Yeah and that's what they did, they investigated potential suspects which led them to our two railroaded miscarriage of justice sufferers who are currently residing in Oz after the overwhelming evidence convicted Avery(as in the last guy to see Teresa that day, whose remains and car were found on his property to go with her DNA on his bullet which was compatible with the bullet wounds, yeah, that guy) and was considered sufficient for Dassey and his trial considered above board by the appellate court which upheld his conviction.
They'd already settled with Avery. Provide evidence he was framed. Otherwise your hypothesis won't trump submitted evidence which convicted him any more than a hypothesis with zero evidence for it would trump his exoneration for rape, really can't put this any plainer Eds, sorry.

Anyway I'm not interested in Avery until Zellner gets her opportunistic limelight hogging ass off of Twitter and onto her Tsunami Surfboard so she can ride that Exonerating Evidence wave. (instead of flinging a pile of crap at the wall at present, hoping some of it will stick this time around after his previous multiple defence teams blew it, which is what she appears to be doing at present imho)
She uncovers actual compelling evidence of this nefarious conspiracy then we'll talk on Avery, sure.

I just wish to know if those who believe Dassey was coerced feel Duffin will be upheld or overturned, really and if he's upheld if they think Dassey can and will be retried and whether his prison confession to his mother can be admissible as evidence against him or not because again that's what's kinda relevant right now, although I have a feeling Dassey's gonna be staying as a guest of the state for quite some time yet, but it's still more relevant than poor innocent Steve. So that's all I really want to know about now at the mo.
So. You reckon Duffin will upheld or overturned or wut?

No. Evidence is not what you personally perceive it to be, there's a standard criteria for what is considered sufficient evidence to convict you and Dassey's admission against interest is considered as evidence, regardless whether or not you agree that it should be considered as such and this is what I meant by your dishonesty and it speaks volumes about how weak your case for innocence is, when you need to lie on behalf of a convicted rapist and party to murder. How come you need to lie in order to defend the best truth you're able to think, when the actual objective truth is easy to defend? First you link a child abuser and child murderer shill who has been thoroughly debunked in both academia and courts of law and now you try to pass off your personal criteria for evidence as actual evidence.
Says it all about your nonce's guilt.

LOL!

Your 'definition' of dishonesty is just a matter of difference of opinion.

Yes, police are aware that alleged statements against interest are considered 'evidence'.

Which rather neatly explains why even beginning on Nov 6 2005 the police are coaching Brendan to lie against his own interests, knowing that weak-minded people will believe such lies.

No serious person can take seriously the claim that a 'statement against interest' must be true.

False confessions are a reality. Sometimes multiple people 'confess' to crimes, none of whom have anything to do with them.

We only have evidence in this thread of your lying. Brendan did not say he knew Steve raped anyone in the Nov 6th interview, and the transcript shows the police coaching him to lie about seeing Teresa when he got off the bus from school.

Your lies have been debunked, but it makes no difference, which tells everyone all they need to know about your intellectual dishonesty and intent to troll.

Goodbye again - see you real soon!

Guessing how an appeal court's decision will be hold up can be difficult to do, as many people discovered when the Italian Supreme Court threw out the convictions of Sollecito and Knox.

[QUOTE=lostinthesaus;51228368]The system works how we design and allow it to work and quite clearly whether it's right or wrong is NOT another issue - it is the ENTIRE issue. The fact that Wisconsin law "allowed" this to happen is the entire point of the documentary - the system is broken allowing an unacceptable number of innocent people to be jailed and even put to death for crimes they did not commit by corrupt, evil or otherwise ill-intentioned persons in position of power. [/quote
No, the fact that Wisconsin law allowed for such things means that under the law, his rights weren't violated, and that's about it really, regardless of Duffin's thundering in his pending appeal report.
Whether the system is wrong or not is a separate issue and has nothing to do with whether or not Dassey was coerced which you refuse to provide what I consider valid evidence to support such a claim. So I'm not interested in your musings on the current system as it's akin to a straw man and the doc left a ton of info out about Avery and took a rather rose tinted view of his penchant for cat bbq and I'm not interested in biased mediums such as documentaries anyway.

Pity it had to be so deceptive so, innit? Guess their truth is harder to defend, huh?

Why? Be very specific with your answers please, cheers.

