I wasn't even talking about Dassey. But since you said it, I am curious where are you getting this 90% number? It seems to me the only people so far that have really commented on Dassey in the legal world are people who media whore. Of course they are going to go with the screw the police side.

I can't believe you guys think the press conference influenced the Jury this much.

We can't believe you don't think so. Seems fairly obvious that it was extremely prejudicial and unprofessional. Carry on tho.....

*His confession wasn't used in the trial
* All jurors said the confession didn't impact their decision
* some jurors even said they didn't see the news conference
* There was way more news coverage following the evidence as it was being found and dasseys confession than there was of the KK conference so if anything impacted the decision it was the news conference
* 1 juror said she didn't even know who BD was
* the physical evidence was much stronger than BD confession, the two don't even compare

These are my reasons.

we can't believe you don't

So SA had a big cut on his finger and his blood was found in the victims car. Gee I wonder if he did it.

Almost answered a troll. Good news is Brendan should be out by the end of the year and real investigation + season 2 should happend too.

So SA had a fire large enough to burn a human body, and human remains ended up in his burnpit. Gee I wonder if he did it.

I believe you mean "wasn't", and it's hilarious that people ITT don't understand this fact.

Brendan's confession was going to be just as big of a news story with or without that press conference (which most people never even watched).

The press conference was wrong, but people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

My conclusion: you don't live in the real world.

Nothing anyone can say seems to change the fact that Brendan will most likely be free from the false charges based on the coerced statements elicited by those scumbags posing as cops.

Ok, lets just brush away the facts.

You are the reason why people take plea deals, even when they are innocent. Can't put their life in the hands of people like you on the jury.

Dassey's team replies to the State's request to keep Brendan in prison even after two courts have found there to be no case against him other than a coerced 'confession' authored by police:


Continuing to keep Mr. Dassey behind bars while the State prepares, files, and litigates a petition for en banc rehearing and, as it indicates, a subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari – resulting in litigation that will last well over a year – will result in profound injury to Mr. Dassey. See Newman v. Harrington, 917 F.Supp.2d 765, 789 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (“[E]very day Petitioner spends in prison compounds the substantial harm that he has suffered on account of imprisonment based upon an unconstitutional conviction”). Particularly in light of this Court’s decision, any remaining interest the State has in keeping him in prison pales in comparison to Brendan’s real and daily harm from continued incarceration.

In contrast, Brendan Dassey’s supervised release from prison on bond will result in no harm to the State. Brendan presents no public safety threat: he had no criminal record prior to the instant case; his conviction for murder was obtained unconstitutionally and the evidence supporting it has been cast into “significant doubt” by the district court, DCR.23; and his prison records demonstrate him to be a nonviolent, cooperative, and peaceful man.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-A...1ZaUw3cWs/view

complete non sequitor. Whether or not you think reasonable doubt is too low of threshold for me is not relevant to the post you responded to. It is my argument that the press conference had little impact if any on avery's conviction. Whether or not I would be a bad juror is not important to that discussion.

To be clear, I am not saying I agree with Kratz doing the press conference. It was clearly in bad taste but it ultimately was not much of a factor with avery being convicted.

Bad taste?!? Are you f'ing kidding me? Kratz obviously watched the interviews. He had to know the 'confession' was coerced and therefore inadmissible but he put it out there anyway.

Kratz used the confession to seal the deal on SA, who I'm sure he 'knew' was guilty, and in the process ruined a kid's life. That asshat can rot in hell.

The confession was declared admissible evidence back then, and even after the recent decision, the question of whether the "confession" was coerced, admissible, etc. is still open to interpretation (hence the dissenting opinion and 2-1 vote).

The fact is someone who was at the scene of the crime that night with the murderer (Steven Avery) confessed in detail to helping commit the murder with him. That's why he was charged with murder. No conspiracy theory required.

Whether the current decision stands or not, I don't fault the State one bit for charging Dassey with murder. It's on judges, not the prosecution, to declare a confession inadmissible.

Ive watched the confession I don't think it was coerced, judges have watched it and reached the same conclusion (even if you disagree) is it possible Kratz watched it and didn't think it was coerced?

The confession didn't seal the deal on SA. It wasn't used in court, half the jurors didnt see it, and the ones that did said it didn't impact their decision.

Just found out that Avery told his brother that TH never showed up initially. It wasn't until after BD brother said he saw TH there that Avery admitted to her showing up.

Do tell, why would an innocent man hide this?

