Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer Part 2
- Thread starter JREF2010
- Start date
Links?
I could find nothing new.
Not long ago Avery's supporters made FOI requests for all of Steven and Brendan's recorded jail calls. And to no surprise it backfired big time
Here are a few of the incriminating calls.
Call between Avery and his lawyer Glynn. After Avery learns of Brendan’s police interviews.
Brendan's confession call with Barb in full
Brendan's 2nd confession call with Barb
Also there is an ongoing lawsuit. Retired Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office Lt. Andrew Colborn who is suing Netflix and the shows producers. The latest motions filed by Netflix to dismiss the case more or less says it all.
"Considering MaM as a whole and in context as the law requires leads to the inevitable conclusion that no reasonable viewer would interpret it as an affirmative factual assertion by Netflix"
"The framing theory is presented as Avery’s defense, not some empirical fact, is unmistakable in the context of MaM because viewers hear it in Avery’s and his defenders’ own voices, not via the detached reporting of a putatively objective journalist or narrator."
"Reasonable people understand that a man accused of murder has strong incentive to accuse law enforcement of misconduct; the notion that such viewers would consider Avery’s commentary to be that of an objective narrator laying out the gospel truth strains credulity"
"It insults the intelligence of MaM’s millions of viewers to suggest that any reasonable subset of them uncritically believed that everything said in MaM by a convicted murderer, his family, and his defense lawyers had been confirmed as accurate and was endorsed by the documentary itself."
Link to entire Netflix reply brief
The Netflix bit you quoted is perfectly rational, they say he is a convicted murderer, beware of what he says.
The Avery call merely suggests the police have a record of what Brendan said, not video of a murder, and the only part of either of Brendan's calls that is suspicious is where he says he did something with Steve before 5pm and came home.
The fire happened, it was burning rubbish in a shallow pit, it was not a crematorium. But as you know from Bamber, once opinions are fixed discussion is a waste of time.
Sadly.
Any idea a murder and reduction of a body to ashes happened on the day is scientifically impossible.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,578
internalized false confessions
Your comment is conclusory. I listened to one of Brendan's calls, and I heard nothing unexpected. Here is one of Saul Kassin's works on internalized false confessions. Either one accepts that false confessions occur, or one does not.
Your comment is conclusory. I listened to one of Brendan's calls, and I heard nothing unexpected. Here is one of Saul Kassin's works on internalized false confessions. Either one accepts that false confessions occur, or one does not.
Considering Steven Avery's own admissions and confessions that implicates Brendan also. Its apparent that this in particular is not a false confession.
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 17,585
I really agree. If you want to feel sorry for Brendan, fine, but he was far more than an innocent bystander. He was an opportunist participant. Brendan seems to elicit sympathy from a lot of people, because he is 'slow' and had a brutal interrogation.
Doesn't make him innocent.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
"Apparent"? I don't know. I'm not convinced either way.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,578
Some of the problems with this investigation
Here are some things that strike me about the investigation, all of which have been discussed here previously, with appropriate citations given:
One, Brendan's interrogation was marred by contamination with information from the interrogators. Either the interrogators were incompetent, or worse.
Two, Manitowoc should not have been involved in the investigation at all, owing to an obvious conflict of interest, as was tacitly acknowledged.
Three, Manitowoc's personnel had an uncanny ability to find evidence supposedly overlooked by others. That along with point two does not prove that gardening went on, but no reasonable person would dismiss this possibility out of hand, either.
Four, Ken Katz's statement after Brendan's interrogation was a clear violation of the ABA's model rules of conduct for prosecutors.
Five, Sherry Culhane and the lab in which she worked deviated from guidelines from the ABA's model rules for DNA evidence in more than one way. In brief, the lab should have rerun any evidence for which the negative control was positive. If you don't consider the results to be binding, why run the negative control in the first place? They should not have opposed the presence of the defense for any tests which consumed all of a sample. Their rationale for this opposition was hypocritical: they claimed that they were concerned about contamination, but they allowed the presence of students. if they were so concerned about contamination, why was Ms. Culhane speaking to students while preparing samples? In addition, it is well known that speaking is a contamination hazard. If Ms. Culhane is that careless about protocol, it suggests a more general lack of competence.
My list is not intended to be exhaustive. People who claim that Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey are guilty should address these points. Either they should rebut them with logical arguments and citations, or they should acknowledge them and explain how the case for guilt can be made in spite of them.
