4th Amendment issue resolved by appointed judge in WI.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wis...-scott-walker/

Where am I going to get my hot Reddit takes now?

PoorShillz and fraley will be back within a day.

I haven't read the thread last couple days but after thinking about it, I changed my mind and think PoorSkillz is right.

mediocre

They actually can if the judge deems them relevant. Da Judge's explanation for why he disallowed the 9 Evil Deeds is actually very interesting. The same would apply for the hypothetical of LITS submitting his potential evidence. We can see how even from a first glance they vary in potential relevance, and they would need to be ruled on whether they pass the relevance threshold.

In terms of the this thread tho, I'LL ALLOW IT.

When you come back go ahead and limit your sample size (OW dat math I know) to peoples recanting their confessions.

Also, for fun:






Lol I can't find the most ridiculous one but that doesn't matter as it's fallacious, because lol record keeping, but the US per capita rate even exceeds, just barely, the historical Stalinist gulag system

When you look at Stalin, of all people, and say, naw homey, I can do worse, you have made some, uh, poor decisions somewhere along the way.

If you drive through rural California, and probably rural every state in the Union, the proliferation of prisons, many of them for-profit is just truly disgusting. If you follow my posts on political issues, I'm often the sole USA#! greatest country on earth, but the prison industrial system/lobby/drug war/war on crime is a huge stain.

Bernie ****ing Sanders!

Anything new happen in here?

Some new spewtards have replaced some of the old spewtards. That's about it.

You know why you're more worrisome than the shills, right?

Aye, 2nded.

I'll give you a hint: ignorance =/= impartiality

+1,000,000

http://imgur.com/hdNiJ1c

Ok, so, for a brief historical synopsis, in the (not so) old days it went like this:

None of the interviews or interrogations were recorded or transcribed. The only record would be a synopsis by the detective(s) hopefully, that only the detective signed, or an official statement if the interviewee wished to give one, that all parties signed, or both. This applied to any witness statement, proclamation of innocence, confession, etc.

Official confessions were unique because instead of them reading like a statement, they were scripted like an interview, where the detective didn't ask any leading questions. They only asked 'what happened (then)? The interviewee would then seemingly volunteer the answers.

Please note I don't use the word 'scripted' to directly and immediately imply nefarious schemes. This script is actually great if there wasn't that glaring hole in the middle, as it simplifies and streamlines the process for all involved; prosecution, defense, judge, potential jury, the confessors themselves. This process isn't limited to just people confessing after they've had the devil beat out of them, it also includes people running in the station and saying, I did it please lock me up, people confessing for immunity to testify against another, people confessing to part of a crime but maintaining innocence about another part, people confessing to protect another, etc. Save for the first example, this all benefits the confessors greatly, though all examples start to highlight the flaws.

The first example IS the glaring hole, however, and it actually has little to do with the extreme of confession by torture. The appropriate way to look at it is to take the statement, 'What happened before that official confession was transcribed, did they torture him or what...' and shorten it to, 'What happened before that official confession was transcribed?' Again, this doesn't imply physical torture, and it doesn't even imply corruption or incompetence on the part of the detectives. They could be keen on doing their jobs well, not even particularly overzealous, and still overlook discrepancies. Maybe that guy confessing for immunity to testify doesn't have an airtight story, but catching the big fish is more important. Maybe that guy confessing to part of the crime doesn't have an airtight story, but locking up any conviction is more important. Maybe that guy confessing might be potentially covering for others, but the story is reasonably plausible and closing the case is more important. Etc.

That leads to the logical conclusion to simply record everything, and the leaps and bounds in digital technology have made this even easier. I'll quote this site:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/free...interrogations

Do states legislate the electronic recording of interrogations?

To date, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation regarding the recording of custodial interrogations. State supreme courts have taken action in Alaska, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. Approximately 1000 jurisdictions have voluntatily implemented recording policies.[1]

Also,

Electronic Recording of Interrogations: A Boon to Both the Innocent and to Law Enforcement

The mandated electronic recording of the entire interrogation process protects the innocent, ensures the admissibility of legitimate confessions, and helps law enforcement defend against allegations of coercion.

