Again, the question is raised what facts are "unlikely to recur" What makes this case unique? She can't answer that question. The only "unique" things about this confession is that he had a low IQ and the police used phrases like "the truth will set you free". If that alone will make a confession involuntary then similar phrases used against persons of a low IQ that leads to a confession would also be considered involuntary. There is no law that allows people with a low IQ to be subject to specific interrogation techniques, nor is there any requirement to question them in a specific way.

The defense is simply asking the court to correctly apply existing law.

The meaning of 'unique' and 'unlikely' are different.

Obviously, every case is unique in that they are never going to be exactly duplicated, just as every person is supposed to have unique DNA or unique fingerprints.

Unlikely is a rather broader category of things. Certainly it is not the majority of cases that will involve someone of Brendan's particular circumstances getting this sort of attention from police.

Judge Wood: Isn’t the D, D, I see it anyway, maybe this is to literal, the (d1) aspect of this is whether in the end this was a voluntary confession, the Supreme Court has said that that question raises the question of law. Ah because it’s a constitutional fact sort of but its assessed as a matter of law. The (d2) question is the more granular one looking at all of these transcripts are there one or more promises of leniency ah should you look at this, this way and the court has said as far back as the Terry Williams against Taylor case that the facts don’t need to be an exact map, you’re going to look at these promises and see whether they actually amount to a promise of lenience.

Laura Nirider: That’s exactly right your honour, and the court has reiterated that more recently in Panetti vs Quarterman and Marshall vs Rogers, clearly established federal law may be found in general principles, and we need not identify a case with factual identity at a high level of specificity.

The argument presented is that BD misunderstood the idioms as promises of leinency. Funny enough leniency was initially offered to him but forgetting all that.. She is arguing that he somehow interpreted those idioms to mean that if he confesses he won't be prosecuted thus confessed involuntarily.

This argument is ridiculous. For one, "the truth will set you free" does not imply that he should lie to not be prosecuted. Not even to a mentally challenged teenager, if you want to call him mentally challenged.

We will certainly see how the judges rule but my guess is the ruling will favor the state, it will likely be appealed to the scotus and they will rule the same. It will be probably a year or longer before one of us can say "told you so" but it is what it is.

There's no telling how judges are going to rule. The en banc panel may very well side with the state's arguments.

IMO the issue of 'promises of leniency' are the technical arguments which speak to the Constitutional case. Apparently cops are allowed to lie - up to a point.

From my own POV, the promises of leniency are only a part of the whole program: the carrot.

The stick is the lies about how Steven is allegedly going to pin this on Brendan (of course, Steven never does anything of the sort). And about how they won't be able to 'help' Brendan if he doesn't incriminate Steven first.

I'm heartened to see a couple of the judges picked up on the thread that Brendan was fed information to 'confess' and led to believe the police would 'help' him if his answers conformed to their expectations. That, to my mind, is the most egregious behavior on the part of the police interrogators.

just finished the series. didnt watch it for the longest time becuase I thought everyone was overrating it


was a lot better than I thought it was gonna be.


have no clue what to make of the case and all. just no clue, im just very very sdurprised the appalte courts didnt look at the case? is there somethign they see that i don tsee as to why we wouldnt want to look further into it??

absolutely, i feel thats enough to atleast appeal going forward.


the quote stood out in my mind as we went on with the doc but the other thing was, why no thave steven on the stand?? I that was in the back of my mind for awhile. I dont know law but why not have him testify? I am ssuming becuase they thought nothing would have come of it?

if true.
makes TOTAL sense now as to why he didn't take the stand if true. if your his defense, that **** is tough to curve

Hello, good show right?

The hole is common when drawing blood. The state had a nurse ready to testify that she put he hole in that vial when drawing SA blood in 1985 but the defense abandoned the argument before the trial began.

The 99 toyota call has imo been extremely exaggerrated as to its importance. Some in this thread would disagree with me on this point but I find it unlikely that Colborn would have found her car, call it in, then not report it unless he initially planned on planting the car when finding it and if the latter is true he wouldn't have called it in. So I think it way more likely that he is telling the truth, he was given the information about the vehicle from his superior and called it in to verify he had the correct vin.

