Let law enforcement handle it. That is what they do.

This is such bs and I think you know it. There have been numerous cases where LE have ****ed up missing persons cases. Ever hear of Johnny Gosch?

If someone you care about is missing, you are going to try and figure out where they are and should. There is nothing wrong with that and I am very skeptical that you apply this same reasoning to other cases where people are missing. In fact, id almost say its a very douche thing to say. "don't look for your loved ones if they are missing, let law enforcement do it"

So you didn't answer my question. You said the birthday thing was bs. Were all four of them lying? 5 if you can't TH brother who said she had the same pw for her voice mail?

Also ftr, it appears they gave the information to law enforcement within an hour.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...v-3-Report.pdf

Yes. They were not direct. Just like they were not direct about if they were ever at Avery's place before.

I understand that when someone is missing you want to do everything possible. I don't recall exactly if they deleted messages. I also found the answer about guessing the password using a combo of a sister's birthday highly suspicious. He didn't even say exactly what it is was on the stand. Very indirect. '

Still, doesn't mean he is guilty. Just all part of the massively flawed investigation that has led to a 10-part documentary.

Too many shady things involved in this 'investigation' to put much faith in it.

There is more than enough flaws for this to fall outside the 95% confidence interval.

There are good reasons for protocols.

Not sure what you mean by avery's place. Do you mean the salvage yard?

If I can just summarize what you're saying here overall..

You are saying because Ryan can't remember the exact password that was used 1 1/2 years prior he must be lying? Considering that he had other friends with him when this happened that helped him unlock the password you don't find it less likely hes lying about unlocking the password? It all rests on him not remember what happened 1 and a half years prior? He also didn't remember he told police he was TH ex but clearly from the reports he did. Maybe the guy didn't care enough to remember all these details because he knew he wasn't doing anything wrong .

There is no evidence they deleted messages, if anyone it was TH brother probably on accident because the brother admitted to accessing her voice mail using.. You guessed it! Her bday! Ryan, kelly, scott etc.. All claimed they didn't access her voicemail. Only her phone records, which they gave to police.

Maybe he didn't say what the exact password was because he couldn't recall all the exact details from something 1 and a half years prior.

I don't see anything flawed here that you have presented.

[QUOTE=fraleyight;52775909]

Yes, the salvage yard. There are hundreds of combos for a password even knowing the birthday. This wasn't a random event. This was a murder of an ex-gf. You would probably remember her password. Just like the time of day you saw her last...except for him.


Convenient to accidentally delete message after message.

Perhaps.


Of course you don't. There is nothing that could be done to change your mind. Me? I open to hearing anything. Obviously, I would like a confession from SA, but that ain't happening. Witnesses? None. I wouldn't trust BD to relay a local sports score from last night. Bones are buried.

"you would remember telling police you were her ex bf" right? You're just finding things to be suspicious of because the doc totally misrepresented the whole vm, rh thing. Now because of your presuppositions its hard for you to let go.

RH and a bunch of TH friends found out she was missing and banned together got into her phone records and turned them over to police. There is nothing fishy about that even if he can't remember the password or what time of day he last saw someone he visited on a regular basis.

I don't remember what time of day I last saw my mom and I see her a few times a month. If she suddenly went missing I may be able to piece it together but if I was asked a year or more later I could easily forget those details. Heck, I don't even remember what time my wedding was or how many guests we had and that was just last year.


Oh, now multiple messages were deleted and the brother is sketchy too is he? Shame on you dude. Shame on you. Maybe instead of blaming the brother you should look at the guy with the mountain of physical and circumstantial evidence pointing in his direction. The guy that tried to sell his sisters van against her will so he could lure TH to his property; the man who has a history of violence against women, threats to women, and accusations of rape who according to both phone records and TH schedule was the last person to see TH; the man with dna evidence that ties him to her car and the murder weapon. How bat dat? How about instead of concerned family members and friends trying to figure out where she is you look at the violent sociopath.

Oh thats right because ryan and a bunch of her other friends recovered evidence when their friend was missing and gave it to police, and a brother who accessed his sisters voicemail, they are the ones we should be talking about.



