Again with your psychological projection as yet again I'm merely agreeing with the courts rather than subscribing to stupid wildly implausible conspiracy theories, like you are which is the epitome of misinformation, not to mention the shenanigans of Avery's lawyer as well as the rampant misinformation of a certain Netflix series which you seem to swear by.

Stick me on ig mate, as I'm less interested in your whinging regarding me personally than I was in Oski's earlier tantrums. That way your problem will be solved. I get that you think that Oski & anyone else evading a plainly put question when the truth is easy to defend is a proper answer, it's yet again one of the many many (many) reasons nobody sane takes Avery & Dassey's Flat Earther supporters remotely seriously.

This is ironic, coming from someone so uncomfortable trying to defend an opinion he puts people who disagree on ignore so he can pretend no one disagrees.

Just for fun ask corpus vile if he agrees with the Supreme Court decision overturning the convictions of Sollecito & Knox.

Pretty soon you'll be hearing about how the Masons and the Mafia, with the help of the US State Department conspired to keep these two nobodies out of prison.

You mean compelling to you.

In any event, I am not interested in doing homework assigned by you. In fact, I am not interested in discussing anything with you, period. You are intellectually dishonest and biased. There is no point in entertaining anything you ask of me.

I have made it quite clear that as far as I am concerned you are an unwelcome carpetbagger on these forums who simply parrots whatever you happen to read in support of your position.

And I am quite comfortable with you dismissing any and all comments I make on this subject or any other.

As of now, there are two appellate opinions that state Dassey's confession should have been ruled inadmissible. That you ignore such is a drastic departure from your stated position of accepting whatever the Court rules. That you grasp onto a dissenting opinion without stating any real basis for doing so is simply business as usual for you.

I've recently watched a few docs that may interest the thread, both for relevance and entertainment.

1) mommy dead and dearest

2) beware the slenderman

Both of these docs took place in wisconsin, and both people who confessed to the crime did so without an attorney or guardian present. and in both cases the people who confessed were given "promises" that it would "all be ok if they tell the truth" in the same way BD was.

Now, the one that I think is especially interesting as it pertains to the thread is beware the slenderman. Because, in this doc both parties who confess are in middle school. Should their confessions be thrown out? How far should we go with this precedence set forth by the majority opinion in wisconsin? Just something to think about.

More importantly, at what point do we take away any abililty for a cop to interrogate a suspect? How far do we go? Do we just rule out interrogation all together? I mean, I don't see a way around this. Of course a cop is going to try to convince you that telling the truth will be good for you if they think you are guilty. I do have a problem with them making specific promises IE: If you confess you will not go to prison. But not vague promises that itll be ok like was done with dassey or the girls in slenderman.

Yeah, taken right from the dissenting opinion.

Try thinking it through for yourself.

The dissent argues policy as if all cases (and defendants) are the same while the majority is considering the specific circumstances of the case.

I have seen neither one of the documentaries you list and I am confident there is one glaring difference that (for some reason) you do not acknowledge.

I'll let others chime in - that they too will know the answer without seeing the docs. shows how intellectually dishonest you are (or your complete lack of intellect should that be the case).

Sure there are differences, none that are entirely important here though.

Keep in mind, I am not concerned with the evidence in either case. My concern at the moment is if all confessions of this matter should be thrown out. Confessions from underage suggestable people whom are given vague promises of leniency. Which is the focal point of the discussion with the courts decision.

With 0 knowledge of either case, you could certainly chime in with your opinions instead of tossing insults my way.

Right. And if you put any effort into thinking about it rather than parroting the dissent, you would realize a blanket policy is not appropriate for these types of cases, nor is such really at issue. The dissent misses the point entirely in that regard, yet, you have still clinged onto it.

Looking at the bigger picture, understand that appellate courts are highly political - a dissent based solely on policy arguments when policy is not the issue is simply a political statement.

There is a reason the dissent is the lone voice worried about "ending interrogations as we know it" and other sky is falling musings.

