, for all their hideous wrong doing here the police were not "trolling" for Dassey. His cousin who he was apparently close with came forward on her own and claimed he confessed to her with no apparent motivation for her to lie about it.

I think the police really did believe he was involved. It's not like anything they got from Dassey did anything to help convict Avery either. So you'd have to believe they railroaded some dumb kid for no reason whatsoever even while they had somebody else for the crime.

It seems to me that the police were interested in compromising Dassey because he was Avery's alibi. At the outset he was only to be used as a witness against Avery - not as someone involved in the crime.

That turned into leading Dassey to incriminate himself as a perpetrator when over the course of the questioning it became clear he wasn't going to help in the prosecution of Avery.

They never did use Dassey as a witness against Avery, which demonstrates how much faith they put in these 'confessions'.

Some police don't seem to need any reason whatsoever to 'punish' someone when they aren't cooperative enough for their liking. So I don't have to believe they didn't have no reason to act as they did.

Are you denying that somebody came forward and implicated Dassey in the crime? Or do you think the police set that up to give them a reason, even though as you say they didn't need a reason either way?

Keep in mind that Dassey was seen as an accomplice until month after Avery was arrest and well on his way to trial.

The reality is that what happened to Dassey, which was horrific, just doesn't line up with your statement about police "trolling" for somebody in order to solve a case. There's enough issue here with how Dassey was handled and treated not to have to inject fantasy into the situation.

purplerat wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

purplerat wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Ploice now have the way clear to cllear all the crimes on their books - just troll the area for children with low IQs and feed them enough 'facts' to repeat on tape and the case is solved.

Sure beats trying to chase real criminals!

FWIW, for all their hideous wrong doing here the police were not "trolling" for Dassey. His cousin who he was apparently close with came forward on her own and claimed he confessed to her with no apparent motivation for her to lie about it.

I think the police really did believe he was involved. It's not like anything they got from Dassey did anything to help convict Avery either. So you'd have to believe they railroaded some dumb kid for no reason whatsoever even while they had somebody else for the crime.

It seems to me that the police were interested in compromising Dassey because he was Avery's alibi. At the outset he was only to be used as a witness against Avery - not as someone involved in the crime.

That turned into leading Dassey to incriminate himself as a perpetrator when over the course of the questioning it became clear he wasn't going to help in the prosecution of Avery.

They never did use Dassey as a witness against Avery, which demonstrates how much faith they put in these 'confessions'.

Some police don't seem to need any reason whatsoever to 'punish' someone when they aren't cooperative enough for their liking. So I don't have to believe they didn't have no reason to act as they did.

Are you denying that somebody came forward and implicated Dassey in the crime? Or do you think the police set that up to give them a reason, even though as you say they didn't need a reason either way?

No.

And Dassey should have been questioned as he was Avery's alibi witness.

In an early session Dassey states that he saw Teresa leave about 20 times, doesn't know what became of her, and doesn't even know that she's dead.

Keep in mind that Dassey was seen as an accomplice until month after Avery was arrest and well on his way to trial.

In the very earliest sessions Dassey is treated as a witness, it isn't until later sessions Dassey begins to be treated as a suspect.

The reality is that what happened to Dassey, which was horrific, just doesn't line up with your statement about police "trolling" for somebody in order to solve a case. There's enough issue here with how Dassey was handled and treated not to have to inject fantasy into the situation.

I agree that what happened to Dassey is horrific.

To the point that if how he was coerced into making false incriminating statements, as I think the facts show, this is an illegitimate way for police to 'solve' crimes and should not be repeated. Ever.

I'm not injecting 'fantasy' into the situation. My bad if my post wasn't clear enough.

Does a President have the ability to pardon on leaving office?
Maybe that's his moment?

Willie71 wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted on the basis of his confession and the admissibility of his confession was held up on appeal. That's going to be really tough to overturn even if Avery is exonerated.