Who are "those" and what will they be held accountable for? It'snot this frame up job which has zero evidence to support it, is it? Apart from irrelevant links of police corruption with the intimation that cops frame ergo framed here? Which caused me to lol no end? Is that what you mean, lost? -

The lawsuit they settled, that one? Which neither Lenk or Colbourn were named in? That one?
Some of which was served concurrently in conjuction withcrimes he DID commit,don't forget that bit . and
Heh, I actually clicked on "was" as I thought it would link to evidence supporting this but no, it was just you being convinced about it and underlining it to highlight how convinced you were, my bad. Anyway you have any evidence Avery was actually framed for the rape? As opposed to being wrongfully convicted due to human error? Was the rape victim in on this frame job or did she just misidentify Avery due to the trauma of the event and both Avery and the actual rapist having long hair and a beard with the rape taking place in a car at night?
Cuz if you can present this evidence then great,otherwise I'm dismissing this as just one of your theories.



Yes I get that what you perceive to be odd or unlikely trumps the mountain of overwhelming evidence against a defendant and again this particular trope bored the crap outa me in an another murder case and it's still boring as hell. Your reasoning is patently ludicrous, seriously.

Oh okay, are you saying that it is? Am I gonna have to start citing cases here Proudfootz? Cuz you know I will, right?
Hey tell me again about how awesome Ofshe is and how the state of Washington is just plain wrong not to allow him to testify in its courts.

Yeah but what do you think Proudfootz? I mean your personal opinion is important enough to try and pass it off as defined evidence, surely it's important enough to opine on the Duffster?
I mean he's clearly awesome and his reasoning flawless and inarguable, surely? Cuz Dassey was super obviously and clearly brow beaten right? So super obviously that you don't even need to give valid examples?

So whaddya say? Will Duffin's ruling pass the Pepsi challenge or not?

No really I just pointed out how you're being dishonest. Is a confession considered evidence, yes or no? Yep. Ergo you're being dishonest.

No, again stop being all disingenuous, does nothing for your innocence argument, what's with the funky quotation marks as if it's up for debate? Admission against interest is considered evidence in a very legal, could have consequences against you sense. It's not up for debate. So yeah you're being dishonest when you dishonestly assert that "no evidence" exists against Dassey fro raping Teresa. You're being objectively biased and objectively deceptive, you might say.

Coaching or coercion? or are they both the same thing cuz you magically think it? provide evidence that Dassey was coerce on Nov
and explain why he asks about rape without prompting, thanks. Should be easy to do, since he's so like innocent and stuff.

A jury can. Especially when admission against interest is actually multiple admissions and supported by evidence and independent witness statements such as his cousin's claims at school.

Duffin doesn't rule Dassey's confession as false he rules it as involuntary. Words don't mean what you say they mean. Allow that to sink in.

Ergo that happened here, instances of fact supported by the confessions disregarded, gotcha. This is why I don't take you seriously.



I haven't told any lies here.

Never said he did, I said he asked about the rape.

Cool gimme the page number so, thanks.

You've yet to point out any lies I said, you merely misrepresented what I said and there's that dishonesty of yours coming into play again. Tsk tsk. Doesn't say much for your fraudulent innocence narrative is all.

Or you could refute my belief in guilt by providing the evidence I asked for or stick me on ignore, both of those options might work too Eds...

Nope. Just a difference of nomenclature.

In my view a coerced 'confession' isn't evidence on the level of something objective like forensic evidence.

As I've stated already - there is no evidence beyond the so-called 'confession' which an appeals court magistrate has ruled to be inadmissible as it was coerced.

No dishonesty on my part.

Police are the ones who directed Brendan to lie in the Nov 6th interrogation, as the transcript (which you apparently didn't read, didn't understand, or deliberately misrepresent) shows.

This lie you used as 'evidence' that Steven coached Brendan to help cover up a crime turns out to be police manipulating Brendan to incriminate himself.

Brendan asked police what they thought. Which shows he had no idea what happened to her as he never saw her.

Juries can do lots of things. Which explains why OJ was found to be not guilty. So what?

I say the so-called 'confession' is false, filled as it is with mutually contradictory material, plain lies pushed on him by police, and wild impossibilities.