Electronic Recording of Interrogations helps the innocent by:

• Creating a record of the entire interrogation, including the interaction leading up to the confession;

• Ensuring that the suspect’s rights are protected in the interrogation process; and

• Creating a deterrent against improper or coercive techniques that might be employed absent the presence of a recording device.

Electronic Recording of Interrogations assists law enforcement by:

• Preventing disputes about how an officer conducted himself or treated a suspect;

• Creating a record of statements made by the suspect, making it difficult for a defendant to change an account of events originally provided to law enforcement;

• Permitting officers to concentrate on the interview, rather than being distracted by copious note-taking during the course of the interrogation;

• Capturing subtle details that may be lost if unrecorded, which help law enforcement better investigate the crime; and

• Enhancing public confidence in law enforcement, while reducing the number of citizen complaints against the police.

It's worth noting that among all the Dassey recordings and transcripts, there is a short one of him and detectives riding in a car, where they are going to pick up the jeans, and the majority of it just them shooting the breeze, talking about school and the weather. This policy of 'record everything' is thorough.

So, you might be asking yourself, 'What's a poor cop to do now if he wants some of that old timey forced 'n' false confession?'

Well, thanks for asking! I'll get to that in a follow-up post.

KZ. Tweets...18/2

Killer would not reduce body to bone fragments to destroy evidence but leave car intact w/his blood. #makingamurderer

http://i.imgur.com/BqcXEPw.jpg

19/2
If SA was killer why burn body just use crusher. SA uses crusher on 11/3 2005 so had access--clearly killer did not. #makingamurderer
http://i.imgur.com/Esgk9Ti.png

With these latest tweets & the last few it seems like KZ has a suspect in mind, I.ve got to say even if you had nothing to do with TH death & were a close (male) friend I'd guess it is time to get you're fact straight between 31st Oct & 4th Nov.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016...ukhpmg00000001


Interesting Fact? Timothy Halbach is a Circuit Court Commissioner....And on the Calumet County Bar.
http://www.co.calumet.wi.us/DocumentCenter/View/1344
I'm not 100% But is this TH other brother?

It takes time to arrest the Cop's for alleged Crimes.....

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/18...n-on-duty.html

And GL in trying to stop the rise of the Industrial prison complex.

Another Murderer in the Making... Ongoing Case with another mentally challenged man giving evidence.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...iction_in_the/

Her tweets bug me, but...

@ZellnerLaw
Fifth trip to Steven Avery. Collected samples for new tests. The inevitable is coming--he was smiling so were we. #MakingAMurderer #Science+

Ok, so, we'll start with the first criminal interrogation, on 02/27/06, the same one I was coloring earlier in the thread. Note this isn't the first interview; BD's initial witness interview happened 11/06/05, and this first interrogation is the next interaction, 3 months later. (Also note all parties involved, save the detectives, seemed to not realize this was a criminal interrogation)

I kept using purple to highlight the bizarre use of ellipses in this interrogation for how they seemed to refer to pauses, unintelligible speech, AND parts seemingly outright redacted. I thought this was a smoking gun, and it is, but not quite in the way I initially thought. It seemed way too blatant to just redact parts of an interview so I found the audio, which doesn't seemed to be linked in most of the places the transcript is hosted. As mentioned in another post, this is because the audio is basically mangled and useless.

Oddly enough, the only place I've found that even remotely addresses this audio issue is ConvolutedBrian's blog, where he mentions this (emphasis mine):

This is the audio recorded at Mishicot High School. Part One is a noisy and poorly recorded tape. The microphone was placed without testing its effectiveness. Why tape one’s noise level is high and variable is a mystery. This is something that confession seminar people need to add to their training. Part Two is a cleaner tape. These were recorded in the morning of 27 February, 2006.

I'll admit I am very undecided about what happened to this audio.