The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted based on a false confession forced on him by corrupt cops who will use any trick in the book to achieve a confession no matter what. It's clear from the transcripts and videos of the interrogation that it's the cops that are designing the "confession".

The kind of interrogation they were using is a recipe for false confessions and bogus information. Science has clearly demonstrated that such interrogations are completely and utterly useless if you want to extract reliable information from someone.

Dassey is a victim of dangerous police methods that should have been banned ages ago.

I've got two decades in forensic psychiatry under my belt. What I witnesses in those interviews made the hair on my bpneck stand up, I would lose my licence for doing an interview like that.

Ditto.

I will happily wager that in that time you know or have known a number of vulnerable, highly suggestible individuals you could talk into a confession of that sort with nothing other than the right questions and the right person asking them.

I tried re-watching the series this week in light of some of the discussion that has been had since it's release and got as far as those interviews when I had to turn it off completely. Not just the interviews but the judge throwing out the motion to dismiss them.

monkeyboy wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted on the basis of his confession and the admissibility of his confession was held up on appeal. That's going to be really tough to overturn even if Avery is exonerated.

The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted based on a false confession forced on him by corrupt cops who will use any trick in the book to achieve a confession no matter what. It's clear from the transcripts and videos of the interrogation that it's the cops that are designing the "confession".

The kind of interrogation they were using is a recipe for false confessions and bogus information. Science has clearly demonstrated that such interrogations are completely and utterly useless if you want to extract reliable information from someone.

Dassey is a victim of dangerous police methods that should have been banned ages ago.

I've got two decades in forensic psychiatry under my belt. What I witnesses in those interviews made the hair on my bpneck stand up, I would lose my licence for doing an interview like that.

Ditto.

I will happily wager that in that time you know or have known a number of vulnerable, highly suggestible individuals you could talk into a confession of that sort with nothing other than the right questions and the right person asking them.

I tried re-watching the series this week in light of some of the discussion that has been had since it's release and got as far as those interviews when I had to turn it off completely. Not just the interviews but the judge throwing out the motion to dismiss them.

I worked with adolescent forensics, and with the average IQ of 85, let alone 70, you have to be careful in the interview, these are highly suggestible individuals, often lacking abstract reasoning skills, and lacking social skills. Most had a functional skill set of a preschooler (not intelligence, but coping skills,) they often got in trouble with the law because more sophisticated kids and adults exploited them.

What I saw in Dassey's interviews was outright abuse. In Canada, he would have never been interviewed without a guardian and or legal counsel.

We need to be better as a culture in protecting the vulnerable.

Willie71 wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

The problem for Dassey is that he was convicted based on a false confession forced on him by corrupt cops who will use any trick in the book to achieve a confession no matter what. It's clear from the transcripts and videos of the interrogation that it's the cops that are designing the "confession".

The kind of interrogation they were using is a recipe for false confessions and bogus information. Science has clearly demonstrated that such interrogations are completely and utterly useless if you want to extract reliable information from someone.

Dassey is a victim of dangerous police methods that should have been banned ages ago.

I've got two decades in forensic psychiatry under my belt. What I witnesses in those interviews made the hair on my bpneck stand up, I would lose my licence for doing an interview like that.

Ditto.

I will happily wager that in that time you know or have known a number of vulnerable, highly suggestible individuals you could talk into a confession of that sort with nothing other than the right questions and the right person asking them.

I tried re-watching the series this week in light of some of the discussion that has been had since it's release and got as far as those interviews when I had to turn it off completely. Not just the interviews but the judge throwing out the motion to dismiss them.

I worked with adolescent forensics, and with the average IQ of 85, let alone 70, you have to be careful in the interview, these are highly suggestible individuals, often lacking abstract reasoning skills, and lacking social skills. Most had a functional skill set of a preschooler (not intelligence, but coping skills,) they often got in trouble with the law because more sophisticated kids and adults exploited them.

What I saw in Dassey's interviews was outright abuse. In Canada, he would have never been interviewed without a guardian and or legal counsel.