Multiple lines of evidence show that Brendan had no idea what happened to Teresa, most likely never saw her, and obviously had nothing to do with any crimes committed against her.

That police - who are seen again and again manipulating Brendan to make statements against his own interest using threats and promises - knowingly engage is the manufacture of 'evidence' would suggest to any intelligent person such a 'confession' is meaningless in any investigation into the truth of the matter.



Yes, asking what police thought is not an admission of guilty knowledge no matter how dishonestly you try to spin it.

I gave you a link and a page number already, showing police calling Brendan a liar when he tells the truth, and suggesting to him he 'remember' something that not only did not happen, but something that even you claims could not have happened.

Nothing fraudulent about my claims. Add another lie to your tally.

Going for a personal best?

No, sticking people on 'ignore' is something you and your ilk engage in, afraid of open and honest debate - probably because shining a little sunlight on your thought processes makes even conscienceless shills like yourself throw up in your mouth a little.

I've already provided evidence of police manipulating Brendan to lie and incriminate himself on the very first day they talked to him.

That you seem to be OK with cops manufacturing evidence where there is none speaks volumes about you.

First you say 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

Then you claim there is 'no evidence' of coercion that a federal magistrate found.

Make up your mind - is evidence important or isn't it?

Nope. It's you dishonestly attempting to falsely peddle off your personal definition of "no evidence" as the standard definition of "no evidence". You're being dishonest again.

You've yet to provide evidence he was coerced, or coached on Nov 6 and I'd expect no less from you anyway in this regard and I'm not interested in your view on what is or isn't evidence as again your view doesn't equate to the standard definition of the term.



Right so there was evidence you merely disagree with it, stop making false assertions based on your personal criteria, thanks.
Which is currently under appeal meaning your point is neither here nor there at present.

Except the dishonesty I just helpfully and accurately highlighted.



So you should have no problem citing the transcript page where they diret him to lie as well as coach him, twice I've asked you for this now and twice you refuse to provide it. Where do they direct him to lie on the youtube link, point out the time frame thanks.
Speaks volumes you refuse to provide the evidence to back up your falsehoods, seriously.

So he doesn't say the same things Avery says at times, no? Not at all?

Yeah he did indeed as in what they thought about rape. He knew Teresa was raped as he was one of the rapists, hence his asking it outa the blue. Unless of course it's yet another coincidence, to go with all the other coincidences against Innocent Brendan? Again with your contortionist logic.

Jury found no evidence of coercion in this specific case is so what nor did the appellate have a problem with the trial.
So how does Duffin's -one Federal Magistrate judge- ruling trump the trial and appellate court? particularly as his interpretation of coercion is novel and arguable to say the very very least and that's being kind.



[quoteI say the so-called 'confession' is false,[/quote]
So? Duffin doesn't and he2's the one you're citing.
Law allows for inconsistency from both suspeccts and victims, see the Paul Ingram case for details. After giving an admission against interest nothing else the person says has to be supported by evidence or be consistent. That's it. Again with the raising of the burden of proof bar for Dassey, special little guy that he is, which I'm dismissing as he's not special even if you really think he is,
Provide evidence of this

Not according to his confession he didn't which was supported by evidence.
, Oh well hey if it's "most likely" and "obviously" then it must be true, yeah? I mean "clearly". Not interested in your empty waffle in this regard.

Provide evidence of threats via the transcript page numbers or else stop lying no physical threats were made against Dassey.
Provide evidence of actual false promises of leniency, otherwise not interested in your assertions.

- That's not how the law sees it though. Provide evidence that there was a manufacturing of evidence.


No he asked about rape. I get that doesn't seem suspicious to you, as I said your argument is purely agenda based and nothing will convince you that good ole Stevie & Bren weren't framed and coerced. Even innocent Brendan proactively as king about rape.

You haven't given me any evidence of the standard definition of coercion. Please do so, otherwise your claims are dismissed.

Yes there is, I've shown your fraudulence quite clearly with your lie that no evidence existed against Dassey and your citing of fraudulent sources to back up your claims and your assertions that the confession was false when no court ruled that. You're dishonest. You always were and nothing's changed in this regard.

