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

11-29-2017 , 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red Making a Murderer
I'm not at all sure that the state -- or, over here, the Crown -- is obligated in that regard.
They're not, but they did present a reasonable scenario that matches up with the known facts anyway. Oski has only seen the show, so he does not realize this - his opinion should be ignored.
11-29-2017 , 04:18 PM
Prosecution's closing rebuttal:

Quote:
Where was Teresa killed. This is a easy answer, or at least it is an answer that is directed by all of the physical evidence in this case. Teresa Halbach, as we know, came to the trailer of Steven Avery. We know that they completed their transaction. How do we know that, because the book and the bill of sale was given to Mr. Avery. That's something that, as you heard, happens at the end of the transaction.That's sitting on Mr. Avery's computer desk.

We know sometime later, that is, we know sometime in the future, a bullet is found in this exact area, has Teresa Halbach's DNA on it. All right. The inference, and this is an inference that I'm asking you to draw, is that Teresa Halbach was killed in the garage. She was killed in Steven Avery's garage.

Now, we have heard testimony about luminal finding blood, that is a reagent, a chemical that is used by the Crime Lab is spread out. There's two things that are most reactive with luminal, one is human blood and the other is bleach. Bleach coincidentally is the one thing that eats up or destroys DNA.

We have heard about just to the left and just to the back of this tractor, about a three to 4 foot area, large area that lit up or glowed very brightly. Mr. Ertl testified about that. He was the person who processed that area. I'm asking you to infer that Mr. Avery cleaned up this area with bleach.

Now, you knew that inference, or that suggestion from the State, I think, was coming. We have put in the bleach. We have talked about the luminal. We have gotten expert testimony from Mr. Ertl that the two things that light up, it wasn't blood, but it was, in fact, bleach.

You heard from Blaine Dassey, importantly, that the garage, other than the junk on the surrounding edges of this garage, looked pretty much like this, from the sense of the Suzuki and the snowmobile, which were in there later on that week, were on the side of the garage at the time. So Teresa Halbach's vehicle is backed in, backed into the garage.

Teresa Halbach is killed. She's laying down. She's shot twice, once in the left side of her head, once in the back of her head, or I guess I should more accurately say she's shot at least twice. Because two bullet's were found two entrance wounds were found to her head. We do have the 11 shell casings on the 6th that were recovered. How many times Mr. Avery actually shot this poor girl, you probably aren't going to be able to determine, but it's at least twice, and it's at least twice to the head.

What does he do though, later, with Teresa Halbach. It's the State's theory in this case, and we're entitled to a theory, just like the defense, that after backing in the SUV, into the garage, which was, again, empty at the time, after closing the garage door, which Mr. Fabian testified is how he saw it at around dusk, Mr. Avery does a couple of things.

Remember he doesn't know if the cops or somebody is coming looking for Teresa. He has got lots to do. He has got lots of things in the next several hours to do in this case. He has to get rid of all of Teresa's stuff, her camera, her cell phone, her PDA, which very well may be in a purse or something, in the vehicle, which he burns. We know that those are in the burn barrel. We're going to talk about that in just a minute.

And he places Teresa Halbach in the back, or the cargo area of her own SUV. Now, in doing that, Mr. Avery does a couple of things. He doesn't do it very gently, because we know that there's motion involved. He throws, if you will, Teresa, in the back, because of the blood spatter across the back of the open gate. But Teresa is laying at rest; she is resting at peace, having been killed by Mr. Avery, kind of diagonally in the back of that SUV.

And because of her hair imprint, you are able to deduce that. You are able to know that. Again, remember my closing argument, those are more indications of Teresa telling you this is where I was. All right. This is where he put me. And those are inferences, again, that you should and can adopt. Why, because it's not dark yet, and he needs a big rip roaring fire before he can dispose of and mutilate this body.

