wow ... just wow...

Yeah, there's no objection you view as valid. They are all lies. But...you know, logic.

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

To compound the proof of the murder's non-occurrence, the "qualified" investigators DID find DNA and blood. So the cleaning performed after a woman was raped, stabbed, had her throat cut then shot between 2 and 11 times, only removed HER dna and blood.

Seems a bit illogical, doesn't it?

Take a look at this quote from the book entitled "Introduction to Logic".

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Don't know, do your own research. And remember:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Don't care.

They had told him that no promises could be made. Can you cite a valid objective example of a specific false promise of leniency? And yes they very much did indeed say that it was important for Dassey to tell the truth, not to lie and tell them whatever they wished. And told him his rights offered a lawyer and explained pretty clearly what an admission against interest is. That's not coercion and it's one of the reasons I find Duffin irresponsible.
Can you explain how telling Dassey that no promises can be made equates to a false promise of leniency when they never even mention leniency or no jail time?

Are you confident that Duffin will be upheld and if so that Dassey won't potentially face a retrial?

When they stop falsely referring to overturned or vacated convictions as actual exonerations, and stop referring to acquittals as actual exonerations when the courts don't declare any such thing, like they've done in several cases and when private eyes working on their behalf aren't facing $40 million lawsuits for allegedly threatening people with guns (coercing them you might say) then I'll take them more seriously.
Until that day comes then no, I don't put much stock in innocence projects, sorry.

That's not true. I just haven't regarded any of yours as valid so far.

This isn't one of them as again Dassey's confession was partially used to support the warrant against Avery and is supported by evidence. Within that context, yes Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence so it's actually you who's applying it incorrectly, sorry.

Oh no, a murder did indeed occur, you're mistaken there.

Again was this raised by the defence in court? you don't know how much of her DNA was there to begin with so you're speculating, really.

Do you think it's illogical enough to trump the evidence and do you think Avery should be released, based on this and your belief in a frame up?

No I'd rather you provide evidence of a frame up for Teresa's murder as that would be the most logical thing for you to do.

Well according to Dassey's testimony he claims the stain could have been blood anyway.
You're the one who brought up the oxygen bleach. I was just asking you if the defence raised it in court is all. If you don't know the answer then it's okay.
Yeah I already covered that, but thanks.

Okay. So you're unable to highlight any lies I've told. Which I knew anyway as I haven't lied once here. See now why I regard you as dishonest?

Btw Lost can you address why Dassey asked proactively about Avery raping Ms Halbach on Nov 06?

Convictions aren't required to validate evidence.

If you watch the MAM doc, you'd know that depositions were in process where it was revealed that there is evidence of the framing of Steven Avery. Of course the outcome of those depositions were never realized due to the framing for rape and murder of SA and BD, just days before the key witnesses were going to give their testimony and be questioned by SA's lawyer. Ironically enough, it's those key witnesses I believe are behind the murder of TH. I'm not even lying.

Sure can. Just go ahead and send a link or quote or SOMETHING and I'll get right on that.

yaaa. well, not really.

11 times. Punched her. Cut her hair.

I just had a soda and watched TV n that.

So what you're saying is there's no evidence of a frame up that could lead to charges which would validate your claims. Now, maybe you feel you have reasonable grounds for suspicion and in some respects I hear you on this. But that's not the same as actual evidence. But again do you think this should be sufficient to release Avery and exonerate him as in actually exonerate him?

I've already explained this re consistency.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2005Nov06.pdf

page 12, they're already talking about disconnected battery (or disconnecting?)
in BD's presence, nov6

My apologies, I had honestly assumed you were familiar with the interview, my bad.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2005Nov06.pdf (page 20)

Cops themselves didn't know anything about a rape at that point. Why did Dassey suddenly proactively ask the cops about Avery raping Ms Halbach? Out of all the things he could have asked or subjects to bring up, why that outa the blue? Unless he had insider knowledge?
This is not an unreasonable question to ask and it requires a reasonable plausible explanation in fairness.

BUMP

Just linked it to you lost. Can you explain why Dassey asked if the cops thought Avery raped Ms Halbach?

I linked the audio earlier, Dassey states this @24:55 aprox but you're probably better going back a few minutes were you hear him asking the cops if they thought Avery (referred to as "he") did it.

"Suddenly proactively". The same mantra fraley is spewing. Where are you getting this from?

This is a total fcuking joke. Uhhh...maybe because he's the most famous exoneree in all of Wisconsin - cleared of RAPE charges he spent 18 years in jail for while LE still believes he's guilty of the RAPE in 1985 (after the true rapist with a long history of rape and brutal crimes is convicted based on his DNA). What do you think is being talked about at school and the parts of the family that he doesn't get along with (including the ones currently employed by the Sheriff's department)?

I mean, is this all you got? THIS? This part of this interview is your slam dunk "hang him from the gallows" concrete evidence. You have to be fcuking kidding me.

You are 100% a pure troll.