Um, I was talking to Eds, Proudz, not you. And no people stick you on ignore because they become bored with your tiresome disingenuous zero substance crap, honestly. You'll probably end up on my ig list here as well as there, because it's just the same old same old with you.
Who am I shilling for btw? After coming to my conclusion based on examining the evidence, I'm speaking with the victim in mind as opposed to shilling for her killers like you are. So who am I shilling for? Be specific with your answer, thanks.

No you haven't and you've already shown that you're prepared to lie re evidence anyway.

That you seem okay with constantly refusing to provide evidence of this is very very telling indeed Proudz. Provide evidence where the cops manufactured evidence and lemme know if there's any charges pending or even investigations launched?
Oh wait it's just more of your baseless bs, never mind.

So uhh, are we ready to reconsider banning this troll?

Not that anyone is asking me C.V., but ... I am fairly disappointed in your posting in this thred. Your tone is completely disrespectful and dismissive of a lot of posters that put a lot of time into analyzing the issue of coercion. I also believe that a few of the posters have considerable experience in the field. If I was a mod, I would warn and then ban. Your hostility (and I firmly believe - misplaced) is simply a turn off and makes this discussion aggravating.

On the other hand, I find that Proudfootz has carried himself extremely well and has put up with a lot of crap from you for no reason. It is my honest opinion that Proudfootz is one of more knowledgeable and reasonable posters I have seen around here. If this was an organized debate, he would have beaten you going away.

Let's just get this straight: You do not agree with other's conclusions on the matter. Fine. Leave it there. My objective opinion is that your opinion is not pursuasive in this instance and you are insisting on definitions of terms of art that fit your agenda as opposed to their actual meaning as applied to the issue at hand.

Nobody undertook this discussion with the objective of proving their position to YOU. I understand you have your own standards that you feel strongly about, but I am not sure such comport with the legal standards in play. I appreciate that you put a lot of weight on the fact this entire case went through the appellate process in the State of Wisconsin, but at the same time, I am not sure you appreciate how insular some of these court systems can be. This is exactly why there are options with the Federal Court.

At least at this stage, this entire case (both against Avery and Dassey) is about procedure, not evidence. There are many legitimate questions raised as to the legitimacy of the process. As you know, a corrupted process produces unreliable facts. You need to understand that maybe one or two posters in this thread believe SA is innocent. The rest are pointing at the process and saying, "wait a minute, we cannot determine this one way or another until these parties are treated to a fair process.

Beyond that, yes, many people do believe Dassey is innocent (not just in the legal sense that he is not guilty) based on the simple fact there are no facts suggesting he participated in any malfeasance towards the victim.

No facts evidencing any harm to T.H. have been developed from Dassey's testimony. None. It is the opposite. The prosecution had been using Dassey to confirm "facts" they had discovered. The initial theory was that T.H. was apprehended, detained, raped, and murdered in S.A.'s bedroom. The scope of the questions towards Dassey were designed to elicit testimony confirming that theory.

Well, lo and behold, Dassey complied and gave a very detailed account of the rape and murder of T.H. in S.A.'s bedroom. Leaving aside that the material facts were suggested to Dassey by the investigators, it turns out there is zero (literally zero) evidence that T.H. was ever in S.A.'s bedroom.

Think that over. The entire narrative (no matter how it was produced) was a complete fantasy.

Once the prosecution realized there was no evidence to support their theory (or Dassey's statement) the theory changed to T.H. being killed in the garage. New searches for evidence were conducted in the garage and Dassey lo and behold was able to confirm these new facts under questioning without his attorney present.

The prosecution also had to change their theory as to how T.H. got to the garage and to explain why her blood was in the RAV4. They got Dassey to support their new theory with facts suggested by the investigators.

Again, believe what you want, but I would appreciate it if you showed some respect to these posters here that have been working with this material for months - I have followed the process by being a participant, and I do not believe it is appropriate to dismiss these people as if they are pulling their opinions out of their ass. Because that is not true.

Nope. As I have stated, beyond the coerced statement, there is no forensic evidence Teresa was raped, or that Brendan had anything to do with it.

The magistrate Judge has found that these were coerced statements, by legal definition.

Seems like you do not accept a court's decision when it is inconvenient for you.

The coerced statements were thrown out by the appeals court. Do try to keep up!

It's here now.

Yes, every time you post you double down on your dishonesty. What's the payoff? Did the PR firm hired by Manitowoc police influence your 'opinion'?