Here are some things that strike me about the investigation, all of which have been discussed here previously, with appropriate citations given:
One, Brendan's interrogation was marred by contamination with information from the interrogators. Either the interrogators were incompetent, or worse.
Two, Manitowoc should not have been involved in the investigation at all, owing to an obvious conflict of interest, as was tacitly acknowledged.
Three, Manitowoc's personnel had an uncanny ability to find evidence supposedly overlooked by others. That along with point two does not prove that gardening went on, but no reasonable person would dismiss this possibility out of hand, either.
Four, Ken Katz's statement after Brendan's interrogation was a clear violation of the ABA's model rules of conduct for prosecutors.
Five, Sherry Culhane and the lab in which she worked deviated from guidelines from the ABA's model rules for DNA evidence in more than one way. In brief, the lab should have rerun any evidence for which the negative control was positive. If you don't consider the results to be binding, why run the negative control in the first place? They should not have opposed the presence of the defense for any tests which consumed all of a sample. Their rationale for this opposition was hypocritical: they claimed that they were concerned about contamination, but they allowed the presence of students. if they were so concerned about contamination, why was Ms. Culhane speaking to students while preparing samples? In addition, it is well known that speaking is a contamination hazard. If Ms. Culhane is that careless about protocol, it suggests a more general lack of competence.
My list is not intended to be exhaustive. People who claim that Mr. Avery and Mr. Dassey are guilty should address these points. Either they should rebut them with logical arguments and citations, or they should acknowledge them and explain how the case for guilt can be made in spite of them.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,578
What makes a confession believable?
Again, you are offering a conclusion but not supporting it. Was Brendan's statement contaminated by the interrogators? Does his statement agree with the facts of the case? If you acknowledge these two problems, what about his statement makes it believable anyway?
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,578
Brendan's ability to understand
EDT
His slowness is also a risk factor in false confessions. Offhand, I would offer Joseph Dick of the Norfolk Four as an example of someone who was slow and as an example of an internalized false confession. The book The Wrong Guys can be consulted for more information on this case.
His slowness is an issue because there is evidence that he did not understand the import of what he was saying. IIUC he told the interrogators that he needed to return to class to complete a project. The brutality is not as central to my thinking as the fact that the interrogators hopelessly contaminated the process.
EDT
His slowness is also a risk factor in false confessions. Offhand, I would offer Joseph Dick of the Norfolk Four as an example of someone who was slow and as an example of an internalized false confession. The book The Wrong Guys can be consulted for more information on this case.
Last edited:
What do you think Avery meant when he said -
“they got it all on film or tape or whatever what we did that night”
“He’s the one who was with me with the fire”
Also, Avery was placed on suicide watch after he heard Brendan had started talking.
I saw that the thread had been updated so I read the last few pages looking for anything new from Zellner. Nothing to be found that I can see, other than she is doing what lawyers do by spinning what appear to me to be little victories into what she says are huge wins.
What has been missing this whole time is a plausible theory, backed by the evidence, of who really killed Theresa Halbach if Steven Avery is not the real killer.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
If you want to argue that Avery should get off on technicalities that's fine. But some of us are more interested in truth than legal outcomes.
Your points sound exactly like what a defense would come up with when they know their client is guilty. This might be fair enough in court, but nitpicking the evidence or casting aspersions on the collectors doesn't make it false.
Brendan's interrogation was 'marred by contamination'? Perhaps, but does that mean everything he said was a lie? I think not.
Some cops had a 'conflict of interest' or an 'uncanny ability' to find evidence? Let's get it out in the open - you believe they were corrupt and faked all the evidence, right? Because if that's not what you are saying then it's irrelevant.
The lab 'deviated from guidelines' or were 'careless' and 'hypocritical'? Maybe so, but did that cause an incorrect identification? We are not in court so we don't need 'beyond (un)reasonable doubt' here, just an idea of how accurate the results probably were. A small chance of contamination doesn't mean it happened, and not following some specific guideline doesn't mean the results are false.
As more stuff like these phone calls comes out it becomes harder and harder for people to claim that Avery is innocent. If he was then we would expect to get the opposite. But we didn't. That this doesn't deter his supporters from rehashing old talking points is troubling, but not unsurprising.
So Steven, what did you do that night? Perhaps one day he will tell us, and then we will know for sure. Until then I will be guided by what the evidence indicates is more likely. Right now it's looking far more likely that he really is a murderer.