In the first record we have of Steven Avery giving a statement he mentions that Teresa took her photos and left.

ALVEAR: Ok. So how did you first hear that she disappeared?

AVERY: When the cops came up by the house by my ma and dad. And
they asked me if she was out here and that, and I said "yeah." Then they asked me
what time. Umm, around two, two-thirty.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/a6esf97qyh...26%29.pdf?dl=0

"Steven told me that Teresa Halbach had come to the property on that Monday between 2:00 P.M. and 2:30P.M."

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2005Nov05.pdf

So why would people lie and falsely claim Steven denied Teresa was there?

Of course avery said that, why would he lie to police that TH never showed up after he knew people like Bobby D saw her there?

I am talking about initially. Robert Fabian, a hunter in the area overheard SA tell his brother this the night of the murder. You can read his interview here

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...ive-Report.pdf pg 208.

CHARLES AVERY ask STEVEN AVERY if the photographer had arrived yet.
ROBERT FABIAN comments to CHARLES AVERY, "A photographer? Are you getting your
picture taken?" CHARLES indicates they were getting pictures of vehicles to put in AUTO
TRADER magazine. STEVEN AVERY replies to CHARLES AVERY, no, she hadn't shown
up yet. ROBERT FABIAN leaves and meets EARL AVERY, they proceed to get their guns and
go walking into the junkyard looking for rabbits.

This took place in the afternoon around 230-3. This is the same time avery told police she left. Could timelines be confused? Sure, but it looks more like avery changed his story after he found out bobby saw her.

There is also a lady from auto trader who claims avery called to reschedule his appointment because TH never showed up, this was also before the nov 5th interview you referenced.

Then we have SA call TH unblocked (first time unblocked) at 430, why? Becaue he wanted an alibi call. His plan was initially to tell police she never came.

Sounds like Fabian's account is about something that happened before Teresa arrived, when the natural and truthful answer would be 'she's not here yet'.

If the police timeline is accurate, Fabian and Steven are chatting amiably like this while Steven was allegedly assaulting and imprisoning Teresa in his trailer.

There is no mention of Bobby D in this interview with Fabian.

The lady from Autotrader may be mistaken. Is there any documentary evidence of this alleged call - maybe something from Steven's phone record showing he at least called at the time claimed?

On November 4th, the first full day of Teresa being missing, Steven talked to reporters, and he told them Teresa did arrive, took photographs, and left.

So I have no reason to suppose Steven 'changed his story'. Therefore no reason to speculate why that should be.

The other consideration is that the 'she didn't show up' ploy doesn't really achieve anything.

First of all, Steven could have contacted her directly without leaving a paper trail through Autotrader magazine.

Steven announces to everyone in the county Teresa is coming over.

Teresa has to drive out to his obscure neck of the woods and likely observed by potential witnesses.

At the Avery Salvage Yard Teresa would have to drive past the office, the shop, the parking lot where customers come and go, past Steven's parents house... Steven must be smart enough to know she can't 'sneak in'.

So claiming she didn't show up would be more trouble than its worth.

It doesn't really matter if the police timeline is correct. She was already there, we know she was there by the time this conversation took place. We know when she called him and said she was on her way and when bobby saw her. So either fabian misheard, is lying, or is mistaken his time or SA changed his story.

Why should there be? Bobby D is the only other person who says they saw her there besides SA and BD, out of the 3 only 1 person did not participate in the murder so Bobby D is the one who ruined avery's plans to lie about her coming over.

Not that I am aware. Her name is racheal, I can get her police report where she was questioned. It may take a min though. Sounds like your standard of evidence changes for avery though when you're all ready to pitchfork RH with 0 evidence he was involved.

TH went missing on 10/30, when this interview took place she had been missing for 5 days. This is the first full day after she was REPORTED missing, by then SA already knew Bobby D saw her at his trailer.

I gave you two good reasons to believe this. Coupled with the enormous amount of evidence that he killed her any reasonable person would be even more convinced he changed his story.

Which is why SA placed a call to her phone at 430 unblocked. BTW whats your explanation for this call? My explanation is it was to make it appear as if she didn't show up and he was calling to check on her location.

As for the witnesses, his trailer is pretty remote. BD was going to be there with him so he probably figured it was unlikely anyone would see her at his trailer. Even if someone saw her heading that way that doesnt mean she actually showed up.

nvm, here it is. Page 6

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...wn-Pliszka.pdf

Keep in mind,

The first repot is by calumet county, the second the DOJ. Not manitwoc.