Already asked and answered - why not look at the link to the Nov 6th transcript I provided and seek out the page number I cited? Afraid you might learn something?

I've already provided a link and page number, but you refuse to even acknowledge that I've done so.

Yet another lie from you to add to your collection.

Brendan might say the same things as Steven does, at times. So what?

In the case I linked to and gave the page number to, the police reject Brendan when he tells what even you claim must be the truth and coach him to 'remember' something that did not and could not have happened.

Absurd. If Brendan and Steven had raped anyone he wouldn't need to ask police if it happened.

You are a special kinda stupid, aren't you?

Nothing 'contortionist' about Brendan admitting he didn't see Teresa when he got off the bus, and the transcript showing in black and white how police coached him to lie and say he 'remembered' seeing Teresa.

These are just hard facts, which you tend to ignorte since they go against your fantasy version of events.

Meanwhile, an appellate magistrate did find that the statements were coerced.

So, whom to believe? A jury of random people off the street, or a keen and experienced legal scholar?

You realize that the District court is a higher level court than the lower courts, right?

Or are you a bit in the dark about what appeals courts are all about?

Yes, I disagree with the court on this sily notion that police can take whatever remarks out of context and construct an alleged 'confession' out of it - the way you might disagree with Italian courts of the final verdict against Sollecito and Knox.

Already done - linked to transcript and provided page number since you obviously haven't read it.

If you read the Nov 6th interview (maybe one day you will?) then you'll see that Brendan admits he doesn't know what happened to Teresa, and thinks she might be alive.

You're not even interested in posting in this thread, yet somehow it looks like you continue to do so.

No one says physical threats were made. Legal definition (explained by Duffin whom you don't seem to have read, either) doesn't require threats of physical force.

Are you getting stupider? Or are the depths of your stupidity just getting more obvious every time you post?

You're not interested in links and evidence already provided. No reason to think you will suddenly become a reasonable and rational person all of a sudden. Why not work your way gently into it?

As should be obvious, in my view police persuading a witness to lie against interest is manufacturing evidence.

All this is in the link already provided to you several times.

Yes, Brendan asking cops who've already shown themselves to be dishonest, lying dirtbags who put his uncle away on false charges of rape might have a similar scenario in mind. So what?

But you seem to prefer lying and dishonest dirtbags in this case. Small wonder Kratz and Co are your heroes.

I gave you the legal definition as used by an appellate court magistrate.

Too bad for you if you are too dimwitted to know that legal definitions can be slightly different than layman's terms.

Until you can justify the police rejecting Brendan's true statement about whether he saw Teresa when he got off the school bus and then went on to manipulate him into making a patently false statement that he did see here, you won't be able to make any headway in your shilling for crooked cops.

IIRC they actually say to him it's better if your statement incriminates you because it's more believable.

Yeah that was wrt a lack of DNA at crimes scenes not equating to somebody not doing it because of this and now you're just being silly and this is another reason why I regard you as being cut from the same cloth as 239 as you genuinely lack the awareness to see how just plain obtuse this gem comes across as to normal people who don't expect hypotheses to trump submitted evidence.

The Federal Magistrate's ruling is currently provisional and that may just take a while to sort out with Dassey staying put until it does, so it's currently all good.
So again tell me why Dassey proactively asking the cops outa the blue about rape is absolutely not suspicious at all whatsoever in the slightest Proudz.
Does he come across as mentally impaired with his testimony btw?
Did he lie to his mam from prison when he confessed to her too?
Oh and can you provide that evidence of coercion for Nov 06 like I asked? Thanks.

Wow, you dont see how extremely "slow"/mentally challenged Brandon is? You dont see how authority figures might easily break down a 16 year old mentally challenged kid, by basically putting words in his mouth, the words they WANTED to hear?

I mean you saw when he asked about how long this would take right? He said something like; would this take an hour or more because I have a school paper due (something like that), its EXTREMELY obvious he did not understand AT ALL what the punishment would be to tell these guys what they wanted to here.


EDIT: Just rewatched the entire doc again earlier today and if you dont think stuff like this happens then watch http://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/in...-night/3403377 like has been sugested before. People DO admit to crimes that they HAVENT COMITTED, that really do happens.