If the victims remains and belongings being found on his property and murder weapon hanging on his wall doesn’t stop them what will?
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,578
some time ago
The very next sentence is "So I don’t know what they told ‘em or what." This throws the whole passage into ambiguity. Nice try.
A quick Google search shows that this was posted at YouTube on 26 November 2019. Therefore the FOIA request must have predated the posting. This is old news, and calling the request "not long ago" is a stretch.
The very next sentence is "So I don’t know what they told ‘em or what." This throws the whole passage into ambiguity. Nice try.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,578
Negative controls in DNA forensics
I have collected a few quotes to explain what negative controls are, although more could be said on this subject. All three articles are worth reading in their entirety.
“Identifying and Preventing DNA Contamination in a DNA-Typing Laboratory,” by Terri Sundquist and Joseph Bessetti (Promega Corporation) link
“Appropriate control reactions are helpful in determining whether DNA contamination has occurred. A “reagent blank” control consists of all reagents used during sample processing but contains no sample. This control is used to detect DNA contamination of the analytical reagents used to prepare the sample for analysis. In a separate negative control reaction, water is used instead of extracted sample or reagent blank. This negative control reaction is often referred to as the “no-template” control and allows identification of contamination in the amplification reagents themselves.”
“DNA Testing: An Introduction for Non-Scientists,” by Dr. Donald E. Riley link
“Good PCR technique is no guarantee that contamination didn't influence the results. Steps must be taken to try and detect contamination. Negative controls are blank PCRs that have all the components of the evidentiary PCRs but have no other DNA added intentionally. Fortunately, there are often two negative controls used, one when the DNA is extracted, and another when the PCR is set up. Any PCR signal in the negative control would warn that contamination has occurred. Unfortunately, the negative controls are virtually the only warning of PCR contamination. Negative controls may alert the analyst to general contamination occurring within the lab or the lab reagents. These controls don't offer protection against contamination occurring before the samples arrived at the PCR lab. Negative controls also can't rule out contamination of individual samples. The individual samples lack individual signs of contamination if it occurs. Unlike a human patient, a PCR is incapable of showing signs of infection (contamination) such as fever or undue pain. PCRs also have no immune system to ward off contaminants.”
"Tarnish on the Gold Standard,” by Professor William Thompson (University of California at Irvine) link to a number of articles
“While most of the problems are due to inadvertent mistakes, a number of cases involving dishonesty have also come to light…In all of these cases, the analysts were caught faking the results of control samples designed to detect instances in which cross-contamination of DNA samples has occurred.”
“In most instances, these errors produced unexpected results that flagged the problem, such as positive results in a control sample that was supposed to contain no DNA or a second DNA profile in a sample that was supposed to be from a single person. Upon noticing such problems, labs typically throw out the results of that test and start over.”
“Given the unexpectedly high frequency of contamination in DNA testing we have just discussed, it is interesting, and not at all surprising, that the major form of fakery discovered to date involves control samples known as extraction blanks that are designed to detect contamination. These samples are supposed to contain no DNA. When they produce positive results, it indicates there was a problem — DNA somehow ended up in a sample where it did not belong. If that happened to a control sample, it could also have happened to other samples, so the analyst must throw out the whole test and start over.”
I have collected a few quotes to explain what negative controls are, although more could be said on this subject. All three articles are worth reading in their entirety.
“Identifying and Preventing DNA Contamination in a DNA-Typing Laboratory,” by Terri Sundquist and Joseph Bessetti (Promega Corporation) link
“Appropriate control reactions are helpful in determining whether DNA contamination has occurred. A “reagent blank” control consists of all reagents used during sample processing but contains no sample. This control is used to detect DNA contamination of the analytical reagents used to prepare the sample for analysis. In a separate negative control reaction, water is used instead of extracted sample or reagent blank. This negative control reaction is often referred to as the “no-template” control and allows identification of contamination in the amplification reagents themselves.”
“DNA Testing: An Introduction for Non-Scientists,” by Dr. Donald E. Riley link
“Good PCR technique is no guarantee that contamination didn't influence the results. Steps must be taken to try and detect contamination. Negative controls are blank PCRs that have all the components of the evidentiary PCRs but have no other DNA added intentionally. Fortunately, there are often two negative controls used, one when the DNA is extracted, and another when the PCR is set up. Any PCR signal in the negative control would warn that contamination has occurred. Unfortunately, the negative controls are virtually the only warning of PCR contamination. Negative controls may alert the analyst to general contamination occurring within the lab or the lab reagents. These controls don't offer protection against contamination occurring before the samples arrived at the PCR lab. Negative controls also can't rule out contamination of individual samples. The individual samples lack individual signs of contamination if it occurs. Unlike a human patient, a PCR is incapable of showing signs of infection (contamination) such as fever or undue pain. PCRs also have no immune system to ward off contaminants.”
