Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

07-06-2017 , 02:24 PM
[QUOTE=corpus vile;52488481]

Quote:
Press conferences are held routinely in the US, including for the likes of Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey. No evidence it was used for influence.
They are held for public safety reasons and are not presented as fact without significant evidence.


Quote:
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.
Agree


Quote:

So we have key, car and blood in the car, as in Avery's blood.
Yep. It doesn't mean he killed her. Definitely a suspect.

Quote:
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.
We don't know for sure her remains were there. No pictures which is highly unusual.

Quote:
Zero evidence for a frame up in either case. Bellowing "I wuz framed" doesn't cut it if no evidence to support it.
Doesn't make much of a difference in that they completely failed to investigate the prime suspect (GA) and even after being told that he was likely perpetrator, it was still ignored.

Quote:
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.
This was before BD's confession.

Quote:
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.
Pre-confession.

Quote:
Prosecution successfully convicted both after defence argued as best as they could.
Pre-confession.
07-06-2017 , 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making 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.
And there is no physical proof her bones were even in the pit. There was not ONE single picture taken. If one of the investigative officers questioned the lack of pictures.

The jury convicted him murder. They don't have to provide why they convicted him or offer their belief on how the crime occurred. It is guilty or not guilty.
07-06-2017 , 02:37 PM
Yes but you'd expect them to make a logical decision based on the evidence. The fact they found him not guilty of mutilation but guilty of murder doesn't really add up with the evidence relied on by the prosecution
07-06-2017 , 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
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.
That is not a double standard, that is just how it works - a trial is not meant to prove someone factually innocent, it is the prosecution's burden to prove someone factually guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they're found not guilty, that doesn't mean they didn't do it, it just means they weren't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will provide a visual image to help you better understand this concept:



As you can see, one can find someone "not guilty" in the court of law, while still believing it's highly likely they are factually guilty of the crime.


Quote:
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.
This is just piss-poor logic. Just because the jury determined he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of mutilation of a corpse doesn't mean all those facts that tie Avery to both crimes are thrown out and/or not helpful in finding Steven guilty of murder.
07-06-2017 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Doesn't work like that.
Quote:
"Avery assault charges delayed DA: Halbach slaying charges get priority; alleged victim agrees
GREEN BAY A desire to protect a teenager from the media frenzy surrounding the Steven Avery homicide case prompted a prosecutor to not charge Avery with sexually assaulting a relative in 2004.
Avery, 43, faces first-degree intentional homicide and sexual assault charges and four other felonies stemming from the Oct. 31 slaying of freelance photographer Teresa Halbach of St. John.
Evidence in the 2004 sexual assault case came to light during the Halbach investigation and prompted authorities to seek charges unrelated to Halbach's death.
Brown County Dist. Atty. John Zakowski said that with a life sentence already on the line for Avery, there was no reason to push the sexual assault case.
"As a prosecutor, I think we look at the situation and your first gut reaction is to go forward," Zakowski said Wednesday. "But you have to look at the entire picture here and you have to keep in mind the impact to the complainant."
The alleged victim agrees with the decision, Zakowski said. "She's indicated she feels the weight of the world is off her shoulders at this time and it's quite understandable," he said.
Zakowski was appointed to the sexual assault case because Manitowoc County officials have a conflict due to a civil suit Avery filed against the county following his release from prison in 2003. In addition, Calumet County prosecutors are busy handling the Halbach homicide case.
Zakowski said the allegation involved sexual intercourse with a girl over the age of 16. He said the girl was a relative of Avery's and the alleged attack took place in Manitowoc County.
State Justice Department agents interviewed the complainant's mother in January 2006 as part of the Halbach investigation. They learned that the woman's daughter allegedly had been assaulted by Avery, according to an affidavit filed by Calumet County Dist. Atty. Ken Kratz as part of the Halbach case.
The woman said her daughter did not want to talk to detectives because Avery said if she "told anyone about their activities together, he would kill her family," the affidavit said.
The next day, the victim, now an adult, told investigators Avery had sex with her in the summer of 2004.
Avery told The Associated Press that he had spent a lot of time hunting and fishing with the girl a few summers ago when she was 16 or 17. "Then her mom got an idea something was going on," he said.
Avery said the two never had sex.
Zakowski said the fact that Avery is being held in lieu of $750,000 bail and faces a life sentence with no parole allows him the luxury of time without sacrificing protection of the public.
Should Avery prevail or avoid prosecution in the Halbach homicide, Zakowski said he is ready to go forward on the sexual assault allegation.
This wasn't the first complaint made against Avery involving this alleged victim.
In August 2004, the girl's family reported they were concerned about Avery's relationship with the girl. Calumet County investigators interviewed the girl and Avery at the time and found the concerns unfounded.
Zakowski said allegations were handled appropriately at the time and people should not speculate how it might have made a difference for Teresa Halbach.
"I don't want anyone saying, 'Well if this would have happened, maybe the Halbach situation would have been avoided.' That wasn't the case here," Zakowski said.
Avery served 18 years in prison for a 1985 sexual assault conviction that was later overturned by DNA evidence, prompting his release in 2003."
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...d_of_sexually/
07-06-2017 , 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Yes but you'd expect them to make a logical decision based on the evidence. The fact they found him not guilty of mutilation but guilty of murder doesn't really add up with the evidence relied on by the prosecution
Yes, if the verdicts were based on the strength of the evidence, it seems like the mutilation of a corpse charge would be the best bet.
07-06-2017 , 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
And SA was found not guilty of rape. It is an established fact that he did not rape here.

