If anyone cares, there is a recent Dateline episode called "Game Night" that has a lot of similarities. Guy was in prison for 3.5 years and the details of this story are so fantastic, it could warrant it's own thread.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/maki...ssey-innocent/

Anyone read this?

Btw lost, I will be watching the staircase per your recommendation either today or tomorrow.

Oski and everyone I guess

You mean to tell me not a single thing outside the documentary moved the needle at all for you towards guilty? Wow, I don't even. Even if it's just some small 1 or 2% with each thing. It seemed the doc crammed everything it could that points toward innocent but not everything that points toward guilty.

I mean, hell, based off just the doc he seems like a happy-go-lucky guy.

Yeah that's the same Abrams article I linked to a couple of pages back. He makes a very good argument I think.

Start a thread then.

Is it your opinion Dassey is innocent?

He kind of does man, pretty disheartened to see that you don't. At the core of my beliefs though are that people are not static and are in fact quite dynamic. If I recall correctly, this is the opposite of what you believe. I don't believe that him admitting to setting a cat on fire over 20 years ago under those circumstances or him road raging and threatening his cousin over that vile sh/t she was spewing makes him a murderer today. I've read all the transcripts, letters interviews. He genuinely seems like a happy go lucky guy. If you want to see a true pshychopath, go read reports from G. Allen's case. If you want to see someone who's not "happy-go-lucky" go read the reports from Teresa's 2nd to last stop, or possibly last stop, the Ziperrer police interviews.

FWIW my considerations on human tendencies also mean that someone that was clean, happy-go-lucky model citizen in the past could become a murderer in the future, as we have seen in many documented cases so it's not just a one way street.

I think this is the wrong link

I read Colborn's testimony in full. Fraley talks about it like its a smoking gun for the prosecution, and like it was entirely misrepresented in the documentary.

I thought it was portrayed rather accurately. If anything, his full testimony makes him look worse/rather inept.

This is a man in the biggest investigation of his career to date, working tons of OT. A man that is used to writing reports daily as part of his job, and oversees the writing and accuracy of reports from people reporting to him.

He, along with Lenk, were involved in finding some very key pieces of evidence. He testifies to being an integral part of the investigation, and being called upon to take many pictures of various pieces of possible evidence.

He wrote one half page report for the ~6days he was on the property, and another full page report some 7months later.

He changes his initial response time on Nov 5th from his response given at another pre-trial questioning.

He couldn't remember what he did on his day off, Nov 4th, when asked formally in Jan, but suddenly remembers on the stand under oath months later.

He can't remember a phone call he made about a license plate/car of a missing person, which again proved to be the biggest case of his career.

He comes across as being at best fairly inept in my opinion.

Yes. It makes sense that you are just guessing at stuff.

oopps.
try this for a audit.

https://oig.justice.gov/grants/g5006006.htm

#

A bit of the article that fraleyight linked to:

He states that OJ's trial had better explanations of planted evidence. He brings up a good point though, they don't present a theory of how SA's DNA got on the key. IMO, I think it was so obvious, they didn't need to.

However, for those who need further evidence.

#1 They were in his house alone.
#2 Ironically, they had a Dr. Vogel (female) take his buccal DNA and DNA from his groin area in early Nov. Weigert, who was present for the collection of DNA informed her AFTER the collection that the warrant did not allow the DNA collection so she disposed of them (seem sketchy)?

I have not seen much, but I think his actions are pretty strange. I stated before that I believe whoever had been bothering her by telephone in the weeks leading up to the murder will be the killer. (If you recall, her boss stated she answered the phone in front of him and then got upset saying someone had been bothering her. She basically ended the conversation and said something like she could handle it).

If that is true (that she said she could handle it) it had to be someone she knew and believed could talk into leaving her alone. That sounds like an ex boyfriend issue.

Again, before you all get excited here, I am just telling you my thoughts on that particular item of testimony. I was surprised there was no follow up (at least as shown in the doc.). My guess is that whatever was there was nothing much and the filmmakers left us hanging to further the drama. But, I'd still like to know the answers.

Yes, I can read. I could not tell what you had written. I'm not a grammar or spelling nit, I didn't know what you said.

Why is this such a big deal to you?

Anyhow, I recall you saying I should do outside research, etc. I am not sure why you want me to do so (at least right now). I have plainly stated I hold no opinion until I have a chance to do research. I do not have time right now.

Anyhow, let me ask with all sincerity. Of your friends you discussed this with who did outside research after watching the show, what impressed them the most to change their opinions? In other words, if someone like you were to attempt to convince someone like me that there is a wealth of information beyond the show that will provide more perspective as to why SA was found guilty, what would you provide me?

I will also add with all sincerity that of the posters in this threat advocating a position, I find Lostinthesauce the most convincing. In other words, the information he brings in the thread from outside the show (in my opinion) tends to support the argument that S.A. was innocent of the crime (in addition to being wrongly convicted) whereas, I have not really seen a single point thus far that tends to show guilt. A good example of this is Kratz' list of "omitted facts." Most of those are not very strong and some, like the conversation T.H. had with her coworker are not evidence at all - it was inadmissible hearsay. Yet, Kratz somehow believes this incompetent testimony should be used to support the verdict he won in trial.

Good post.

There is plenty IN the documentary that definitely puts S.A. in the picture. However, from the documentary, I believe his trial was unfair. That is as far as I am willing to go.

I certainly observe there is a real possibility S.A. killed T.H., but based on what has been presented in the documentary (duh, right?) and in this thread, I tend to believe he did not. Yet, I hold that I am not going to form an opinion that I plan on standing behind until I have time to look into this on my own.

As far as I know, SCOTUS has never quantified it, but I think most people would assume it's at least 90%, although I shade to 95%, possibly because of my research background.

I don't believe I ever brought up Colborns testimony. You are probably thinking of Lenk

In my opinion Dassey is most likely guilty as well, so I disagree with Abrams on that point.

However, I do think Dassey had completely incompetent legal representation, and absolutely deserved a retrial based on that.

I can see a "not guilty" vote for dassey, but I do not think he is innocent. I do think it is pretty strong that he was willing to testify though, especially considering how unsophisticated he is.

I've heard 85-95.. But really it just comes down to is there another reasonable hypothesis that fits the evidence. People often confuse "beyond a shadow of a doubt" with "reasonable doubt"..

He had to testify. He had to personally refute the video taped confession. There are clear issues with the confession, but for him not to testify would be absurd.

I know this, hence my post about it.. People often confuse the two.

It's important to realize that they found no Dassey DNA anywhere on any crime scene at anytime. And after watching those interviews and reading those transcripts, you think he is most likely guilty?