It seems you've reached an opinion about the whole thing. I take it you read both arguments?

Can you elaborate for me though, at what point do we draw the line? At what point can the police not make statements like " you're ok, just tell us the truth" or "We know you know what happened, just be honest with us" when does this become an issue? When the person is young? When the person is in special education classes?

I am not just parroting the dissent, honestly. I am generally curious how we would apply this ruling in a broader sense in your opinion.

Also, do you not think the majority opinion is political? Do you think they cited cases that don't actually support their position? I personally don't know but I have heard other attornies say so.

What more do you want from me? My position (as clearly stated) is that this case is not appropriate for making general policy. Accordingly, I disagree with the dissent's approach.

And now you demand I provide an argument about what policy I advocate?

No. It is not for this case. If you want to argue about it, then find someone else.

As stated before, appellate courts are inherently political. So, just about every opinion is going to be colored by a political position.

What I stated (and clearly, mind you) is that when an opinion diverges from the matter at hand and focuses on policy, it is more political than anything else.

Comparing the two opinions, it is clear the dissent is mostly political, and I do not pretend to know its angle.

You need to back away from the dissent. By its own direction it concedes the majority's position as applied to the case. You can embrace the profound musings of the dissent, but it is of no practical use as applied to deciding Dassey's matter.

Oski,

Can't this ruling be used in support of throwing out other confessions in the future? That is what I mean by "standard". I am asking, when it would be appropriate to use this ruling in the future or when it would be appropriate to throw out a confession under these circumstances.

Or if you prefer to answer it this way, what makes it appropriate here?

Yes, of course it can.

But, it will be applied narrowly.

Ok, but how do we determine when to and when to not apply it? And how do we know it will be applied narrowly? What makes this case different than the hundreds of other cases where someone with low intellect or who is young can claim they were coerced in this way?

To me, this is not a policy issue, so stop asking me about it.

It might turn out Ken Kratz has landed himself in hot water again due to his lack of self control:

Kathleen Zellner‏ @ZellnerLaw 1 hour ago

Bad prosecutors: Remember you are only immune for the false statements you make in not out of courtroom.

@lifeafterten #MakingaMurderer

Zellner hasn't ruled out defamation suit against Ken Kratz:

As the book Avery: The Case Against Steven Avery and What “Making a Murderer” Gets Wrong continues to sell, Avery’s lawyer has been busy refuting its content and may be eyeing a lawsuit against the former prosecutor who wrote it.

“Prosecutors have no immunity for defamation after they are no longer the prosecutor on the case,” Zellner told the Inquisitr, speaking of former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz. She said she is not announcing a lawsuit but is not ruling it out.

...

Zellner said if she takes action against Kratz or his publisher, it would not be her first time bringing a civil complaint against a former prosecutor.

Ken Kratz did not respond to the Inquisitr’s request for comment.


http://www.inquisitr.com/4379837/mak...r-ex-das-book/

Footz,

This was brought up a few weeks ago, and I knew earl avery said in court he told pam where to start her search but I couldn't find it. It turns out this was in court but it wasn't part of the jurty trial.

Here is his testimony and he starts talking about it on page 169

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2006Aug09.pdf

So imo 1) where she started was not far from the rav 4. 2) was a suggested starting location by avery. 3) The path she took to the rav 4 made the most sense from where she started.

Thanks for the citation!

Earl has a few more interesting things to say:

"I told them there was a man and a lady down there already..."

This couple drove through the yard and apparently didn't discover the Rav4 for some reason. Just a loose end.

15 Q. So, they came in and they started looking around,
16 and they decided what direction they were going
17 to go, or did you make any suggestions?

18 A. Well, I told them, I kind of just pointed, you
19 know, what was down in the -- how to get down
20 into the pit and how to get on the top. That's
21 about all I did.

22 Q. Did you give them any directions, or express
23 anything about the roads, or the condition of the
24 yard, or anything they should do to be careful,
25 so they didn't get hurt?