Although it is an established fact that SA raped PB for a number of years. Until it became an established fact that he didn't rape her.
I never said Avery was a rapist I said he'd persistent allegations of rape & Molestation, from different sources.

Dassey is a convicted rapist. Raising the burden of proof bar by saying there's no "physical" evidence for rape isn't a valid point, sorry.
07-06-2017 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Right. As I said, it doesn't work like that.

The rape case wasn't dropped because there was a pending murder trial as stated by the poster to whom I responded.

The case was dropped because the victim agreed to drop it. That SA was facing other charges was merely a factor in her decision.
07-06-2017 , 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
I never said Avery was a rapist I said he'd persistent allegations of rape & Molestation, from different sources.

Dassey is a convicted rapist. Raising the burden of proof bar by saying there's no "physical" evidence for rape isn't a valid point, sorry.
It should be problematic to everyone when he is found not guilty of the rape of TH, yet the prosecutor and law enforcement officers are saying afterward that he raped TH.

Going on a message board and saying you believe a person do it is one thing. People that are acting in the official capacity going to seminars is quite another.
07-06-2017 , 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
It should be problematic to everyone when he is found not guilty of the rape of TH, yet the prosecutor and law enforcement officers are saying afterward that he raped TH.

Going on a message board and saying you believe a person do it is one thing. People that are acting in the official capacity going to seminars is quite another.
It is a problem, among thinking people.

Ironic KK continues to mine the sex angle, when he is himself a sex offender and arguably a rapist.
07-06-2017 , 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Right. As I said, it doesn't work like that.

The rape case wasn't dropped because there was a pending murder trial as stated by the poster to whom I responded.

The case was dropped because the victim agreed to drop it. That SA was facing other charges was merely a factor in her decision.
That is why they dropped the charges. Sure there were other reasons but that was the main reason. I can't believe you are saying the state won't drop a charge when you are about to be convicted to life in prison. They do this often. Why waste taxpayers money?
07-06-2017 , 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
It should be problematic to everyone when he is found not guilty of the rape of TH, yet the prosecutor and law enforcement officers are saying afterward that he raped TH.

Going on a message board and saying you believe a person do it is one thing. People that are acting in the official capacity going to seminars is quite another.
Why is this a problem? Being found not guilty does not mean you were found innocent. I will call Casey anthony a murderer all day long but agree she should have not been convicted.
07-06-2017 , 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, if the verdicts were based on the strength of the evidence, it seems like the mutilation of a corpse charge would be the best bet.
The jury did not convict him of mutilating a corpse because they were not sure if she was dead before or after she was put in the fire. Not because they did not think he was burning her.
07-06-2017 , 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Why is this a problem? Being found not guilty does not mean you were found innocent. I will call Casey anthony a murderer all day long but agree she should have not been convicted.
We can give our opinions. LEO and prosecutors that failed to obtain guilty verdicts regarding a crime should not be able to go around the country saying someone is guilty of a crime. They were able to get away with this solely due to the fact that SA is in jail.