Again, he has got to do all of this stuff quickly, because he doesn't know if the police are coming. So we hear then, at at least 7:30, perhaps before then, but at 7:30 there's already a fire, a big fire in the back. Although it's dark out, there's a big fire in the back of his garage. And we'll talk about some of the more details there. But as long as Mr. Buting asked about the theory of prosecution, again, which we are entitled, that is, in fact, the theory of the State's prosecution.
11-29-2017 , 05:44 PM
Kratz himself highlighted some of MAM's deceptive editing also.

11-29-2017 , 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
I wonder how people can justify their hate for Zellner. What scandal did I miss.
She keeps getting innocent people out of prison and sometimes getting the actual perpetrators identified so that victims and their families get a little justice.

Exactly the sort of things you'd expect to generate disgust among a certain demographic.
11-29-2017 , 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red Making a Murderer
I'm not at all sure that the state -- or, over here, the Crown -- is obligated in that regard. Murder often makes no sense except to the person who commits it. Police and prosecutors often do not know exactly why or how it happened, and it's unreasonable to suppose that they should know. They only have to indicate the reasons for believing that the defendant committed the crime.

In Avery's case there is a fairly well attested motive of sexual sadism, which Griesbach and others have spoken about, and there are obvious steps by which Avery sought to lure the victim to his property (and cover his traces by making bogus calls to her phone which he knew wouldn't be answered, like Amanda Knox).
I am not referring to "motive" (the why it happened), I am referring to a narrative that actually uses the facts to put the defendant in the same room as the victim at the same time the crime occurred.

Even using the evidence as allowed at trial - I don't see a reasonable explanation of how this crime happened, much less that SA did it.

We have the blood in the car - that is a huge piece of evidence. Assuming that evidence is legitimate, SA is suspect #1 by a large margin. But, beyond that, the case seems to unravel.

Yet, we have nothing in the trailer - but the prosecutor initially argues Teresa was killed in the trailer. I appreciate that Brendan's "confession" cites all sorts of terrible things that happened in the trailer, but there is no evidence Teresa was ever in the trailer. So the focus turns to the garage after a bullet is found. Yet, the evidence of something happening in that garage is not strong, either. I understand that the trier-of-fact was convinced - and I also appreciate that someone in Kratz position can hold sway over a jury, if not Kratz himself.

That is enough of a problem for me. There are issues with this case, but I do not hold the opinion that what is "there" was not sufficient for a conviction. I am more interested in the investigation and whether that disrupted a fair process.

I am interested to see what happens from here. I hope justice either was done, or will be done, but I am happy to see how it plays out rather than wade through information that I do not completely trust or even know whether it will stand up if SA is granted a new trial.

In some respects, to me, its like being asked to critique a 7-course meal after only having 4.
11-29-2017 , 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Kratz himself highlighted some of MAM's deceptive editing also.

Did the film accurately portray AC's actions during the investigation into the missing person case and subsequent murder case?

If so, his own actions made him look suspicious. Here you are spewing straw-man propaganda to get your murdering friends off the hook, you murder groupie.
11-30-2017 , 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Yeah & I also said right before that "before in other murder cases " & there's been plenty of advocacy for the murderers itt anyway.
By that logic anyone who doubted SAs rape whould have been "advocates of the rapist" while he was in prison? But not anymore after they figured out he wasnt guilty?
11-30-2017 , 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
To clarify when the cops arrested Dassey, did they say "Brendan Dassey you're under arrest...even though we've "no evidence at all" to actually arrest you on"?
They didnt arrest him right away no. And they had literally zero evidence on him. The only "evidence" they have is when he incriminated himself. Also I guess that young girl who said smth about BD byt later took that back. Dont think there was anything really concrete?
11-30-2017 , 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red Making a Murderer
Which was settled shortly afterwards by the county's insurers in the usual manner.
Usual manner? They knew very well that SA needed money VERY fast, that he couldnt afford to wait on a potential bigger settlement, appeal etc so I wouldnt say this was a "in the usuak manner" because of all circumstances around this.
11-30-2017 , 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Did the film accurately portray AC's actions during the investigation into the missing person case and subsequent murder case?

