Jesus, I don’t have a position.

You said that juries should be allowed to themselves weigh the evidence.

All I did was point out that the system regularly withholds evidence from juries, because juries are dumb and prejudicial by nature.

I believe the ruling was that admitting the confession would be a violation of Dassey's rights, not that his rights were actually violated during the police interview. But okay, it's a valid position.

This brings me to my second question. What police tactics would you consider acceptable during an interview of a mentally limited young person who police believe might be hiding information about a crime?

You believe the tactics of the police in this case went beyond the pale - what would have made the police conduct acceptable in your eyes? If you were setting guidelines on police conduct when interviewing young people, what would you include to insure that any information obtained would be admitted in court?

Looking at some of the things pointed out by Duffin et al

1) Have a responsible adult present to look out for the interviewee's rights

2) Do not supply details of the police scenario to the interviewee

3) Do not make false promises of lenience if interviewee goes along with police scenario

Your first point is interesting and possibly worth studying.

Your third point is already a rule, however it is debatable whether the police made promises of leniency in the Dassey case. This was one of the key questions in the appeals - some of the judges thought that there were promises of leniency, some didn't.

The second point I disagree with. To take an example from Dassey's confession, at one point he said that he went over to Avery's around 6:30 and the bonfire was not going. If police already knew from other witnesses that the bonfire was going at this time, what's wrong with challenging the interviewee on this point?

Yes, the first point is definitely important, and having someone looking out to make sure the law isn't broken during investigation is apparently necessary, because as we can see in this investigation a willingness to bend the rules that protect us to get the results they wanted.

The second point about feeding the interviewee information is simply a matter of trying to discover what the interviewee knows, not their ability to repeat what interrogators say. Surely telling Brendan that Teresa was shot in the head when he couldn't guess what they were fishing for illustrates that point perfectly. That Brendan didn't know about the gunshot wound is something they should have paid attention to which indicated either their scenario was wrong or that Brendan was not a participant or witness.

The third point about the promises is also a good rule - if police want their techniques not be be widely considered dubious and questionable they need to be more careful about how they conduct themselves.

Grunch, so Brendan is done now? Back to jail? What's the status on SA? Is there gonna be a season 2 with all this new info. I haven't been following

I believe BD can still appeal to the supreme court.

SA is toast, if you haven't been following it will be too complicated to explain why but in a nutshell his new attorney has failed to provide any good reason to ask for a new trial and has completely botched his case.

SC under no obligation to hear any appeal from Dassey though & probably won't or if they do they'll most likely uphold the 7th circuit & conviction will stand.

Brendan is still in prison. There will likely be an appeal of the 7th Circuit Court's split decision given the strength of the dissenting opinions. Whether the Supreme Court hears the case is anyone's guess. But the composition of that court doesn't give much hope of upholding individual rights.

Steven's case also on appeal moving up the ladder. If courts aren't interested in considering the new evidence Steven will probably stay in prison too.

Anyone who's followed appeals like these knows they take years, so there's not likely to be any final decisions soon.

A second series of Making a Murderer has been announced. The way things look now, it will probably have a tragic ending like the first series.

Good post on the absurdity of conspiracy theories:

https://np.reddit.com/r/StevenAveryI..._never_happen/

Evidence is regularly excluded for many different reasons, hearsay, privilege, violation of civil rights, lack of relevance, speculation, etc.

But I've never heard of evidence being excluded because the jury is too dumb to understand it. Can you point to some specific cases where this happened?

Evidence being excluded for prejudicial reasons is just that. The belief that jurors aren’t able or wouldn’t be able to set aside their prejudices.

Look, we all have prejudices. The crux of the jury system is that we trust jurors to put aside their prejudices and come to a fair decision. It's their duty. The majority of people take this duty seriously, just like you or I would if we served on a jury.

Yes, in some cases evidence might be excluded if its prejudicial value exceeds its relevance to the case. In other cases, the judge will instruct a jury to disregard the prejudicial side of the evidence and consider it only as it relates to the question at issue.

Are you arguing my point for me?

Are you claiming that juries can be prejudicial ergo coulda been here ergo confession shoulda been suppressed on the grounds that the jury woulda been prejudicial regarding it?

