|
Evidence you characterize as weak =/= "zero evidence".
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jan 25, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
But you got me, I registered in 2008 so I would be positioned to argue with goons about the documentary in 2016. You sure found that conspiracy!  Seriously, I don't care about a ton of poo poo Ken Kratz focuses on. I sure as hell think he's an rear end for his daily press conferences. I don't care about using the court for any sound bite about some department's reputations or them being "good strong family men" (though it was some other prosecutor said that) because that's not what court is for. I just happen to view the evidence available differently than you do and you apparently don't have enough perspective to see how that's possible without ad hominem justifications. Which doesn't speak well to your ability to sit in a jury room and discuss evidence if we are playing that game. Even though, of the two juries that we've seen so far, you'd be the only hold out for innocence. Not that you'd convince anyone else with the attitude we're seeing here. Leon Einstein posted:I can't believe that you're buying the prosecution's story hook, line, and sinker. First off, there's zero evidence of multiple shots, and secondly, having empty shells in a garage proves absolutely nothing. Be honest, you are Ken Krantz, aren't you? Why does someone have a bunch of empty shells where they weren't shooting? If he's collecting them, why the floor of the garage? And if they're lying all over outside on the property like the defense claims, kind of doesn't sound like he's all that interested in collecting them, does it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
^^^ They had said that he had sighted his guns in there. I'm not sure how big or long the garage is, so they mayve have have done it outside. Either way, empty shells being on a garage floor isn't suspicious in itself seeing as the gun was fired on a regular basis. yronic heroism posted:Evidence you characterize as weak =/= "zero evidence". What line of work are you in? It seems like you're reading into this case with a clear bias. (I was joking about you being Ken Krantz, ya dope!) Leon Einstein fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:Be honest, you are Ken Krantz, aren't you? yronic heroism posted:But you got me, I registered in 2008 so I would be positioned to argue with goons about the documentary in 2016. You sure found that conspiracy! it's like watching a master swordfighter
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Let me ask you this, "If tomorrow, you were conscripted to sit through Steven Avery's new trial, could you give him a guilty verdict if you heard and saw enough evidence to convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did it?" This is an extremely manipulatively question, whether you meant it as such or not. You basically just asked "could you be convinced if you were convinced?" It's only barely more than a tautology. No one would answer "no" to such a question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Why does someone have a bunch of empty shells where they weren't shooting? If he's collecting them, why the floor of the garage? And if they're lying all over outside on the property like the defense claims, kind of doesn't sound like he's all that interested in collecting them, does it? I grew up in the rural Midwest and I wouldn't be surprised if you found a couple shell casings in our garage. I'm certain you'd find some in the machine shed where the farm equipment and workshop tools are. My dad carries a .22 rifle in his truck and tractor regularly, and that shed hasn't been thoroughly cleaned in decades (why would it?). When I'm hunting, I make at least a token effort to pick up and trash spent shotgun shell casings because hey why not, better than littering. We used to target shoot with .22s in our front yard, so there's shell casings all over in the lawn if you took a metal detector out there. Nothing has actually been killed around the house, garage, or shop, but when you have lots of firearms being used for decades it's totally unremarkable to find shell casings everywhere. Especially if you look at the photos of Avery's garage, it was a cluttered loving mess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Avery and Dassey were so tired after cleaning every spot of Teresa's blood and picking up every strand of her hair, they didn't have enough energy to pick up the shell casings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:I can't believe that you're buying the prosecution's story hook, line, and sinker. First off, there's zero evidence of multiple shots, and secondly, having empty shells in a garage proves absolutely nothing. Be honest, you are Ken Krantz, aren't you? Yeah but you see there was multiple shots and no blood. Or there was one shot and no exit wound. Or something, I can't make up my mind other than Steven did it. At least MBL is somewhat coherent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
to be fair, .22 casings are really tiny so I can't blame them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:but kratz continues to be the most incredible narcissistic sweaty fuckbrain imaginable, but now he's writing a book! kratz posted:"By the way, the difference between you and famous convicted murderes from the past is they told their whole truthful story to someone, who then wrote a book about what actually happened and people got to understand both sides. I was willing to do that for you... but if you are going to continue to lie about what happened between you and Ms. Halbackm i am not interested. He was willing to do that for him! How noble Ken Kratz is for willing to put aside his differences and let Steven Avery finnaly confess to a crime and finally have an audience. Still not sure how I feel about stevens new defence lawyer as she seems to be enjoying the spotlight a bit too much and Im not sure what good kratz DNA is gonna do. But she has been pretty entertaining on twitter to say the least. 