If so, his own actions made him look suspicious. Here you are spewing straw-man propaganda to get your murdering friends off the hook, you murder groupie.
^^ "Clear thinker"

What "murdering friends" off what hook? Wtf are you even babbling about??

Last edited by corpus vile; 11-30-2017 at 03:31 AM.
11-30-2017 , 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerisfunny Making a Murderer
They didnt arrest him right away no. And they had literally zero evidence on him. The only "evidence" they have is when he incriminated himself. Also I guess that young girl who said smth about BD byt later took that back. Dont think there was anything really concrete?
How was it possible for them to arrest him if "they had literally zero evidence on him"? Like you said he incriminated himself & his confession isn't the only evidence against him nor am I rehashing the evidence either as that ship sailed.

If you can provide proper valid examples of unfair due process or coercion or even a plausible alternative which would refute the totality of the evidence then I'm all ears.

Otherwise hot interested, sorry.
11-30-2017 , 03:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerisfunny Making a Murderer
By that logic anyone who doubted SAs rape whould have been "advocates of the rapist" while he was in prison? But not anymore after they figured out he wasnt guilty?
Anyone who doubts the guilt of both is advocating for them whether justified or not & so far it's a resounding "not".
11-30-2017 , 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
How was it possible for them to arrest him if "they had literally zero evidence on him"? Like you said he incriminated himself & his confession isn't the only evidence against him nor am I rehashing the evidence either as that ship sailed.

If you can provide proper valid examples of unfair due process or coercion or even a plausible alternative which would refute the totality of the evidence then I'm all ears.

Otherwise hot interested, sorry.
His incrimination during the first talks with the police is what the "evidence" on him is, before that they had really nothing.

If you cant watch the interviews with the police and BD and realise thad BD doesnt know wtf he is confessing to then not much I can say.
11-30-2017 , 04:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerisfunny Making a Murderer
His incrimination during the first talks with the police is what the "evidence" on him is, before that they had really nothing.
No, there's no quotes around "evidence" as if it's subjective an admission against interest is sufficient to convict you in court. So when he incriminated himself that was evidence as were the jeans.

Quote:
If you cant watch the interviews with the police and BD and realise thad BD doesnt know wtf he is confessing to then not much I can say.
Except he does know & this was already discussed itt & again I'm not rehashing it, except to say that again, his confession was partially used to secure a second search warrant on Avery's property which led to evidence which supported Dassey's confession.


It's very telling that nobody itt has been able to provide specific examples of unequivocal coercion, despite the transcripts & entire interview available for their dissection.
11-30-2017 , 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
No, there's no quotes around "evidence" as if it's subjective an admission against interest is sufficient to convict you in court. So when he incriminated himself that was evidence as were the jeans.



Except he does know & this was already discussed itt & again I'm not rehashing it, except to say that again, his confession was partially used to secure a second search warrant on Avery's property which led to evidence which supported Dassey's confession.


It's very telling that nobody itt has been able to provide specific examples of unequivocal coercion, despite the transcripts & entire interview available for their dissection.
His use of quotes is clearly to emphasize that the validity of EVERY piece of "evidence" in this case can easily be called into question. Hence we have a docuseries and current legal battle. You fu**ing moron.
11-30-2017 , 05:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
His use of quotes is clearly to emphasize that the validity of EVERY piece of "evidence" in this case can easily be called into question. Hence we have a docuseries and current legal battle. You fu**ing moron.
No it's simply advocates passing off their own personal & decidedly subjective opinion as actual facts. Just as they raise bars & deem innuendo sufficient for anyone else except the actual murderers.

Still waiting for you to specify on who these "murdering friends" who I "support" are, Saucy. Who are they? Who did they murder? How am I supporting murderers?

You reckon you could get around to this before 2018? Cheers mate.
11-30-2017 , 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
No it's simply advocates passing off their own personal & decidedly subjective opinion as actual facts. Just as they raise bars & deem innuendo sufficient for anyone else except the actual murderers.

Still waiting for you to specify on who these "murdering friends" who I "support" are, Saucy. Who are they? Who did they murder? How am I supporting murderers?