LEO wouldn't be going around saying a freed person committed a crime because they would be sued for every dime they had.
07-06-2017 , 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
The jury did not convict him of mutilating a corpse because they were not sure if she was dead before or after she was put in the fire. Not because they did not think he was burning her.
Proof? Or do you just believe this?
07-06-2017 , 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
The jury did not convict him of mutilating a corpse because they were not sure if she was dead before or after she was put in the fire. Not because they did not think he was burning her.
Source
07-06-2017 , 11:16 PM
It was posted itt before, I thought one of the jurors said it. I could be wrong though.
07-07-2017 , 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
That is why they dropped the charges. Sure there were other reasons but that was the main reason. I can't believe you are saying the state won't drop a charge when you are about to be convicted to life in prison. They do this often. Why waste taxpayers money?
Not worth arguing over, but I disagree. Any serious crime is not going to be dropped without the victim's consent.

If you can provide examples of serious charges being unilaterally dismissed without the victim's consent, please do so.

Anyhow, I am quite satisfied that this shows you improperly attempt to draw an inference about the "strength of the case" from these circumstances. The victim did not wish to go forward for a number of reasons and this coincided with the People's statrd desire to not spend money on going forward.
07-07-2017 , 04:51 AM
[QUOTE=golfnutt;52490620]
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer



They are held for public safety reasons and are not presented as fact without significant evidence.
They are held full stop/period. Remove the press conference and the verdicts still would have been the same, as there was sufficient evidence to convict both in separate courts. Again no evidence it was held purely to influence a future jury, even if you personally believe it was.
I get that you have problems with the PC & tbh I wasn't overtly impressed with it myself but again it does not equate to either a rights violation or unfair due process, objectively, even if one has problems with a specific press conference in a specific case, so it's an invalid objection.



Quote:
Yep. It doesn't mean he killed her. Definitely a suspect.
More than a suspect he was convicted in court on overwhelming evidence, far more than what he was wrongfully convicted on for rape.



Quote:
We don't know for sure her remains were there. No pictures which is highly unusual.
Nor are we required to know with certainty, we're only required to be convinced bard & that standard was met, again on overwhelming evidence.



Quote:
Doesn't make much of a difference in that they completely failed to investigate the prime suspect (GA) and even after being told that he was likely perpetrator, it was still ignored.
Investigators follow the evidence & in this case it led them to SA/BD & was sufficient enough to arrest, charge try & convict them on.



Quote:
This was before BD's confession.



Pre-confession.



Pre-confession.
Dassey's confession was partially used to support a second search warrant for Avery's property where the .22 shell was found that yielded Ms Halbach's DNA.
07-07-2017 , 05:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Right. As I said, it doesn't work like that.

The rape case wasn't dropped because there was a pending murder trial as stated by the poster to whom I responded.

The case was dropped because the victim agreed to drop it. That SA was facing other charges was merely a factor in her decision.
Sorry no, it wasn't just dropped solely because of that though & certainly not because the state felt he was innocent but to spare the alleged victim and because Ms Halbach's "Slaying charges get priority".
The prosecutor also felt that what with him facing a life sentence there was no point in charging him.
Quote:
Brown County Dist. Atty. John Zakowski said that with a life sentence already on the line for Avery, there was no reason to push the sexual assault case. "As a prosecutor, I think we look at the situation and your first gut reaction is to go forward," Zakowski said Wednesday. "But you have to look at the entire picture here and you have to keep in mind the impact to the complainant."
The alleged victim agrees with the decision, Zakowski said. "She's indicated she feels the weight of the world is off her shoulders at this time … and it's quite understandable," he said
As an aside people are very quick to cite no convictions of Avery for rape while disregarding the actual reasons that no charges were pressed. While of course innuendo & speculation is perfectly sufficient for Rh, LE or anyone else basically, long as it isn't Avery or Dassey.