I have repeatedly asked for evidence of this. I have been given subjective interpretations and bland buzzwords and terms such as "clearly", "super obviously" and "universally accepted".
I have asked how Dassey's confession contains details the cops never mentioned, I got yet more insistence that he was coerced with no forthcoming explanation for the actual details except for the inconsistency that he could have guessed about the tires, yet otoh is totally mentally imaired and stuff. I have asked why he confessed to his mother and again got no explanation. I have asked for an explanation for why Dassey brought up the rape proactively outa the blue in an earlier interview. I have been insulted right off the bat without these explanations forthcoming. When I asked for evidence of a frame up wrt to Avery and was given a bunch of spamming irrelevant links of police corruption in general, which is not what I asked for and is in no way a valid argument or counterpoint to give. I have been given false claims that a guardian was required for Dassey and linked the law showing how this was untrue. Right of the bat, I had calls for a banning and was insulted by several posters to boot including Proudfootz, who btw proactively engaged with me itt, not the other way around and engaged in a scornful disrespectful tone in his very first proactively made post to me. I have responded in kind. I am disrespectful to those who are to me and treat people as I find them.

I respect that but can still disagree with them.
.
If I'm banned then so be it. The fact that those who disagree with the narrative can face a banning doesn't say much for this thread or the security of those who proclaim innocence and coercion. And it makes me genuinely unwilling to continue here.

I'm hostile to liars who lie that no evidence exists and further lie that the confession was false as if the courts decreed it.

Proudfootz initiated this convo with me starting it by dismissing me as an amateur and then with no sense of irony linking Richard osfhe whose testimony bhas been thrown outa multiple courts and me and him go way back anyway.
No he isn't, he had no idea what a fraud Richard Osfhe is for example he just blindly cited him. Or else he did know and cited him anyway. As in cited him to peddle his false assertion that Dassey's confession was false as opposed to provisionally ruled involuntary. Neither explanation says much for him. He also doesn't know what evidence is. Are you, a lawyer telling me that "no evidence" exists against Brendan Dassey in a legal sense? That's what proudfootz asserts and then is proven wrong and tries to wriggle out of things. You know evidence exists against Dassey. you may not agree with it but it's untrue and dishonest to assert that no evidence exists against Brendan Dassey.

No he isn't and no he wouldn't unless you expect a hypothesis to trump evidence and that's exactly what Proudz expects with his hypothesis that LE framed Avery with no evidence to show for it and how this is supposed to trump the evidence which convicted him. You can't expect me to accept that. Nobody rational could except that, completely negates the purpose of judicial due process. So no, he wouldn't have beaten me and hasn't as I don't expect a hypothesis to trump evidence nor do I entertain baseless theories without evidence to show for them nor do I lie that there's no evidence against a defendant nor do I conflate my personal criteria for evidence with the standard criteria, nor do I reject multiple trial and appellate courts of law (without saying how they screwed up mind,) for convicted offenders, while allowing innuendo and speculation and baseless theorem to suffice for the cops or the victim's brother or whoever else their supporters are blaming this week.
Proudfootz has done all of these things. So I respectfully disagree with you mate but as always respect your opinion, cheers.

Okay.
Actually I don't have an agenda and went in leaning toward coercion re Dassey until I read the transcripts.
I posted the definition of coercion and have yet to see any examples of this wrt Dassey's multiple confessions including the one from prison where he wasn't really obliged to say anything.


.
Never said they did, but the truth should be easy to prove anyway. I honestly don't see how it's been proved here.

I linked the Wisconsin law standards including those flexible persuasive standards Wisconsin law allows, right or wrong. Whether state law contravenes Federal is something that remains to be seen.

[quote]I understand you have your own standards that you feel strongly about, but I am not sure such comport with the legal standards in play. I appreciate that you put a lot of weight on the fact this entire case went through the appellate process in the State of Wisconsin, but at the same time, I am not sure you appreciate how insular some of these court systems can be.
No, I do and can appreciate this.