1 A. No, I didn't. I don't think I did any way.

(about Page 170)

8 Q. You didn't give them any direction as to which
9 area to start.

10 A. No, I'm pretty sure they said that they would
11 just walk around and look.

(page 182)

So it appears Earl gave them indications for two different areas, the bottom and the top. Maybe it made more sense to start at the top and work down? But according to Earl it was their choice, not his.

But Earl has some even more interesting things to say.

Regarding the timing of this rabbit hunt Fabian claimed happened on Monday October 31, Earl puts on either the Wednesday or Thursday following (November 2nd or 3rd):

"It was like two days -- two days or three days before that [Saturday, November 5], we were just through there rabbit hunting with my brother-in-law... I'm not sure if it was Wednesday or Thursday."

(page 172)

Was Earl surprised that the RAV4 was there? Of course, since he'd been to that very location with Fabian and the RAV4 was not there at that time:

Q: So, two or three days earlier, as far as you know, that vehicle wasn't there?

A: No, it wasn't there... We were through the whole yard and that vehicle wasn't there.

(page 173)

This opens up a mystery - if as it seems the RAV4 was not in the yard as of the Wednesday or Thursday following Teresa's disappearance on Monday, where was it?

And then who moved it from this undisclosed location to the Avery Salvage Yard where it was found on Saturday?

When was it moved?

And why would they put it there?

The couple was not on foot, they were driving and he didn't see them leave so he doesn't know which direction they went. I think they probably did go in the same direction because there really isn't anywhere else to go from there but back out but they could have easily just drove through the junkyard.


Not sure what he means by bottom and top, the whole point is the area where pam started was the area inside the salvage yard that earl told them was cut off to the public, in the same direction that was suggested to her. Call it what you want, he pointed in a direction and told her where the pit was and that is where she started, which when looking at the map you can see how she would have found the car shortly after.

1, earl said it took place 2 or 3 days before. The night TH went missing would have been 5 days before. He is recalling events a year earlier and fabian says the rabbit hunt happened the night TH went missing. The car wouldn't be there at that point if avery planted it.

2) Whos to say avery didnt plant it by then? Maybe he planted it after the rabbit hunt, assuming for a moment earl is correct on his dates.

3) Maybe earl missed it. It was covered up after all and he certainly wasn't looking for a rav 4 for any reason.Also weren't the tires removed from the car? Isn't that interesting if so.

Yes, the couple were in a car. Probably means nothing.

From the words Earl used it appears he indicated how to get down to the bottom and how to get to the top of the pit. A look at the map of the yard shows there's lots of ways to go.

Exactly. The rabbit hunt was not on the day Teresa was at the ASY, so Fabian was apparently wrong about that.

I suppose if we need to call Earl an unreliable witness then there's no need to cite him for giving Pam & Nicole directions from a year earlier, either.

It just seems a bit silly to hide the RAV4 where no one can find it, then when suspicion begins to focus on Steve he should go get it and plant it on his own property.

I've never heard anyone claim the tires had been removed.

Since it was Earl's business to know where stuff was on the property, it's pretty hard for me to imagine he'd miss a two ton SUV parked where it didn't belong.

But then lots of stuff doesn't seem to have been spotted until the fourth or fifth time someone looked in the exact spot.

Agree. The defense made way too much of a Hail Mary with this and it totally backfired. It brought in the FBI to the investigation and trial. The FBI would have never been there if they didn't try the planted blood theory.

The public accepts the FBI as honest and elite. They are the ones that investigate corrupt police forces and would have no problem saying the blood could have come from an outside source. Instead, they took the side of the prosecution which may have swayed the indecisive folks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAvery...6C&sh=f7708e8d

Some of these I think are similar to the arguments KZ presented about KK but I do think there are a few that are blatant lies by zellner. For example one would be claiming ryan said she was with Kelly all day on the 3rd when he clearly never said that. Or saying that BD and SA were excluded on one of the blood tests when the test was inconclusive.