TheAbortionator fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
TheAbortionator posted:He was willing to do that for him! How noble Ken Kratz is for willing to put aside his differences and let Steven Avery finnaly confess to a crime and finally have an audience. My favorite part about that is that sweaty narcissist Kratz apparently can't understand that Avery might have motivations that are more important to him than notoriety. For example freedom and his good name. It's like Kratz can't even muster the empathy to understand there may be worse things than not currently being the center of attention. quote:Still not sure how I feel about stevens new defence lawyer as she seems to be enjoying the spotlight a bit too much and Im not sure what good kratz DNA is gonna do. But she has been pretty entertaining on twitter to say the least. She has had a couple of weird, (I assume) unsubstantiated things to say. The bit about the real murderer being the person who deleted the phone messages was the most irresponsible I thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:^^^ It doesn't matter what any of us does. We are analyzing certain evidence and arguments in the public record, media, and film. Either the analysis is good or bad, and that's something anyone can consider without Internet Credentials or the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority. My point is just this: It's naive to act like nobody can come to different conclusions than you. Because two juries did just that after hearing all the defense arguments. And at least Steven Avery had an excellent defense team. You think I have a bias? Fine, everyone has a bias. You think folks who come in here having watched and agreed with the whole documentary don't have a bias? They definitely do, especially the ones saying "I know from this TV show of edited footage not only is he innocent but X person we saw 5 minutes of footage of really did it." Re evidence: Evidence is defined as pretty much anything. We have a statement by Dassey (direct evidence) and multiple casings (circumstantial evidence). That's not "no evidence" from either a legal or plain English definition. No evidence means nothing. Presence of evidence is not the same thing as "how strong is the evidence"... We disagree on that issue. And that's fine. But we can't pretend two juries didn't have a very different view and I think there's not really any proof that they are anomalous as far as jurors go. Most jurors, for all their flaws, do their best and take their duties very seriously when they deliberate. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:We have a statement by Dassey (direct evidence) The Dassey statement about Halbeck being stabbed and having her throat slit but not leaving any evidence of bleeding anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The Dassey statement about Halbeck being stabbed and having her throat slit but not leaving any evidence of bleeding anywhere? It's perfectly fine to argue about the strength of the evidence. See above: strength of evidence is different from presence or absence of any evidence. I agree the part you mention seems hard to take at face value (I believe in his May interview he changed what he said and claimed the knife attack happened in the garage in the back of the vehicle, but either way I'll grant that you can't take anything he says at face value without considering the whole statement, which I've read and the documentary only shows clips of), but it's also possible that Dassey (not being as determined a killer as Avery) didn't cut very deep so "slit throat" might not be an apt characterization. But if we want to debate the strength of Dassey's evidence, let me emphasize you can't just nitpick the parts that are good for the defense (I'm talking about the court of goon opinion rather than the actual Avery trial where none of this came in). And he was always consistent about cleaning up something in the garage that night. He also said he saw a body in the fire before the confessions, and we know he was at the bonfire with Avery. That was the big alibi. If you believe he saw the body burning on that night in the bonfire that Avery set there's really no reasonable explanation other than Avery being guilty even if you think he made up a bunch of the poo poo he said later. Even Dassey's trial lawyers (not the idiot who they replaced) argued he probably saw the body, so that gives some indication how ridiculous they think it is to now claim he didn't see anything. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:He also said he saw a body in the fire before the confessions, and we know he was at the bonfire with Avery. Is he on the record saying this pre-confession somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The Dassey statement about Halbeck being stabbed and having her throat slit but not leaving any evidence of bleeding anywhere? "Ok, let's start with when you bring her out to the garage. Where do you put her?" "on the floor... and then he (Steven) stabs her and then he tells me to and then he puts her in the jeep and then he said he would rather burn her so he put her back on the floor and then he shot her five times." ... "You told us in another interview that you cut her throat. Did you cut her throat?" "no." "Why did you tell us that?" "too nervous." "Ok, are you nervous now?" "a little." "Well, what's the truth? Tell me what the truth is." "That I stabbed her in the stomach (in the garage)." ... "Did he tell you where to stab her?" "no." "You just stabbed her in the stomach. How far did you put the knife in?" "like three inches." ... "and then after that he took the gun and shot her five times." "Ok, and where did he shoot her?" Where in the body?" "i don't know." "Why don't you know?" "cuz i wasn't looking." "But you shot her too. Brendan, did you shoot her?" "no." "You sure? I think you did." "I never touched the gun." "The first time you told us 10 times that you show her. And then you told us where he shot her. Were you lying then or are you lying now?" "i was lying then."