Indeed. The cases cited in the opinion at page 83, where Duffin’s conclusion is set out, deal with facts not similar to the Dassey interrogation, but are apparently cited as support in principle for Duffin’s result on different facts. But earlier Duffin summarizes four appellate cases from his circuit court of appeals dealing with habeas corpus petitions of minors. The facts in those cases, as summarized in pages 64-67 seem to me to be considerably harsher than what happened to Dassey, yet in three of them the court deferred to the state court findings.
Typically, involuntary confessions result from coercive tactics that overcome the will. Duffin may be breaking new legal ground in that the police treated Dassey too well, thus creating a false sense of security, (my characterization, not the court’s) allowing him to leap to the conclusion there would be no legal consequence from his giving further statements.
Do you think Duffin will be upheld?
And do you think the Federal courts tend to get the final say over the state courts?
http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/l...906-story.html
Considering that Duffin's not even a Federal judge but a Federal magistrate?

[quote]At least at this stage, this entire case (both against Avery and Dassey) is about procedure, not evidence.[.quote] Yes but I put more gravitas on whether someone did it or not rather than whether they get a conviction overturned due to procedure.
I'm not arguing that but at the same time the appellate court had no problem with the trial process and Duffin's ruling is based on a habeas corpus writ.
There is no evidence to support a frame up re Avery so that doesn't even bear considering. There's no evidence of jury or prosecution misconduct and no evidence of defence incompetence, really, nothing that defence lawyers and prosecutors haven't done before. Duffin finds the court as unreasonable and again it remains to be seen how it'll play out in this regard.

.
I have no problem with that, just provide evidence to support it, as the facts were established while no plausible credible compelling evidence of actual corruption has been presented.

Trial and appeal is a fair process. Again no evidence is forthcoming to show how their due process is actually corrupt.

But there is, his confessions, his confessions being supported by evidence and his mentioning of things that the cops don't mention. those are facts as well as his conviction suggests it, in the sense that it suggests that there was enough evidence to convict whether one agrees with the evidence or not.

[quote]No facts evidencing any harm to T.H. have been developed from Dassey's testimony. [quote] His admission against interest was a fact and evidence of harm against Ms Halbach as washis admission tohis mother that he'd done "some of it"
No, Dassey asked about the rape proactively on Nov 06 which the cops hadn't discovered. Dassey asked about it anyway. Cops didn't discover the seat under the hood straight away but Dassey mentioned Avery being sweaty.

probably because he asked about it proactively on Nov 06

None of Dassey's multiple confessions should be supported by facts the cops never mentioned. They are though.

I respectfully disagree for the reasons I outlined.

Dassey's statement was evidence. There was certainly evidence of a murder on Avery's property. Which supported Dassey's statements one of which was used to support the warrant against Avery. Fancy that.
Cops and prosecutors are allowed to change theories. dassey first mentions the garage, not the cops.

Which doesn't trump the actual blood in the RAV4. It's the prosecution and state's job to have the confession line up with the evidence, it's how they got the warrant for Avery.

I know prodfootz better than you do and yeah he does indeed pull his theories outa nowhere and no worries mate, constant threats or veiled calls for banning tend to make my interest wane anyway, so carry on guys.
Btw the lawyer that originally helped free Avery seems to think he's guilty as hell.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/opinion/...264fde10e.html

Dassey won't be going anywhere anytime soon and until I see evidence of coercion and police corruption, I stand by my position.
Anyway cheers for your thoughts Oski, always a pleasure and enjoy the rest of your thread. I wil also consider myself properly warned and consider myself equally lucky that you;re not in fact a mod. otherwise I might be in trouble.
Cheers mate and again enjoy your thread.

This.....

As for the bolded, i'll 2nd that.... Proudfootz has been A most welcomed poster to this thread & has not only had to put up with lies, insults & personal attacks but has never once stooped as low as these trolls.

I'll take this opportunity to THANK proudfootz for his input not only in this thread but others too, for fighting the good fight.
Thanks proudfootz for your well articulated posts of factual information....

#Proud

Oski is wrong. There are several facts first mentioned by dassey. Where the murder took place, what weapon was used, the method used to clean up the murder, all later confirmed by evidence.

There are also a few things mentioned by dassey that wasn't known by the public at the time. Like what fuel was used to burn her body, where her personal items (pdf, camera etc) were burned.

Not to mention the circumstantial evidence such as dassey changing his story as to what happened that night. The first two interviews with BD he says that no bonfire occured, which later became a big part of his innocent story. Why did he first say there wasn't a bonfire?

Thank you for stating the case more eloquently and more articulately than I can manage.