What evidence did Dassey confession lead to? It doesn't count if the police already knew about it.

But confessions not substantiated by other evidence are meaningless. Why can't we just not allow them and try people on evidence.

You need me to explain his coerced confession to you and him trying to please the detectives by giving them what they asked and demanded he say.

You guys are not doing your credibility any favors for continuing to be okay with the Dassey confession. It makes it impossible to take any of you guys seriously when you keep pretending that was okay or legitimate and ethical police work.

The bullet in the garage(with TH dna and matched to avery's gun) , dassey's jeans, the large 3x3 area that was cleaned with bleach and the dna on the hood latch.

Huh? If I tell you where a dead body is located, the fact that I was able to predict where the body was located is why I am guilty, not because there is a dead body. So the confession is crucial to proving my guilt.

Some of the questions he was cornered into giving correct answers but other information he offered willingly, which lead to future discoveries that the police didn't know at the time. And some information was fed to him that the police knew was untrue to see how he would react. The untrue information he didn't go along with. Such as the tattoo on her stomach that the police asked if he remembered.

Total cop out. There are too many cases because if the way police and prosecutors behave. Forcing people into plea bargains via extortion is what they do in pursuit of convictions. Not bevause the DA cares about clogged courts. In case you didn't know poor people end up staying in jail during the lead up to trial and trial. The DA would be fine with them sitting in jail.

So it sucks for the victim because there is zero corroborating evidence. Why should we be forcing pleas from people where there is not actual evidence to convict. As I said Yeos case is an example where 99.999999% of people would take the plea. We should not be charging and convicting people of crimes solely based on he-said/she-said. That is crazy. Again we are supposed to make sure innocent people are not being punished. This is the exact opposite of that.

Yeah I don't think almost every criminal case should end in a plea deal as it does now. As I have explained prosecutors extort pleas in most cases. They even use the death penalty to extort people into accepting life in prison. I don't think you fully grasp the extent of the plea bargain's role in the criminal justice system.

That fact makes it even more egregious when you have a case like Avery and Dassey which go to trial yet are marred with incompetence and corruption by police and prosecutors.

Do I think prosecutors should be able to overcharge and extort plea bargains? No I do not. Yet that is almost the entirety of the system right now.

How is that backtracking on his part. There is no evidence she was ever in the trailer yet Dassey tells this bizarre story about what happened in the trailer. That there is zero evidence to corroborate his story is not backtracking it is supporting the original point.

Lol it is not mocking her. It is bs that God told her where to go. That would be a women with a serious mental illness not religion. She is the one who claimed that is how she found it so quickly.

If you are someone who doesn't think God is telling people where to find cars then her excuse is a lie. So it calls into question how and why she was so lucky to start at the one spot where the vehicle happened to be.

Just because she says God told her doesn't magically protect her from being accused of lying.

So you are saying all rapists should go free unless there is physical evidence, or one or more corroborating witnesses? You realize this means that most rapists would go free, because the state would simply not believe the victim. Women's groups would be outraged (and rightfully so).

The crime that the person is accused of committing, is what determines the potential punishment. I'm sure an accused rapist is going to face a harsh sentence if found guilty at trial, as is an accused murderer. As they should.

wat

Try reading what he said

So, in a thread where a dude got accused of raping someone with no physical evidence, did 17ish or whatever years and was exonerated by physical evidence later you are arguing for less need for physical evidence? just lol

Enough with the loaded hypotheticals. At the end of the day, the justice system is supposed to be built on what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (maybe fraley can remind us all what reasonable doubt is). End of.

The reason for this is the core concept that an innocent person spending time in prison for a crime they did not commit (or worse, being executed for it) is a greater injustice than a guilty person going free.

This system that you and fraley endorse not only condones a bias that puts innocent people away for crimes they didn't commit...well guess what, that same bias therefore ensures guilty people go free since an innocent person is doing the time instead.

For two people (you and fraley) who claim to not want guilty people to walk, I have no idea how you endorse a concept (a bias skewed towards convicting the innocent) that ensures that very thing. You and fraley have not really thought this through.

What you two are really condoning is a system that gets convictions, with innocence or guilt being secondary. It's supposed to be a justice system. Not a conviction system.

He gunna rot.

This system that you and fraley propose not only condones a bias that puts innocent people away for crimes they didn't commit...well guess what, that same bias therefore ensures guilty people go free since an innocent person is doing the time instead.

Well Said 28Renton.

Also with the plea deals getting thrown around, how many street robberies, Drug deals etc does the main protagonist get away with it cos he got his lawyer to go get a deal & squeal.
Fraley & revots have NO ****ING CLUE about the streets, justice system, woman's rights or anything else to do with why the founding fathers formed these thing's calls amendments.
I can't believe the **** that has come out there mouths the last few pages, come to think about it I CAN BELIEVE IT, as its how most ppl deal with it, clue-Most don't give a **** unless its on TV.
IMO they believe its only the Poor's who get ****ed so they DON'T CARE.

Wait the fouding fathers formed the amendments with womens rights in mind? Damn, learn something new everyday.

Yeah there was physical evidence (turned out to be wrong), and he was IDed by the victim (turned out to be wrong).

I suppose we'd better rule out victim eyewitness testimony as a source of evidence also.

Um it's not a hypothetical. You realize acquaintance rape with no witnesses is a common crime, right? But feel free to handwave it away, since it doesn't fit your fantasy-land world where every verdict is cut and dried and no innocent person can ever be found guilty.

Yeah, no one endorses a bias towards putting innocent people away. Our system is built on the concept of presumption of innocence, and placing a heavy burden on the state to prove guilt. It does not ensure infallibility. Hence the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" part, that none of you seem to get.

No I am in favor of a system that balances the rights of victims with the rights of the accused. Like I said, there is no perfect system. Our system aims to strike that balance. Good luck finding a better one.

Lol at mark not understanding people who attribute things to god. Have you never met a christian? when they say "god showed me the way" they don't mean he came down and pointed his finger.

Have YOU never met a christian? Cause thats pretty much exactly what they think, whether it was a physical showing or not.

Agree to disagree

The physical showing was the crux of Fraley's point. You can't take that away. If you do, then you're agreeing that Christians might attribute the finding of the vehicle without being physically "shown by god" to be done by god. She's not saying she saw some vision yo

I thought that was already the status quo.

It's pretty obvious you posed a loaded hypothetical (and you posed it as a hypothetical, you cited no actual case) so you could call people out for victim blaming or disrespecting victims, blah blah blah. You're transparent, revots. And now you're playing dumb.

I agree, sexual assault cases tend to be very tough due to their nature. In a civilized society however, our criminal justice system absolutely demands and requires strong evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence. To require anything less is to return to witch hunts.

Did you even read what fraley wrote? That's exactly what he endorsed. I'll find the exact quote shortly but he said that he would prefer a system that convicts innocent people as collateral damage if it means more guilty people are convicted because it's safer that way. Oh yeah, and you supported his comment. How safe and grateful do you think the innocent on death row feel?

Fraley's exact words:
"I believe society in general is safer if a few innocent people get convicted over a lot of guilty people being set free."

Right now the system is supposed to be biased in favour of the accused. As Dean Strang so eloquently said, "All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal case 'swimming upstream'. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence." Fraley's own words, in plain english above, support skewing this bias towards putting "some" innocent people away so long as it means less guilty people go free. But please, engage in verbal acrobatics to twist in some other way.

You're right. We have nothing to learn from any other system in the world.