I am certainly open to admitting he is innocent or had an unfair trial or whatever. if actual evidence comes to light that someone else did this crime I will gladly admit it. Or if an actual coherent argument is made about how he was shafted to the point where he didn't receive a fair trial. So far such argumesn have failed the appeal process. Just like I was willing to admit I was wrong about avery's innocence when I looked into the case further.

And this one is especially for our 911 truther who frequents the thread. I was also willing to admit 9/11 was NOT an inside job after initially being convinced by loose change.

This thread is making me more upset than it should. I am taking a break until BD's trial.

[QUOTE=fraleyight;52777027]

They were indirect.


You are bringing up SA. That has nothing to do with others. Everyone is a suspect.


Good.

The whole process of guessing a password seems sketchy.

It's my opinion the deleted messages might have unlocked a lot of stuff - including the identity of the person who was harassing Teresa by phone.

I'd think that the circumstances surrounding this would have been recalled many times in between the time it happened and the time testimony about it was taken.


This is one of the things about the evidence-based approach - you sometimes have to change your mind when new information comes to light.

This thing's still going strong I see....



Carry on....

Oh wow, now I see why smacc PMed me to come back to thread right around the time of the election. (Btw sorry for never even responding, I was in quite a state post-election)

Lol, incredible.

What's all this stuff about there being hundreds of possible voice mail passwords? Voice mail passwords are 4-digit numerical codes, so if you know a person's birthday there are only 2 possible combinations, MMDD and DDMM.

You could probably hack a significant number of VM passwords in under 10 minutes by running through the person's birthday, the birthdays of close relatives, the last 4 digits of their telephone number, their address, 0000 through 9999, 1234, 6969, etc.

There's nothing suspicious about this whatsoever.

And even if there was, it wouldn't say anything about Avery's guilt or innocence.

It looks like further developments in the case:

there is a new series on netflix about coerced confessions that people who are interested in the dassey case may take interest in.

Oral arguments in the Brendan Dassey case were heard on Tuesday...

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/...09_26_2017.mp3

Toddler? Intellectually challenged one at that who reads novels (or else is lying under oath) & who goes to science class? Hyperbole doesn't help an argument for coercion. He was in no way "force fed". Nor is he a toddler. His IQ is 83 higher than Avery's. Nor are people who aren't the brightest exempt from committing crimes.

Federal judges are divided. What are your thoughts on Sykes comments? Particularly re the law & indeed essentially creating new law?

I think this will end in either a 4-3 or 5-2 decision in favor of the state. I think its pretty clear there are 2 huge advocates for BD on the panel and it maybe the only two that will vote his way, could explain why there were so vocal to try and convince the others to vote with them.

Its interesting that this hearing wasn't about whether or not the confession was "true" but whether or not it was "voluntary" you would have a tough time imo convincing anyone that BD confession wasn't voluntary but I can see how people may think it was a lie.

Judge Sykes: Counsel you are creating new law now, there is no case that says that we’re here on 2254 (d) review, a federal court cannot create new law on Habeas review. And that’s what you are asking for in this case. It’s just flatly impermissible under all the Supreme court’s precedents.



Laura Nirider: Your honour I am not asking for the creation of new law, I’m asking for this court to apply decades old law.

Clearly its new law. Shes asking the court to vacate his confession because his IQ would make it involuntary. That would allow all low IQ confessions to be vacated on the same argument.

You notice she couldn't point to anything that made this confession unique other than BD's low IQ and the police saying things like "the truth will set you free" to somehow imply Dassey thought they were saying "confessing to a crime you didn't commit means you will not be prosecuted". In every other interrogation cops are allowed to make statements like that but for some reason that is to be thrown out here because Dassey has a borderline low IQ. At what point does a confession become voluntary?

Judge Wood: Aren’t you focusing, I mean that’s why I want to come back to 2254 (d2) because that’s very factually bound circumstance and it’s the decision um based on all of the evidence that with this package of facts the finding that this was a voluntary confession was um not even a possible finding on this record. That doesn’t create new law, the Supreme Court just now in Brumfield two years ago to be honest, accurate 2015 says that the 2254 (d) enquiry asks you to look at an unreasonable determination of the facts. Isn’t that what your following?


Laura Nirider: That is exactly what we are following your honour, this is a very fact bound case and there was an unreasonable determination in the facts in this case, and I would also imagine the facts in this case are unlikely to recur.