You reckon you could get around to this before 2018? Cheers mate.
Sorry, busy.
11-30-2017 , 07:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Sorry, busy.
Right so you still can't back up your Travis Bickle style musings huh? Despite the truth being easy to defend? I'll just comfortably dismiss your ravings so & will also helpfully suggest a room with soft walls & some soothing muzak for you.
Your ability to post whilst clearly wearing a straight jacket is quite impressive btw. Do you use your nose? Honest question.
11-30-2017 , 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerisfunny Making a Murderer
His incrimination during the first talks with the police is what the "evidence" on him is, before that they had really nothing.

If you cant watch the interviews with the police and BD and realise thad BD doesnt know wtf he is confessing to then not much I can say.
Did you watch the whole interviews? The 10-second clips shown in the documentary makes it look rather bad, but if you watch the whole thing, you might have a different opinion.

If you don't think the confessions are evidence of Dassey's guilt, it might make sense to ask yourself what behaviour during a police interview you would accept as evidence of guilt? I mean, he has intellectual limitations, but even so he's probably smart enough to know that he should try to minimize his involvement, like anyone else who committed a heinous crime. He changed his story a few times, but how can you tell whether that's just him owning up to what he did, or him making stuff up?

What specifically would you expect to be different in a "real" confession as opposed to Dassey's, which you believe to be "fake"? Can you back up your opinion with actual scientific research on false confessions?
11-30-2017 , 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerisfunny Making a Murderer
His incrimination during the first talks with the police is what the "evidence" on him is, before that they had really nothing.

If you cant watch the interviews with the police and BD and realise that BD doesnt know wtf he is confessing to then not much I can say.
Even the Appeals Magistrate Duffin has explained that other than the coerced statements coached by police interrogators there is no case against Brendan.

When cops have to resort to this sort of manufacturing 'evidence' it becomes clear even they know they have a weak or non-existent case.
11-30-2017 , 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Anyone who doubts the guilt of both is advocating for them whether justified or not & so far it's a resounding "not".
Obviously, advocating for justice for American citizens can be wholly justified.

But for some consumers of torture porn like corpus vile advocating for justice = 'murder groupie'.
11-30-2017 , 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
It's very telling that nobody itt has been able to provide specific examples of unequivocal coercion, despite the transcripts & entire interview available for their dissection.
It's very telling that corpus vile has put people on 'ignore' so that he won't accidentally read answers to his demands and has not taken the trouble to read Duffin's decision granting Brendan habeas relief including many specific examples and case law precedents to back it up.

Since reddit posts have become popular lately, here's something that might be of interest:
Quote:
Brendan's Habeas Corpus Decision: A HUGE 'F*!k You' to The Wisconsin Appeals Process!

This was no small decision. I do not mean because it is HUGE international news, I mean this is HUGE because for a court to grant habeas relief, that means the court system in Wisconsin has to have made decisions / rulings that were not merely wrong, but so wrong that no reasonable judge could have reached that decision / ruling.

It was a good read. I would suggest looking through if you haven't already. It is an excellent summary of almost everything to do with Brendan. A couple of people may have got let off easy (MW and TF) but LK and MO got their asses handed to them almost to my satisfaction. Also, and much more significantly, the Wisconsin Appeals process came off horribly in this decision.

We should for sure see some changes in Wisconsin.

It it just the beginning!
Habeas Corpus Decision: A Failure of The Wisconsin Court System
Brendan's Post Conviction Appeals (Pre Making A Murderer)

Dassey's post-conviction hearing included testimony of one of Dassey’s trial attorneys, the prosecutor, a social psychologist, Kachinsky, O’Kelly, and Richard Leo, an expert in false confessions.

The Circuit Court denied Dassey post-conviction relief on December 13, 2010.

Dassey appealed, and on January 30, 2013, in an unpublished per curiam decision the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Dassey’s petition for review on April 1, 2013.

You can bet William E Duffin (Judge who ordered Brendan's decision just pissed off some people.

