How probable is it though? As opposed to possible? I mean maybe the evidence indicates guilt because both are guilty. Rather than an extraordinarily complex conspiracy taking place.

Corpus vile doesn't seem to have been following the case of Brendan very closely. The 'evidence' against him comes entirely from the so-called 'confession', which having been reviewed by higher courts has been found to have been coerced.

In short, there is no reliable evidence against Brendan.

There's nothing extraordinarily complex about browbeating an inexperienced teenager into making a false confession. There's nothing extraordinarily complex about cops planting evidence.

Not so long ago the public was treated to the spectacle of a cop shooting an unarmed citizen in the back and planting a weapon on him.

That in this day and age anyone can pretend such a thing is unthinkable is an unthinking person.

I don't know if they did it or not. It is my opinion that the investigation and prosecution left open doubt.

And Chicago where everyone backed up that the cop was being attached and had good reason to fire his gun 10 times or so when he was at the scene for all of 90 seconds.

Without video of those incidents, nothing would have happened. Suspect dead, cops write reports, and life goes on.

Not saying anything sordid happened with the bones. It is a possibility that could have been ruled out with pictures. It seems natural that after seeing a single bone, the police would clear the area immediately and start taking pictures.

Instead, you have a single individual making the decision that no pictures are going to be taken because the scene appeared altered, in his view. That is quite a lot of power we place in a single individual. Especially when there is no downside or effort to taking pictures and videos.

The scene was also obviously altered, allegedly, by the police unless a random person got in there. But what we have read, the burn pits were not touched because there was a dog guarding it and nobody wanted to get near it for safety.

Another ridiculous reason like they couldn't just tranquilize the dog, put a net over it, or just kill it if it was so dangerous. Or did the dog alter the scene?

I will file this under odd and unusual.

Dogs are scary mmmkay

I respectfully disagree as re Avery, that amount of evidence would put anyone away.
For Dassey it's sufficient albeit not as strong as against Avery but sufficient nonetheless.

Something you find odd or unusual doesn't equate to exculpatory evidence though.

Btw Oski you never answered my question re whose argument you found more compelling, Hamilton's or The Majority's and who you thought was more on point regarding the actual law.
Could you be so kind as to do so, if that's not too much trouble for you? Thanks in advance mate.

No. Not interested.

Finally a proper answer to Vile corpus. People should use this method more instead of participating in the sea of misinformation.

Yeah, the story about a couple hundred cops being held at bay by a dog is so stupid only an idiot could think it up and only morons would buy it.

There's no downside for cops bending, breaking, or ignoring the rules that are there to protect citizens from their public servants and keep them honest.

My guess is he hasn't read it.

I'm honestly not sure Oski has read a single document pertaining to the case. His opinions seem to still rely entirely on his viewing of Making a Murderer and reading posters who confirm his bias ITT. I think he honestly believes Lenk was on the verge of being sued and that Ryan is the real killer. Considering Oski's an actual lawyer (or at least claims to be), this is disheartening.

You shouldn't expect good legal discussion on a poker forum anyway. The best place I've found for legal discussion/debate of the case, which includes lawyers (or at least they claim to be) who have actually done the research, is https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryIsGuilty/.*

For example, here's a recent post discussing "Some of the most significant points made in the dissent that could result in a successful appeal"
and a new post discussing whether Ryan H can sue Zellner for defamation.

There is also occasionally good legal discussion at https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/, specifically in this post.

I suspect you already know all this though


*If anyone disagrees, please feel free to share where you think there has been a better open forum for legal discussion of the case.

Thus, the question: Why are you here?

On 2p2? I've been here for 10 years.

ITT? Because one can be a member of two or more forums at the same time, and I sometimes like to read certain people's posts and to discuss aspects of the case with people new to this thread and/or willing to have a rational debate. I'm certainly not here for enlightening legal discussion (which is what I said not to expect here).

I'm not here nearly as often anymore.

Seems odd. Personally, when I find a better forum for discussing a matter, I simply move on.

According to you, given this is a poker forum, those "new to the thread" should not provide you with any expectation of having an "enlightening legal discussion," so why would you bother?

I find it very odd.

Anyhow, I generally find the opposite: There are a number of posters in these forums that offer much better legal analysis on topics than I find in other places. I think that is because we are here (or came here) for poker-related discussion, first and foremost. On other matters, most of us do not have an agenda to push.

So, we usually have a fairly open-minded discussion about things. The exception seems to be when this forum becomes infiltrated by carpet baggers claiming to be long-time posters here, but somehow manage to only post in one specific thread with an obvious agenda/bias.