We need to be better as a culture in protecting the vulnerable.

Likewise here in the UK. Anyone under the age of 18, regardless of IQ has to have at the least, an appropriate adult with them in interview. I have in the past acted as an appropriate adult and unlike those tossers in the Dassey case, our police took great pains to ensure that I had received appropriate training, was up to date on my training and was knowledgeable about my role, responsibilities and ability to halt proceedings if necessary. The main function of the role is to ensure that the person being interviewed has the capacity to follow proceedings and is not being coerced in any way. Basically, a million miles away from what happened there. There is no way that a decent responsible adult here would have allowed that interview to take place. That and the conduct of the "defence" lawyer.............................................don't get me started!!!!

Hobbes Choice wrote:Does a President have the ability to pardon on leaving office?
Maybe that's his moment?

Apparently the President can only pardon federal cases.

It would be up to Scott Walker who's Governor in Wisconsin.

Walker is not inclined to do so.

In the meantime Steve Avery's new lawyer is confident the conviction can be overturned:

Defense attorney Kathleen Zellner, who took on Steven Avery's case in late-January, has said that her goal is not to secure her client a new trial — she wants to see him exonerated and his conviction vacated.

"I told [Avery], 'I'm a sprinter. I'm not a long-distance runner,'" Zellner recently told Newsweek.

She took on Avery's case shortly after he filed his appeal in January. There's no guarantee that a judge will agree to hear it, but introducing evidence that clearly absolves Avery of the murder of 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach would make a retrial unnecessary. Zellner has been involved in the exoneration and release of 17 falsely convicted men...

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/new ... z461VCmjnl

purplerat wrote:I think the police really did believe he was involved. It's not like anything they got from Dassey did anything to help convict Avery either. So you'd have to believe they railroaded some dumb kid for no reason whatsoever even while they had somebody else for the crime.

The fake conviction confession was used in a carefully crafted media stunt. They went straight out there and presented the fake conviction as truth to the media, obviously affecting the jury at the same time. Even if they didn't use Dassey's fake conviction during the Avery trial, the jury already had it established in their brains.

The police may well have firmly believed that Dassey was guilty of the story the police themselevs created... But that still doesn't make the fake conviction any less fake, or the obvious "mind grab" by going straight to the press any better.

Willie71 wrote:I worked with adolescent forensics, and with the average IQ of 85, let alone 70, you have to be careful in the interview, these are highly suggestible individuals, often lacking abstract reasoning skills, and lacking social skills. Most had a functional skill set of a preschooler (not intelligence, but coping skills,) they often got in trouble with the law because more sophisticated kids and adults exploited them.

People with normal mental abilities are easily influenced as well, as you probably know. There's been some research on how the wording of a question can have a significant impact on how regular people remember a situation:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/loftus-palmer.html

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

purplerat wrote:I think the police really did believe he was involved. It's not like anything they got from Dassey did anything to help convict Avery either. So you'd have to believe they railroaded some dumb kid for no reason whatsoever even while they had somebody else for the crime.

The fake conviction was used in a carefully crafted media stunt. They went straight out there and presented the fake conviction as truth to the media, obviously affecting the jury at the same time. Even if they didn't use Dassey's fake conviction during the Avery trial, the jury already had it established in their brains.

The police may well have firmly believed that Dassey was guilty of the story the police themselevs created... But that still doesn't make the fake conviction any less fake, or the obvious "mind grab" by going straight to the press any better.

The 'confession' used by police to execute several searches on the Avery property wasn't really used in the Avery trial, and Dassey's trial came after Avery's conviction.

Though it is apparently perfectly legal, the two trials used mutually exclusive 'theories' of the crime, which positively screams reasonable doubt right there.

It also indicates that they were more interested in convicting someone rather than knowing what happened.

Another interesting fact is that the mattress and bedclothes where this supposed torture, rape, and stabbing and throat slashing allegedly occurred was never tested forensically.

The most likely explanation is that they knew it was a waste of time, because the story was bullshit.