The Failure of The Wisconsin Court System

The Supreme Court long ago detached the admissibility of a confession from its reliability and made voluntariness alone the benchmark of admissibility.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that a false promise is a powerful force in overcoming a person’s free will. A confession, in order to be admissible, must be free and voluntary: that is, must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises

The state courts unreasonably found that the investigators never made Dassey any promises during the March 1, 2006 interrogation. The investigators repeatedly claimed to already know what happened on October 31 and assured Dassey that he had nothing to worry about. These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.


Take that The Wisconsin Court of Appeals

(And just for fun) A f*ck you to Judge Fox:

Having thoroughly reviewed the trial transcript, the court has no difficulty concluding that the admission of Dassey’s confession was not a harmless error. Dassey’s confession was, as a practical matter, the entirety of the case against him on each of the three counts.

Yes it was a harm-filled error.

F*ck you Fox.

When the investigators’ promises, assurances, and threats of negative consequences are assessed in conjunction with Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, lack of experience in dealing with the police, the absence of a parent, and other relevant personal characteristics...

...the free will of a reasonable person in Dassey’s position would have been overborne.


Consequently, the court finds that the confession Dassey gave to the police on March 1, 2006 was so clearly involuntary in a constitutional sense that the court of appeals’ decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

More than merely disagreeing with the court of appeals’ decision or concluding that it would have reached a different decision if it had been the state court, the court finds that the state court’s decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.


Very unreasonable. Amen to that.

Can I go back to class now?

After admitting to committing exceptionally serious crimes, Dassey twice expressed his expectation that he would be allowed to return to school that day.

Dassey’s conduct during the interrogation and his reaction to being told he was under arrest clearly indicate that he really did believe that, if he told the investigators what they professed to already know, he would not be arrested for what he said


Thank you the Honorable Judge Duffin!

Jesus Mary and Joseph ****ing Thank You.

Not only did Dassey not have the benefit of an adult present to look out for his interests, the investigators exploited the absence of such an adult by repeatedly suggesting that they were looking out for his interests

The investigators went on to repeat that they already knew what happened at least 24 additional times throughout the interrogation.

At the same time the investigators were telling Dassey that they already knew what happened, they frequently reassured him that he did not have anything to worry about. After Fassbender assured Dassey that, “from what I’m seeing … I’m thinking you’re all right. OK, you don’t have to worry about things,”

The record indicates that these false assertions had a powerful effect upon Dassey

NO **** they had a powerful effect!

So how did this slip past the appeals process?

Oh right. Corruption and biad in the system Never mind.

"Mom?" "Yeah?" "Yeah."

The absence of Dassey’s mother, especially when considered in conjunction with evidence of how the investigators deliberately exploited her absence, is a fact highly probative of Dassey’s claim such that its absence from the court of appeals’ analysis undermines its conclusion.

its absence from the court of appeals’ analysis undermines its conclusion.

YES

F*ck you whoever ruled on Brendan's appeal(s)

How could people not see this?

More than merely assuring Dassey that he would not be punished if he admitted participating in the offenses, the investigators suggested to Dassey that he would be punished if he did not tell “the truth.” However, because the investigators’ assertions that they already knew what happened were often false, “the truth” to the investigators was often merely whichever of Dassey’s version of events they eventually accepted. Thus, as long as Dassey told a version the investigators accepted as “the truth,” he was led to believe he had no fear of negative consequences. But if the investigators did not accept as true the story Dassey told them, he was told there would be repercussions.

LOVE THIS ^

Love it. Love it so much I want to tear it apart:

TF: "Just tell us the truth and you will be ok, Brendan."

More than merely assuring Dassey that he would not be punished if he admitted participating in the offenses

MW: "If you don't tell the truth we are gonna have problems."

the investigators suggested to Dassey that he would be punished if he did not tell “the truth.”

TF: "We already know everything there is to know."

the investigators’ assertions that they already knew what happened were often false,

BD: "I was only there for the fire."

MW: "You are lying. That is not the truth."

“the truth” to the investigators was often merely whichever of Dassey’s version of events they eventually accepted.

BD: "I raped her and Steve shot her 10 times."