Btw, as a lawyer whose argument do you find more compelling Oski? The Majority's or Hamilton's?
Who in your opinion is more on point re the actual law?
Are the majority correct in the assertion that the state court acted so unreasonably that this clearly constitutes a rights violation?
07-07-2017 , 05:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Yes but you'd expect them to make a logical decision based on the evidence. The fact they found him not guilty of mutilation but guilty of murder doesn't really add up with the evidence relied on by the prosecution

Evidence wasn't sufficient to convict him for mutilation but was more than sufficient to convict him for murder and send him away for life without parole.
07-07-2017 , 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
It should be problematic to everyone when he is found not guilty of the rape of TH, yet the prosecutor and law enforcement officers are saying afterward that he raped TH.
Yeah but it's not on his record nor is he regarded as a rapist by the judiciary regardless of what anyone personally opines. Dassey's supporters seem to overlook or ignore his allegations of Avery molesting him. Either Dassey is a liar or Avery is a sex offender. If Dassey is a liar ( and it was already established that he is) then I see no reason to believe his innocence claims.


Quote:
Going on a message board and saying you believe a person do it is one thing. People that are acting in the official capacity going to seminars is quite another.
This is also irrelevant, although I personally find it in poor taste. Prosecution isn't on trial or being evaluated in terms of behaviour or personality. All that matters if any evidence exists of trial misconduct. There's no evidence for this.
07-07-2017 , 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Not worth arguing over, but I disagree. Any serious crime is not going to be dropped without the victim's consent.

If you can provide examples of serious charges being unilaterally dismissed without the victim's consent, please do so.

Anyhow, I am quite satisfied that this shows you improperly attempt to draw an inference about the "strength of the case" from these circumstances. The victim did not wish to go forward for a number of reasons and this coincided with the People's stated desire to not spend money on going forward.
Yes, there's a great gulf between the 'strength' of a case obtaining a conviction and the conviction being thrown out because the only evidence was a confession found to have been involuntary.
07-07-2017 , 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Sorry no, it wasn't just dropped solely because of that though & certainly not because the state felt he was innocent but to spare the alleged victim and because Ms Halbach's "Slaying charges get priority".
The prosecutor also felt that what with him facing a life sentence there was no point in charging him.


As an aside people are very quick to cite no convictions of Avery for rape while disregarding the actual reasons that no charges were pressed. While of course innuendo & speculation is perfectly sufficient for Rh, LE or anyone else basically, long as it isn't Avery or Dassey.

Btw, as a lawyer whose argument do you find more compelling Oski? The Majority's or Hamilton's?
Who in your opinion is more on point re the actual law?
Are the majority correct in the assertion that the state court acted so unreasonably that this clearly constitutes a rights violation?
You quote states exactly what I am arguing - "But you have to look at the entire picture here and you have to keep in mind the impact to the complainant." Of course, the report goes on to state the victim was consulted and she agreed with the decision.

My main point is that one cannot draw any significant inferences about the strength of the case (or lack thereof) by the decision to drop it in light of these circumstances. If you want to argue against that, be my guest. However, I am confident Ika or Fraley (not bothering to look up which one) implying the case was solid but dropped because it would be overkill is simply not accurate.

And yes, it is quite proper to state Avery was not convicted of rape when he wasn't in fact convicted for rape. Without any information about the merits of the case (other than the report which states there were prior allegations which were investigated and ruled to be "unfounded") it is quite proper to remind people who try to raise this against SA that nothing ever came of it. Because - nothing ever came of it, regardless of the DA's face-saving statements, or not.
07-07-2017 , 09:53 PM
Oski, youre so biased here. The only reason this was even brought up was because someone else said it was dropped bc the state didn't have a case. Do you really think the state would have dropped the case if avery wasn't going to be convicted to life in prison? Of course not.

Of course its fair to say he wasn't convicted, its also fair to say he most likely raped her because several people claim to have heard him admit it and the person who was raped and who knows him personally said he raped her. That already makes it more likely than not he raped her.

      
m