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:This is an extremely manipulatively question, whether you meant it as such or not. You basically just asked "could you be convinced if you were convinced?" It's only barely more than a tautology. No one would answer "no" to such a question. Don't forget the next part of the question: "Could you overcome the belief that he is innocent and didn't get a fair shake at the first trial, and render a 'guilty' verdict anyways, if it became clear to you that he murdered that woman?" Its only manipulative to the extent that it directs the reader to view their bias about the jury verdict from the other side of the table. Its also designed to show that, "yes", most people can work through their bias and judge the information as its put to them, under the instructions that they're give, as you pointed out. Everyone has biases and prejudices; its only those who's predilections prevent them from being reasonable who cannot serve the functions of justice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I agree the part you mention seems hard to take at face value (I believe in his May interview he changed what he said and claimed the knife attack happened in the garage in the back of the vehicle, but either way I'll grant that you can't take anything he says at face value without considering the whole statement, which I've read and the documentary only shows clips of), quote:MOK When she was in the garage, where was her car? quote:Wiegert: Now where is her truck when you go into the garage?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
The Dassey part of this show is the most depressing part. The kid got loving boned by the prosecution and his own inconsistent confessions (which were completely led on by the cops).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Is he on the record saying this pre-confession somewhere? Feb 27 (before the first confession on March 1 if you google this stuff) and he told one or two people before that. He was definitely shaken up and talking about body parts in the fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
gvibes posted:The piece of the Dassey confession with her in the back of her car seems quite bullshit-ey. In the O'Kelly interview the day before, Dassey said he never saw it What about him volunteering that there was a rape? They don't say "we know you raped her be honest." What about him volunteering that Avery said he'd crush the car sooner or later? Again, not the result of a leading question. I don't think he supplied these details out of thin air. But even if you do Steven Avery still has a big Brendan Dassey problem with his story as noted above because before those confessions you've still got Dassey saying he saw body parts in the fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:It's perfectly fine to argue about the strength of the evidence. See above: strength of evidence is different from presence or absence of any evidence. I agree the part you mention seems hard to take at face value (I believe in his May interview he changed what he said and claimed the knife attack happened in the garage in the back of the vehicle, but either way I'll grant that you can't take anything he says at face value without considering the whole statement, which I've read and the documentary only shows clips of), but it's also possible that Dassey (not being as determined a killer as Avery) didn't cut very deep so "slit throat" might not be an apt characterization. I have evidence that you are an idiot. This evidence is your posts. Would you like to argue the strength of this evidence with me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:I have evidence that you are an idiot. This evidence is your posts. Would you like to argue the strength of this evidence with me? Ouch bro you got me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Don't forget the next part of the question: "Could you overcome the belief that he is innocent and didn't get a fair shake at the first trial, and render a 'guilty' verdict anyways, if it became clear to you that he murdered that woman?" But that "if" is the whole key to this issue. Yes, if someone was convinced that Avery was guilty then they would be willing to convict him. But by starting with the presumption that it's definitely possible the theoretical juror can be convinced of Avery's guilt, you circumvent the entire argument at hand. You need to ask whether it's even possible for the juror to have their opinion changed to begin with, but you don't ask that question - you take it as your starting point. You begin your question with a scenario in which your argument is already won, and then ask for your point to be proven based on the assumptions you've already made. This is why I say your scenario is too manipulative. "If Obama was a lizard person, would you be willing to say Obama was a lizard person?" "Well... yes." "I rest my case."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Here, I'll help you out. When almost all of a confession is suspect and should probably be Inadmissible you don't and shouldn't "pick" pieces of these confessions that you believe are "true" upon which to base an opinion of a persons guilt. Now, if you would like to argue that Brendan Dassey's confession(s) aren't in fact highly loving suspect, and weren't lead and coached by the police you are welcome to try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:But even if you do Steven Avery still has a big Brendan Dassey problem with his story as noted above because before those confessions you've still got Dassey saying he saw body parts in the fire. quote:Wiegert: That burn pit Brendan was no bigger than this table. OK. You know how big it was. I find it quite difficult to believe that if there was a body in that Brendan that you wouldn't have seen something like a hand, or a foot, a head, hair, something. OK. We know you saw something. gvibes posted:E: pretty much the only things Dassey says that are remotely consistent with the evidence are things the cops told him to say. yronic heroism posted:What about him volunteering that there was a rape? They don't say "we know you raped her be honest." What about him volunteering that Avery said he'd crush the car sooner or later? Again, not the result of a leading question. I don't think he supplied these details out of thin air. gvibes fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