By the way, I don't think you would recognize a rational debate if it slapped you across the face.

Different strokes for different folks.



Have you considered there's other things to discuss besides the in-depth legal aspects?

I also occasionally like to educate new posters who watched the misleading documentary; not everyone was as smart as you claim to be and knew the hole in the vial was normal while watching Making a Murderer (even Buting is still struggling with this fact a decade later!).



I would disagree, but please provide me with what you consider the best legal analysis about the recent case decision regarding Brendan written by someone ITT.



I'm not really sure what you're insinuating; all I can say is conspiracy theorists will see conspiracy theories in everything.



Ah, that's why I have you on the Ignore List! It's funny, considering you're someone who speaks with authority about the Avery case while not having read the actual transcripts/documents.

Another person who comes to a forum just for the pleasure of putting others on an ignore list?

Wasn't it corpus vile who claims to do the same thing?

Despite being a 2+2 member for 10 years (or so you say), I guess your "Ignore List" is broken.

The Ignore List is supposed to block from you posts made by a blocked person.

It seems yours is the opposite - you seem to respond to just about every post I make.

*** By the way, I appreciate your comment that I "speak with authority about the Avery case." I must have made quite an impression on you! However, to the contrary, I have never claimed to be an authority on the matter and have been very careful to explain my position and the information I have reviewed. Yet, given your breadth of knowledge of the case and its source materials, I accept your comments as conceding I have been correct in my analysis - an "authority" if you will.

Jesus, how is this up for debate? The year is 2017 and I joined in 2007:





The Ignore List still allows you to view posts from ignored users:



When I think it pertains to me, or when I see a potentially interesting argument going on, I sometimes will view the relevant ignored posts. Overall, I am happy with how the Ignore List works for me ITT.



"Speaking with authority" does not mean you actually are an authority, or at least that's how I understand the phrase (happy to be shown otherwise). When I say you "speak with authority", I mean to say that you speak as if you actually know what you're talking about regarding this case, when (having not done the research) you clearly don't.

I certainly don't think you're an authority on any aspect of this case - the impression I have of you is that your opinions are severely misguided based on an extremely limited and biased look at the actual details of the case and that you have often been dishonest ITT (if not intentionally to others, then unintentionally to yourself).

I also submit into evidence my favorite quote of yours:

Skillz,

those were some good links. I especially enjoyed the one about the appeal. I think I now have a better understanding of why the conviction was overturned and why its being appealed. If I can summarize (feel free to correct me if I am wrong)

It is not about whether or not he is being coerced necessarily, it is about whether or not he understand his consequences for confessing. The argument for overturning his conviction is that he DID NOT understand what his consequences would be and was lead by investigators to believe he would not receive punishment if he did.

The argument for appeal is that it doesn't matter if he understood the consequences or not, because police did not imply his punishment would be any less than the punishment he received...

in a nut shell.

It's a lot more complicated than that, and I think it's best off asking on reddit where some people have both relevant legal knowledge (I don't) as well as an understanding of the case details. The user puzzledbyitall is a lawyer (though not a criminal lawyer), I believe so is NewYorkJohn, and others have knowledge about the issues as well despite not being lawyers.



Here's the circuit court decision: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:1983985:S:0

and discussion post: https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAvery...n_21_decision/


and the State's petition for an en banc re-hearing: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...ing-Enbanc.pdf

and discussion post: https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAvery...o_hear_dassey/

It is a matter of fraud in the factum as opposed by fraud in the inducement. I realize you think one outcome is much better than the other, but for our purposes, they amount to the same thing.

I don't think those two are the correct dichotomy here.

It is either he was lead by false promises or he was lead to lie about his involvement..

And I do think the distinction is important. The main reason why is everyone in the thread has been pretending as if the judges think dassey confessed based on information given to him IE where the body was, bullet etc.. That does not seem to be what they ruled on, this is interesting because apparently in the decision the judges agreed (all 3 of them) that the police did not commit anything of malice or ill intent.

They also did not rule on him being fed false information, which would be a stronger case if made but for some reason wasn't. This implies that there is no good argument (legally speaking) that he was fed false information.

I also think based on the limited information and knowledge I have that there is little evidence he was given false promises. Because from what I can tell telling him stuff like "you're ok" and "we will work with you if you're honest" is not giving him false promises. Especially when he was given a plea deal initially.

Long story short, it seems like there is a pretty good chance the appeal will win and dassey will not be released.

Is the next Making a Murderer case unfolding as we speak?

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pe...-20170712.html