No you misunderstand, see there was a conspiracy because Stevie & Bren are innocent, which means a conspiracy simply needs to be asserted the actual logistics & implausibility & practical difficulties don't need to be examined. Jeez if they were the whole theory would collapse like a house of cards. Look at it this way- everyone knows they were framed. Cuz they're innocent forever & ever Amen TV told me after all.

Now you may dismiss this as simply circular reasoning but tat's just because you're a cynic. (Oh and a hater)

They should suppress DNA evidence so. I mean let's face it you hear DNA evidence by the prosecution and you automatically think guilt, yet contamination could also occur but good luck trying to get a jury to set aside their DNA prejudices to take that on board.

No, I'm arguing that you're coming across as very arrogant. If you were on a jury where a confession was admitted as evidence, you would keep an open mind to the possibility that it was a false confession, right? So what makes you think you're so much more fair-minded than the rest of us?

Also, it's very common, even inevitable for prejudicial evidence to be admitted. All evidence is prejudicial to some extent - just being accused will cause people to form judgments about you. Not just dumb people, everyone, me and you included. In instructing a jury, the judge will tell them to put aside their prejudices and consider only the evidence presented. It's common for a judge to instruct a jury to disregard certain aspects of evidence (for example, not to draw inferences from an acccused's lifestyle or background that he is more or less likely to be guilty).

The whole reason we have the jury system is that we trust that juries are capable of doing this. It's the exact opposite of what you are talking about.

Evidence may be ruled inadmissible if its prejudicial value would outweigh its probative value. In the case of a confession under police questioning, the probative value is weakened if the correct forms and precautions weren't observed when it was taken, even if it remains likely that the confession was true, so the prejudicial value may be greater. (A spontaneous confession, to a friend or family member or a cellmate, may be admissible but the defence will try to argue it shouldn't be.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6439562/

season 2 episode 3 "Interrogation", is worth the 3 bucks or whatever.

Hey Vsauce, Michael here

Yes, there are good reasons why coerced 'confessions' are not permitted.

Not sure why anyone would want to change that.

Actually, not a very good argument, starting with the title.

Why conspiracies never happen?

So all those people convicted in courts the world over are all innocent?

Must be a pretty big conspiracy to get conspiracy laws into lawbooks all over the planet.

The poster doesn't tell us who he thinks is behind this scam.

Mentioned in the 7th Circuit Court decision is this tidbit:

From Part II of Hamilton's decision – Relevant facts.

B. Dassey’s Early Police Interviews

Police investigators spoke with a number of Avery’s relatives in early November, including an hour‐long interview of his sixteen‐year‐old nephew Brendan Dassey, who lived close by. Dassey said he had seen Halbach taking pictures at the salvage yard on the afternoon of October 31, but he resisted the suggestion that she had entered Avery’s home. At that time, he provided no other useful information.


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

According to the defense Teresa already left ASY by the time the school bus dropped off Brendan and Blaine Dassey. Could not have seen Teresa at that time.

According to the prosecution Teresa was already kidnapped by Steven, so neither Brendan nor Blaine, the bus driver, or other kids on the bus could have seen her either.

So how is this 'useful information'?

The only usefulness of this 'fact' is that it simply proved that police could persuade Brendan to repeat false claims suggested to him by cops.

It varies case by case, as you'd expect. Look at the case of Mr Abdurrahman, the 'fourth applicant' in Ibrahim & Others v UK at the ECHR in 2014. (Three of them were failed suicide terrorists in the attempted 21/7 bombings in London in 2005; Abdurrahman sheltered and assisted the fourth bomber, Hussein Osman, and did other little jobs for the group.) He was interviewed initially as a witness and wasn't immediately cautioned when he began to incriminate himself, but his statement was allowed because he stood by it in writing after he'd taken legal counsel. (Shades of Amanda Knox.) The judge didn't like it much, but allowed it, and so did the Court of Appeal, and so did the Fourth Section of the ECHR.

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2014/1392.html

Only later, in 2016, did the Grand Chamber of the ECHR find against the UK, and even then they awarded Abdurrahman no more than legal costs, because they said it might not have altered the trial outcome, given the other evidence.

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2014/1392.html

Speaking of conspiracies check out the wild & whacky musings of the loons from Truther Island. Now there's a "hired killer"
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockMan..._hired_killer/