I don't think this speculation about the specifics is even important, just the outcome, to have a terrible audio recording, but I'll detail it anyhow:

My first hunch was the hiss/noise was added after. This can be accomplished in a freeware DAW like Audacity in a matter of minutes. I thought this because the transcriber was able to pick out fassbender's (F's) unintelligible speech more consistently than BD's as there are huge chunks where the transcriber made no attempt; BD's speech is totally masked by the noise floor.
I somewhat discarded this hunch because albeit slightly, F is consistently louder than BD, and because the transcribers seemingly might not have had an easy time. I suspect the reason the transcribing style is wildly different throughout is many different people had a go at this, probably F and Wiegert (W) as well.
Another hunch is the recorder was in W's pocket. This would explain why he is significantly louder than the other two, would explain some of the noise and poor record of the other two, and would allow him access to adjust the recording volume.
The paradoxically more and less obvious hunch is they simply placed the microphone/recording device so that BD was basically inaudible and F slightly less so.

The only certain thing is this audio quality is inexplicable and inexcusable, and when factoring the whole, almost certainly intentional, as in the last hunch above.

Understand that with the 'record everything' policy the interview rooms and the squad cars are outfitted with microphones. I mentioned the short recorded 'interview' in the squad car earlier, and the quality of the recording is good/great. I am not certain but I believe the first witness interview was also in a squad car, or standing outside of one, close enough that the microphone also provided a good recording.

Also understand this was 2006, not exactly the cro-magnon era of technology. Smartphones existed with very good microphones. Every laptop had a good if not great microphone. Hell, barring that, you can buy a Shure SM57 for under a hundred dollars and plug it into whatever recording device you're using:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/deta...FYg-aQodsx8M_Q

Those things are so durable you can use one to beat a suspect until he confesses to shooting JFK and find it working perfectly afterwards.

Now, I'm not pooping on recording engineers. There's a reason they're called engineers. Microphone placement is an art and a science, but that's for capturing perfectly the nuances of the environment. If all that is needed is audible and intelligible speech, and a Very Important Need at that, just put the damn thing equidistant to the peoples talking and go nuts.

So why was BD's first and arguably most important interrogation recorded using a potato? And not just a potato, but a potato with poor room placement. If detectives are conducting a very important interrogation, shouldn't they do so in a place and fashion with high acoustic viability? Shouldn't they have some top notch recording gear on hand if they're conducting official interrogations outside of the official interrogation room? If not:

Why on earth was he interrogated in his ****ing school?!?

(and for the time being, we're ignoring why no teachers or parents or lawyers were present.... it's a ****ing school, find a teacher)

They have a Big Break In The Case, they want to leap on it, but BD isn't fleeing to Mexico. They can wait and bring him to the station, they can wait to visit him at his home. Why the school?

Because they wanted to make sure they had a plausible excuse for why the audio and subsequent was going to be so fubar.

Why would they do this? Follow-up post incoming.

I'm sure this has been mentioned somewhere in the preceding 6,000 odd posts but if you guys liked this you should watch the Paradise Lost trilogy. There are some big similarities between the two cases... Corrupt police force, confession obtained through coercion of a ****** and so on. See how that one turns out.

That is from the 2nd interrogation, also on 02/27/06, at the police station.

If you're wondering how many times BD was asked to speak up in the 1st, the answer is zero.

I almost overlooked this until I realized the brilliance of the scheme. I initially thought, 'well, sure, listen to that first recording and how quiet BD is, of course they should ask him to speak up.'

They conducted the 1st interrogation in such a fashion to ensure a terrible recording and transcript, and then preemptively justified the 2nd interrogation based on the 1st's terribleness.

Why the need for 2 interviews? In the first BD gave a signed statement (the ridiculous specifics of which will be addressed later) almost identical to the 1st. The problem is in the 1st he was coached and fed answers, was threatened and coerced. That's the big no-no, the reason why interactions before the official statement are recorded, what I mentioned in that first post about the (not so) old days.

But in this way, it allows the 1st interrogation, the one with the coercion, to be justifiably ignored, in that Wisconsin-Eddie-Haskell-Aw-Shucks style of fake incompetence we've grown to know well, like, "O gosh, did I doggone go and record the 1st interrogation with a potato again?!? Whoops, guess we should just go ahead and do another!" And it worked perfectly. Right before our eyes they coerce a statement in the 1st interrogation and have him largely repeat it back to them in the 2nd.

This is also even ignoring whatever unrecorded interactions happened in between, as the 1st interrogation was in the morning and the 2nd in the evening, but there's a big whammy coming about that in regards to the 3rd interrogation that went entirely unrecorded.