Not to mention, the show cut off the part where he (colborn) asks "is it for a missing girl" Why would he ask that if he was looking at the vehicle? This implies he knew it was for a missing girl before calling, adding credence to his story that he was just verifying the information.

Whether or not he was fed information isn't as important as whether or not his IQ made this confession voluntary, as for as the habeas corpus appeal is concerned. At least as far as i have been told.

Rovner et al seem to basically believe the confession was false but can't say it so they're engaging in contortionist logic so they can justify it as being involuntary hence their ranting, without even letting Berg finish answering questions, before rudely cutting him off and asking more questions.

Decision was probably made in advance & Rovner & Co simply allowed to vent their frustration. Sykes' comments re the law are the most relevant imo.

Not interested in your vacuous crap or who was pm'ng you but only if you can provide what was asked.

Hole was perfectly normal and was debunked ages ago.

LOL!

Judges were rude to Berg.

They're just trying to get at the issues.

I think it was probably an attempt to sway a potential swing vote, it would appear at least 5 of the votes are decided based on what I have heard and two could go one way or the other potentially.

Making comments that are highly based on emotion are not "getting at the issue" imo.

cant believe I got to 370 pages and then just had to stop, the last 200 pages before I stopped were onw big circle after cirlce always coming around to the same points.



did I miss anything> any big updates in teh case?

Not really. The Brendan Dassey conviction has been tossed, twice. Government continues to hold him while they appeal.

There's some sort of judges panel happening now that I don't know enough about to go into more detail

Imo it would set too huge a precedent if majority upheld & majority not only misinterprets the law but also seems to disregard Dassey's own testimony in order to come to their conclusion.
I think it'll be eventually overturned and/or will be appealed to SCOTUS or Dassey will be retried if need be.
But if he walks he walks, but I'm optimistic of majority being reversed, at present.

This is one of the many reasons why I have this highly strung semi stalker kool aid guzzling murderer groupie nutjob on ignore ages. It constantly willfully misrepresents what was said in order to peddle its fraudulent innocence narrative for rapists and murderers which is basically a form of trolling.

I never said they "were rude to Berg" I said they rudely cut him off with other questions without even giving him a chance to finish their previous questions. It's why I feel Rovner frustrated more than anything else and was allowed to vent as decision probably decided in advance, hence her whinging prattling as she probably knows it's a forgone conclusion already.

Not that I expect Loudfootz to understand this, but await its Pavlovian tendency to respond to as many of my posts as possible with utter apathy & boredom, as I won't be reading its burbling waffle anyway.

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents...n+in+Avery.pdf

averys motion for a new trial has been denied.

There have been updates, mainly in the Dassey case. Dassey had his confession ruled involuntary, then that ruling was vacated. There was just a trial last week over the decision and we are awaiting the judges to rule.

Ultimately though, the results are the same. They are both still in prison.

Exactly!

Berg going on and on about how the victim allegedly suffered had nothing to do with the issues in this case - was the law properly applied?

This is crazy talk. We are both on two of the same forums (true fact -I am on several forums - I guess that makes me a stalker?).

Standing up for innocent people doesn't make me a 'murderer groupie'.

Just unpacking corpus vile's opening sentence shows exactly who the 'nutjob' is!

FFS - who joins a discussion group just to put people on 'ignore'?

Corpus vile refers to me as 'it' - like he's Buffalo Bill or something.

There's nothing 'fraudulent' about anything I've posted - corpus vile doesn't have the guts or the arguments to rebut my arguments. Corpus vile is just a coward.

Corpus is so obsessed with denying everything and anything she claims that by saying 'rudely cutting him off' doesn't mean someone was rude!

Now corpus vile thinks it's funny to try and make fun of my moniker, having failed to make any kind of relevant or meaningful criticism of anything I have ever written.

Footz,

No response to your homies motion for a new trial being rejected? Looks like I was right, Zellners "evidence" was neither "new" nor was it "evidence".

It's a disappointing decision by that judge.

Having looked over the new evidence, it is new and it is evidence.

I already knew it's difficult to get convictions overturned, so I'm not shocked.

But it's not over yet.