No. Not at all.
I'm sure a lot of these press conferences just state known facts.. suspect in custody, statement taken etc.
We are talking here about a Public Prosecutor recounting a very graphic, detailed account of a crime, knowing it was taken straight from a spoon-fed confession of a minor without proper legal representation or any physical evidence whatsoever to back it up.
I'd like to hear any suggestions as to just why you think K.K went with such a graphic retelling, even encouraging parents to put kids to bed it was so horrific, if he didn't think it would help their cause?
ffs you guys are still calling SA a rapist even though that's now been proven wrong(with strong evidence of a potential first railroading). You clearly demonstrate you are very influenced by what LEO/PP says, regardless of known facts, whilst attempting to argue the opposite

http://imgur.com/a/o1GwA

http://imgur.com/Yhwyt8M
http://imgur.com/a/yB5iU
http://imgur.com/7Ft8X9g
http://imgur.com/0AqbHJ7

those pics are great. I didn't look at em all, anything proven in there?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The court heard only what the court said they would hear. They did not allow the defense to present alternative suspects nor did they allow the coroner to testify.

The rest of your points are very valid. The documentary included music and clever scene cuts. I felt it was 80% slanted pro-innocent.

They were obviously restricted on time (and our attention) but not showing the entire "confession". I think that showed just more meandering.

State could have easily painted him entirely negative in a documentary. But that was the prosecution of the case. And they continued it by going to seminars on the road trumpeting their victory without opposition.

Of course. There was no BD at the scene of the crime, confession, or any evidence. There was no witness testimony.

They obviously charged him with that thinking that BD was going to be a state's witness. Once that fell through, the state had nothing.

By what objective standard do you recognize something as "proven"?

One obvious standard would be whether it was proven in a court of law (as determined by the jury), but in that case, you should also believe:

1. it's proven that Steven Avery is a murderer, and
   
   
2. it isn't proven that Bill Cosby is a rapist.

If not this standard, is there another objective standard you go by when you ask whether something was proven?

Or do you only go by your own subjective standards, in which case, why bother asking someone else?

Of course they did press conference to influence public. Before BD, the public was on SAs side.

All they had prior to that was:
1) a key with not even her DNA.
2) no blood in residence.
3) 6 drops of his blood in her car.
4) bones that were never photographed and only able to perhaps identify one.
5) SA proclaiming they framed him before and they are doing it again.
6) no motive, no witnesses, and no clue.

Picking a jury would have been much simpler with scores of people believing he was possibly being framed again. The prosecution, at that point, was going to be extremely challenging.

i''ll take that as a 'no' to the question i asked

Doesn't work like that.

An admission against interest is sufficient evidence to convict you in a court of law. Physical evidence isn't required for either a rape or murder conviction & it is indeed backed up by forensic evidence & instances of fact, which were already covered earlier itt.

Press conferences are allowed in the US. That's it. Personally I don't think they should be and think it should be like in the UK with a media blackout on any case during the trial. But it is allowed in the US and again neither Avery or Dassey are special and a press conference does not equate to an unfair trial or due process, in an objective sense.

I'm going by the established facts of courts of law. Not what I feel should be the facts.
The onus isn't upon me to prove guilt again on the internet but for those who disagree to prove innocence or give credible specific examples of unequivocal coercion/false promises of leniency.
Raising various police procedural, due process & burden of proof bars isn't going to change the minds of those who agree with the trial verdicts.

Avery & Dassey's guilt in Teresa's murder was already proven and there's zero proof of a frame up & no evidence of an unfair due process or trial either.

Press conferences are held routinely in the US, including for the likes of Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey. No evidence it was used for influence.

Sometimes we leave DNA on things and sometimes not, lots of people convicted on no DNA evidence. Avery & Dassey aren't special. They don't get burden of proof bar raised higher just for them.

So?

So we have key, car and blood in the car, as in Avery's blood.

Yeah so we have the victim's remains on the property. To go with the car, key to car & blood from convicted murderer in car.

Zero evidence for a frame up in either case. Bellowing "I wuz framed" doesn't cut it if no evidence to support it.

Not required by any court.Avery & Dassey aren't special & don't get the burden of proof bar raised just for them & just cuz they're Stevie & Bren, that's not how the system works, sorry.

Other than Avery's co-convicted Dassey.
Apart from the victim's remains, her car, her key to her car, her belongings, Avery's blood in the car, Dassey's confession, the bleach stained jeans, the luminol hits, Avery & Dassey's lies & lack of alibi, that is.

Prosecution successfully convicted both after defence argued as best as they could.

Doesn't hinge solely on confession & has only been provisionally ruled as coerced, not false & will probably be overturned anyway.

No he wasn't and merely asserting this doesn't cut it. No evidence for a frame up. Even if you and others really really feel he was framed and find such a frame up much more plausible than simply planting drugs on him. And mere assertions do not trump evidence in court.

Indeed it would be and wouldn't be too hard to do either, but again would be even easier still to plant drugs on him. The framing for Ms Halbach's murder is much more complicated and even corrupt LE would go with the easier less risky solution.

Case against Avery was a slam dunk in evidence terms & Dassey's confession was never used at Avery's trial. Dassey was also perfectly willing at first to testify against Avery which belies the whole innocence thing.

Guys, just imagine that you were sitting on a jury. Do you think that you would be able to make your best effort to come to a decision based only on the evidence presented in court, putting out of your mind any media coverage you had seen or heard/ any personal prejudices/ snap judgments you might make based on the suspect's appearance/ and whatever other extraneous factors? I'm sure you would all say yes.

So what makes you think you are any different than the jury in the Avery case? It seems kind of arrogant to me to make this assumption that everyone in the world except you is a moron whose mind will be so poisoned by seeing a press conference that they wouldn't be able to come to a fair ruling. Good luck in life with that attitude.

Anyway, how do you even know that they saw the press conference - you know that not everyone follows the news, right?

And couldn't you just as easily conclude that seeing the press conference would influence them in the other direction? I mean the entire defense case was based on a theory that Avery was railroaded by a corrupt justice system. Assuming someone had seen the press conference, which presented a story of the case rather different than what was presented at the trial, why couldn't a jury member take that as confirmation that something fishy was going on? Why couldn't a jury member ask himself why Dassey wasn't called to testify and take that as weakening the credibility of the state's case?

My answer is:

1. he's been proven a rapist as much as Bill Cosby has.

2. he's been proven to be a murderer.

Why do prosecution supporters keep talking about the fire and the bones in the fire as good evidence of Avery's guilt?

It's proven he did not mutilate a corpse.

Was it proven that OJ didn't murder anyone, that Casey Anthony didn't murder anyone, that Bill Cosby didn't rape anyone?

No. It only wasn't proven (beyond a reasonable doubt in court) that they did do so.

Therefore, I advise you to rethink what you just said in your last post.

I'm just using the language used in this thread.

Please quote the language you're referencing, because my guess is you're not comprehending it.

Yes, and the theory that Teresa's body was burned up in Steven's fire pit was the best evidence they had.

It's a pretty good indication that the jury was pretty screwy if they acquitted Steven of the one thing they had the best evidence of.

On phone, not going to go through thread but thread logic boils down to this.
There seems to be a double standard.

Avery found guilty = fact he did something.

Avery found not guilty = not a fact he didn't do something, just that it's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

Even with that standard, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he burned her corpse. So with that all the bonfire, bones, TH belongings evidence is not helpful in finding him guilty of murder.

So we're left with the car and blood stuff.