TF: "Now that sounds like the truth."

Thus, as long as Dassey told a version the investigators accepted as “the truth,” he was led to believe he had no fear of negative consequences.

EXTREME MALFUNCTION INDEED.

**** you TF and MW. You are not out of the woods. Not even close.

And Finally . . .

Most significantly, however, the court of appeals erred when it focused on the statements of the investigators in isolation to conclude that they did not make any promises of leniency.

The state courts’ finding that there were no “promises of leniency" was against the clear and convincing weight of the evidence, Concluding that the investigators never made any such promises was no minor error


Agree. It was not a minor error. It was a HUGE error.

For a federal court to grant habeas relief, a state court’s decision must be not merely wrong but so wrong that no reasonable judge could have reached that decision.

Say it again!!

...a decision ‘so inadequately supported by the record’ as to be arbitrary and therefore objectively unreasonable.

Please .. one .. more .. time ..

The court finds that the court of appeals’ decision was not merely incorrect; it was unreasonable.

Huge f*ck you to the appeals court!

The consequences to the system...?

Soon. Wait. Enjoy the fall.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockMan...fins_huge_wtf/


That corpus vile chooses to remain willfully ignorant speaks volumes about his agenda here: to make false claim after false claim and never have to be confronted with the copious evidence that he is a habitual liar.

Last edited by proudfootz; 11-30-2017 at 10:19 AM. Reason: add text for corpus to ignore / emphasis
11-30-2017 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Did you watch the whole interviews? The 10-second clips shown in the documentary makes it look rather bad, but if you watch the whole thing, you might have a different opinion.

If you don't think the confessions are evidence of Dassey's guilt, it might make sense to ask yourself what behaviour during a police interview you would accept as evidence of guilt? I mean, he has intellectual limitations, but even so he's probably smart enough to know that he should try to minimize his involvement, like anyone else who committed a heinous crime. He changed his story a few times, but how can you tell whether that's just him owning up to what he did, or him making stuff up?

What specifically would you expect to be different in a "real" confession as opposed to Dassey's, which you believe to be "fake"? Can you back up your opinion with actual scientific research on false confessions?
I have watched all materials that I have found on the internet, should be the whole interview.

1: He has no clue whats going on (I have a test in 1H). 2: He is mentally challenged. 3: He gets fed/directed ridic much.
11-30-2017 , 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
If you don't think the confessions are evidence of Dassey's guilt, it might make sense to ask yourself what behaviour during a police interview you would accept as evidence of guilt?
Anything thats not spoonfed/sugested to him. Like BD saying he shot her and not "im just going to go ahead and say it, you shot her right" - "oh.... ehhh, yes....."

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
I mean, he has intellectual limitations, but even so he's probably smart enough to know that he should try to minimize his involvement, like anyone else who committed a heinous crime.
He is probably not smart enough, if he was he would ask for a lawyer or deny everything they say. But he REALLY thinks if he says want they WANT to hear its all OK.

I, or any sane person of age that has normal IQ would NEVER ever in a million years "confess" to killing someone by cutting a throut, stabbing, raping etc etc. I dont think anyone with enough age and normal IQ would, except if the person had a total meltdown and wanted guilt of there chest, but BD didnt even seem to be close to a meltdown, just guessing and guessing for hours. [/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
What specifically would you expect to be different in a "real" confession as opposed to Dassey's, which you believe to be "fake"? Can you back up your opinion with actual scientific research on false confessions?
Like I said above, a REAL meltdown or something that shows serious and real emotions. Also the person should be able to say atleast a couple of things that happened without havent it spoonfed to him already.
11-30-2017 , 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Even the Appeals Magistrate Duffin has explained that other than the coerced statements coached by police interrogators there is no case against Brendan.

When cops have to resort to this sort of manufacturing 'evidence' it becomes clear even they know they have a weak or non-existent case.
Yeh this. Add to that BDs limited IQ which makes him not realise how serious this is at all, not even close, like he seriously thinks he can go to class after saying all that LOL.

      
m