15:20 "that would give us the warrant on it" not transcripted, dunno what to make of it

He proactively asks a specific question regarding Avery raping Teresa. Hence my use of the word "proactively". Unless you can cite in the interview where the cops proactively mention rape. They don't. So why does Dassey ask about rape when the cops aren't even thinking this at the time?

So what you're saying is that Avery is exonerated for rape and then Dassey suddenly wonders if he'd commit an actual rape, in this case the murder victim and asks the cops about it innocently? Or have I inferred wrongly? Can you clarify?

Not rape anyway. besides we have no way of knowing what was spoken about so I'm not sure I can accept this line of reasoning, sorry.

So then again- are you saying that Avery is exonerated for rape and then Dassey suddenly wonders if he'd commit an actual rape, in this case the murder victim and asks the cops about it innocently? Or have I inferred wrongly? Can you clarify?
And that it's completely illogical for anyone else to find this suspicious?
Or again have I inferred wrongly? If you could just clarify that then I'd be much obliged, cheers.
I assume you're speaking figuratively re the gallows thing. I don't believe in the death penalty, so I think we're good.

No, it's not trolling to suggest that there's grounds for suspicion wrt Dassey proactively mentioning rape to cops who never even mention such a specific crime.
So anyway I take it you disagree? That there's nothing at all whatsoever odd or outa the ordinary and absolutely no grounds for suspicion re Dassey proactively asking about rape? And that those who would think otherwise are trolls and complete psycholoons? (A simple yes will suffice if the answer is actually "yes" btw)

See, I do find that suspicious behaviour on Dassey's part when one views the totality of the Teresa Halbach case, especially when you factor in his confessions which followed the interview being supported by the evidence, being used to support a warrant which uncovers evidence against Avery and then his later confession to his mam from prison and him supplying details that the cops never mentioned.

I guess that's where we differ in our opinion.

Btw, if this can be dismissed against Dassey, despite it strongly intimating insider knowledge- "evidence" if you will- I take it your allegations of frame ups that have no evidence can be dismissed against the cops?
Or not? If you could clarify this also, I'd be again much obliged, cheers.

Actually we do. You're homework assignment is to research cousin Kayla. All kinds of stuff being spewed at school.

Yeah but you have no way of knowing if it influenced Dassey to the point where he asks the cops about it and I'm sure Ms Halbach being actually raped wasn't being discussed at school as not even the cops were thinking this and it doesn't explain how his confessions contains details supported by the evidence which the cops never mention to him or his confession to his mother which was in no way coerced outa him.

But okay. So then Dassey picks it up by listening to gossip? Which somehow influences him to the point where he innocently asks the cops about rape while being interviewed about Ms Halbach, and asks about rape specifically wrt his uncle who was exonerated for rape possibly raping her?
While at the same time, Kayla was lying to the counsellor? And that in later interviews/interrogations, he was coerced, the details he mentioned which the cops didn't were just lucky guesses, and that when he confessed to his mam from prison he was lying? And that the cleaning of the garage was done innocuously by another coincidence by both and that both changing their story was also done for innocuous reasons, both being together that night were for innocuous reasons and both not having an alibi is simply bad luck but nothing to get in a fuss about?

Okay. Do you think that this has a higher likelihood than Dassey asking about the rape because he knew Teresa had been raped and knew this because he was there which is why his confession was supported by evidence and detailed specifics which the cops never mentioned and had told his cousin and then while actually incarcerated then confessed to his mam because he's nowhere in the same league as Avery, has a conscience and genuinely felt remorse for what he and his uncle had done?

This is a genuinely honest question fwiw. I'm not trying to be a smart arse, I just wish to know which possibility seems the most probable to you, when the totality of Teresa's case is viewed.

And again, a simple yes will suffice if that's what you think, which will clarify things better for me, cheers.

Innocence projects tend to be vehicles for the egos of certain academics or lawyers who like getting naive (that is, under-informed) young students worked up about this and that. The habit of referring to overturns as 'exonerations' is not a good sign at all, given the actual legal reasons for most overturns.

The UK Innocence Network, created by Michael Naughton, a law-and-sociology lecturer at Bristol, was shut down because Naughton's poster boy and prime test case, Simon Hall, confessed to the murder for which he was convicted and then committed suicide.

In this case, it's improbable that anyone but Avery and Dassey committed the crime and the conspiracy theory involving the police is subject to a category error. It might be superficially plausible as fiction, but it's pretty unworkable in reality. People who get their knowledge of the case from a TV doc apparently can't judge the reality / fiction divide too well. (And documentaries are a form of fiction.)

Yeah I remember reading about the Hall case.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-23611821

These links are not to decide on the innocence or guilt of the former defendants. That is for the courts do decide.
They're to highlight cases which were not declared exonerations by the court but which several innocence projects have factually inaccurately proclaimed as actually exonerated.
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...px?caseid=4304
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...px?caseid=3867

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...px?caseid=3426 (Alleged victims, the daughters, never recanted.)

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...px?caseid=3866

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exo...px?caseid=3359

None of these former defendants were exonerated and several of them lost in civil suits. So I don't have much time for Innocence projects really, if they need to distort the facts.