I did not take notes about what is on what page of a transcript. You can read check for yourself if you are interested. We're just stating our internet opinions and that's the reason for mine. He told people before the cops questioned him. It's why they were questioning him February 27. The film wants us to believe the cops just had a huge agenda to break Brendan Dassey but this is ignoring the fact that he was telling other (non-cop) people about body parts and acting hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Oh god he's referring to the poo poo the cousin said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:Oh god he's referring to the poo poo the cousin said. Of course he is, that's why I asked him if he could point to somewhere it was recorded that Dassey had said it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:Here, I'll help you out. When almost all of a confession is suspect and should probably be Inadmissible you don't and shouldn't "pick" pieces of these confessions that you believe are "true" upon which to base an opinion of a persons guilt. Legally anything you say can be used against you. You want the rules to be different, fine, but as they stand now it's actually really loving clear the law allows it to be admitted. The jury made its own decision about how much credit to give the confession. They don't have to believe it is perfect to think it's highly incriminating. But they must be idiots too. Clearly the only citizens qualified for jury duty should be anime fans who have an opinion that 10 episode Netflix series wants them to have. Otherwise they'd be idiots. I still think he should get a new trial because (unlike Steven Avery) his first lawyer was so bad. But his best hope if that's granted is for some kind of plea bargain since he's already been in for 10 years. If he gets tried again, the confession is still legally admissible and a jury's still not going to believe he could make up all these details. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Of course he is, that's why I asked him if he could point to somewhere it was recorded that Dassey had said it. What reason did the cousin have to lie to her school counselor? None. What reason did she have to lie when she changed her story in court? Every reason. Come the gently caress on. It's Occam's razor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
lmao brendan dassey is guilty based off of these few statements from his otherwise very clearly coerced confession which is only admissible because the judge ruled that it wasn't a coerced confession anyway brendan dassey should get a new trial not because the system is deeply corrupt and set him up at every step along the way but because his first lawyer was a bit of an idiot
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What reason did the cousin have to lie to her school counselor? None.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:She testified under oath that it wasn't true. Are you suggesting she was perjuring herself there? Of course. The counselors' testimony and Kayla's are in direct opposition and it's a jury's job to decide which is more credible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Yeah, a young and dumb girl would never make something up for attention, not a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Leon Einstein posted:She testified under oath that it wasn't true. Are you suggesting she was perjuring herself there? Yes. A teenager cares a lot more about how her family's gonna react to her helping convict her cousin than concepts like perjury. hth
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What reason did the cousin have to lie to her school counselor? None. The issue isn't the strength of the evidence. You were making an argument about how much direct evidence there was, and included in your list things that Dassey had said which were, in fact, not things that he had said, but things that his cousin had said. There's a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What reason did the cousin have to lie to her school counselor? None. Look at the footage of her court testimony. She's nervous for most of the questioning (probably about being on the stand). As soon as she reads the copy of her previous statement (to the counselor?), she immediately tears up and her composure changes significantly. That isn't a sign of her being told to lie about her previous statement. If that were the case, she would've been pretty consistently nervous-looking and -sounding. Instead it seems like she had forgotten what she had even said before, and was struck by it deeply and had no reservations in saying that she made it up. If she was in fact lying on the stand, then that's an impressive performance from a 15yo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
NecroMonster posted:lmao The law requires rights for even people who are obviously guilty. I guess they skipped that lesson in One Piece. I think his lawyer was more than a bit of an idiot, and so do his new lawyers, which is why they are pushing that argument on appeal. So far the courts don't feel the lawyer was ineffective enough, but maybe that'll change. I think it's bad enough to warrant a new trial. It doesn't sound like they're even appealing the confession being admitted, which should tell you something. But even if they do, none of the reviewing courts are going to treat it as coerced (which requires they promise or threaten, not merely pressure), so it's not just the one judge. You are arguing for what you want the law to be, not what it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:04 |
|
|
well i believe brendan dassey and steven avery are guilty and nothing at all will ever sway my opinion so clearly she lied on the stand because that fits my narrative best
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 04:01
|
|