Avery's lawyer got it from Mahler, and Mahler's account has been disputed by other jurors.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/m...en-avery-87839

Poorskillz posts.
lOl come to think about it he should be here soon as he always does when a new poster comes itt & is about 2/3 days late.

How ironic that it is actually you that don't follow here.

BD confessed which lead to evidence

Gacy confessed which lead to the body

Neither person would have been convicted without the confession. Neither person would have been convicted without their confession being corroborated. Your initial suggestion was that confessions were thrown out, BD and Gacy could have initially got acquitted without the confession part. Do you ****ing understand now? Holy christ, it is like talking to children.

I am not arguing just a confession should convict someone. I am arguing that confessions shouldn't just be thrown out because they are confessions.

OMG!!!

How do people consistently miss the point itt?

Never even had a parking ticket before, first time charged with anything


Jail time was part of the deal

Are we talking about the Steve Avery case? Because there was only one body. Yes, bones were found in multiple locations.

Brendan also told them over and over he cut her hair. Where is the hair? Until he couldn't come up with an answer where is her hair, he then revised the story that he never cut her hair. How can anyone believe anything he said? He is the shining example for suggestible confession. Whatever you wanted him to say, he would admit to it.

No, we are talking about Gacey. Fraley is trying to compare his confession to BD's.

I agree that the account of the initial jury vote may not be accurate. I do believe it was not 100% guilty on the initial vote or this would have been wrapped up immediately.

A jury convicting the person is not evidence of committing a crime. It is evidence that the prosecutor successfully convinced 12 people that a person committed a crime. Ken Kratz was successful, yet one may argue that he used duplicitous methods and had an array of police and investigators who wanted their suspect to be found guilty. They won.

These are tough 'society' questions.

How much latitude do we want to give detectives and investigators to solve crimes? I think we all agree that torture is wrong. For reasons of morality and high likelihood of eliciting false confessions.

I am much more impressed with the fact that Steven Avery did not confess to the first crime when it would have allowed him to walk out of prison. I think 99.9% of people would confess regardless of their guilt or innocence.

He seems to be the most honest person out of anyone.

We are talking about the suggestion you made about not using confessions as evidence, which would have acquitted gacy if we did that.

Doubtful, a chunk of the 18 years he spent in prison was for another crime he committed. The state wanted to push for the worst sentence possible given his history I'd imagine. Also the DA and the sheriff both had tunnel vision in the rape case. This is why they were both later sued by him.

No, it wouldn't, because they found the ****ing bodies. Are you high? The confession was not integral to the conviction, do you disagree?

I am not and have not said that confessions should not be used to find evidence of the crimes. I am saying they should not be admissible in court. You are missing the ****ing point by a mile.

But they should be bevause of how they are often obtained. That's the problem. Dassey is a perfect example as to why confessions should not be allowed as evidence.

Without his confession it's unlikely they get a conviction even as stacked as the prosecution had things. The fact that that ridiculous confession was used as the primary evidence to sentence someone to life in prison is crazy.

Again, there is zero reason why prosecutors can't obtain other evidence to convict someone who is guilty and confesses. If they can't find enough other evidence to convict someone then they should not be trying to convict them.

The reality is its a short-cut for police and prosecutors to fulfill their arrest and conviction quotas. Many people actually guilty of crimes never confess. So it's not exactly impossible to get a conviction without a confession. We have a lot of evidence though, that interrogation techniques can regularly achieved false confessions and should not be considered reliable.

Confessions prejudice a jury way beyond their actual value and credibility. That is one of the reasons they should simply not be allowed. Much like a polygraph test it is way too dependent on who is doing the questioning and how. It's fine if they want to use them to aid in investigations but being admissible in court no longer seems prudent.

The important details are hard to over look.

1) he said him and SA cleaned up a 2x2 area of blood after she was killed. He said they used bleach and paint thinner to clean up the mess. In the garage there was a 3x3 area cleaned up with paint thinner and bleach, BD's jeans he wore that day were also covered in bleach.

2) he knew where she was shot and he knew which gun was used. The bullet found in the garage matches where she was shot and that bullet was matched to the gun avery keeps above his bed.

1 and 2 are the most important imo and the reasons why he was convicted..

3) He had a very lucid explanation to many unanswered questions.. Why she was in the back of the rav4 comes to mind.

And as a side note, he didn't just go along with everything they said. They even fed him false positives to see how he would react. One example of this is when they asked him if he remembered the tattoo on her stomach. He said he didn't remember one. There is no tattoo on her stomach. If he was just going along with everything they said, how come he didn't do it on that question?

Yes, the confession was the whole reason why he was convicted. The evidence is only important because it matches his confession. He could have argued that his mother or wife ( who both stayed in the house often) murdered those people. He could have argued that one of his sleep over buddies who came over often did it.. There were several people who regularly visited that house.

Yes, that is what I just said you were suggesting. lol wtf? I am showing you why I disagree with you.

Gacy was my example.. If the confession was not allowed to be used as evidence then the defense could have argued that someone else killed those people and buried them beneath his house. Since the confession can't be used, where is the huge argument he did the crime? The whole point is that he knew details about the crime he shouldn't have.

I do agree with your last paragraph. But the same can be said about police collecting evidence or the DA who is handling the case. Besides, the point isn't what they confess to, it is that they confess with knowledge they shouldn't have. The knowledge needs to be tied to the evidence, if it can.. It should be used. If it can't then it shouldn't be allowed.

I do not think someone who confesses and later recants should have that confession used if none of the confession can be tied into knowledge of the crime they shouldn't have.

Jesus you're almost as clueless about the Gacy murders as you are about everything else.

Gacy confessed to his lawyer and a friend before he ever confessed to police. He provided previously unknown information as to the location of several bodies. There is strong eyewitness testimony tying him to those graves. And he also never recanted his confession.

To compare that to something like the Brendan Dassey confession where he provided no new information, what information he did provide is weak at best, was lead to every key "revelation", had his first interview recorded with such poor audio quality anything could have been said, had several unrecorded interviews with police, and recanted his confession is an absolute joke.

Cliffs on the last 60 pages? 50/PP

Thanks

Yes I know all this. You are missing the point. The only reason we know he did these things is because the evidence is corroborated by his confession. If all we had was the evidence and no admit of his guilt, the evidence wouldn't be as strong. That is all I am saying.

As for BD, I already laid out the two big things corroborated by this confession. But I doubt you read them. I will say them again.

1) he said him and avery cleaned up a large 2x2 area of blood using bleach and paint thinner in the garage. He told police where in the garage this area was cleaned. The police located this are in march, a large 3x3 area that had been spot cleaned with bleach and paint thinner, his jeans were also covered in bleach.

2) he told police where she was shot and what gun was used. Both of these are also corroborated with evidence. There is a bullet with TH dna on it that is tied to avery's gun (the gun BD said was used) located in the same area where BD said she was shot.

He was not convicted just because he confessed. He was convicted because of this evidence.. Imo. The same can be said about gacy, but without the confession it is likely neither of these men would have been convicted of anything and master is suggesting confessions shouldn't be used in court.

Also, as a side note that is partially related. BD also initially confessed to a friend. his cousin.

Anyone from team innocent, how do you reconcile the car on the property with SA's blood?

No, I haven't. Don't feel the need to either. It would just affirm my stance even more that SA and his nephew should have walked free regardless of being guilty or not.

It seems that most people itt feel the same way too besides the couple guys clogging up the thread with lol logic fails.

I read that Obama can't pardon him even if he wanted so SA and his nephew are still in the hands of the LOL Wisconsin justice system. Feel bad for those two because Wisconsin is not ever going to let this go.