[QUOTE=corpus vile;52488481]

They are held for public safety reasons and are not presented as fact without significant evidence.


Agree


Yep. It doesn't mean he killed her. Definitely a suspect.

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

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.

This was before BD's confession.

Pre-confession.

Pre-confession.

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.

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

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.


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.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...d_of_sexually/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Proof? Or do you just believe this?

Source

It was posted itt before, I thought one of the jurors said it. I could be wrong though.

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.

[QUOTE=golfnutt;52490620] 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.



More than a suspect he was convicted in court on overwhelming evidence, far more than what he was wrongfully convicted on for rape.



Nor are we required to know with certainty, we're only required to be convinced bard & that standard was met, again on overwhelming evidence.



Investigators follow the evidence & in this case it led them to SA/BD & was sufficient enough to arrest, charge try & convict them on.



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.

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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.