"Tarnish on the Gold Standard,” by Professor William Thompson (University of California at Irvine) link to a number of articles
“While most of the problems are due to inadvertent mistakes, a number of cases involving dishonesty have also come to light…In all of these cases, the analysts were caught faking the results of control samples designed to detect instances in which cross-contamination of DNA samples has occurred.”
“In most instances, these errors produced unexpected results that flagged the problem, such as positive results in a control sample that was supposed to contain no DNA or a second DNA profile in a sample that was supposed to be from a single person. Upon noticing such problems, labs typically throw out the results of that test and start over.”
“Given the unexpectedly high frequency of contamination in DNA testing we have just discussed, it is interesting, and not at all surprising, that the major form of fakery discovered to date involves control samples known as extraction blanks that are designed to detect contamination. These samples are supposed to contain no DNA. When they produce positive results, it indicates there was a problem — DNA somehow ended up in a sample where it did not belong. If that happened to a control sample, it could also have happened to other samples, so the analyst must throw out the whole test and start over.”
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,578
unanswered questions
1. The evidence that Dassey's interrogation was contaminated is clear and unmistakable and has been discussed in this thread. Saying "perhaps," is willful blindness. What it does do is to put the onus on the person claiming that the confession is valid to explain why. You have not done so, and Essexman's attempts have been desultory.
Saul Kassin, one of the leading experts on false confessions, wrote, "A second set of issues concerns the processes of interrogation used on Dassey. Rather than compensate for the boy’s limitations, police used the kinds of trickery and deceit that can produce false confessions from fully functioning adults." (emphasis mine). He continued, "The third argument was that Dassey’s confession showed that he had corroborating knowledge about the crime. Not so fast. Dassey’s final narrative was riddled with inconsistencies and factual errors. Moreover, the detectives had fed him information through a series of hints and leading questions." (emphasis mine)
2. Manitowoc county had a conflict of interest that Calumet county did not, a point that you failed to address. Anyone who doubts this can look at the finances of the county in Nebraska in which the Beatrice Six case took place.
3. If the Calumet county police had found evidence on a first pass through a crime scene, it would have carried more weight. Contrary to your implication, I am not claiming that the Manitowoc police necessarily planted evidence; what I am saying is that the jury should have discounted evidence collected in this manner because they might have (that they did not is one of the many failures of the justice system in this case).
5. You did not answer my question. If one performs a control experiment and ignores the result, then why perform it? A previous comment of mine should be consulted for what usually happens when a negative control gives a positive result. If you wish to propose a different standard by which the results of all negative control reactions should be assessed, then feel free. Until that new standard is accepted, my point stands.
In addition, Sherry Culhane did not even disclose what she did in her report, which is an ethical violation. Culhane's behavior is an object lesson in how not to perform DNA forensics. The essay "Tarnish on the Gold Standard" can be consulted for other examples.
IMO it is irresponsible to minimize the importance of what you refer to as legal technicalities. If we abandon good forensic practice, then we consign future individuals to be convicted on the basis of bad evidence. Some of us are interested in avoiding those future wrongful convictions.
I will retain my original numbering for clarity.
1. The evidence that Dassey's interrogation was contaminated is clear and unmistakable and has been discussed in this thread. Saying "perhaps," is willful blindness. What it does do is to put the onus on the person claiming that the confession is valid to explain why. You have not done so, and Essexman's attempts have been desultory.
Saul Kassin, one of the leading experts on false confessions, wrote, "A second set of issues concerns the processes of interrogation used on Dassey. Rather than compensate for the boy’s limitations, police used the kinds of trickery and deceit that can produce false confessions from fully functioning adults." (emphasis mine). He continued, "The third argument was that Dassey’s confession showed that he had corroborating knowledge about the crime. Not so fast. Dassey’s final narrative was riddled with inconsistencies and factual errors. Moreover, the detectives had fed him information through a series of hints and leading questions." (emphasis mine)
2. Manitowoc county had a conflict of interest that Calumet county did not, a point that you failed to address. Anyone who doubts this can look at the finances of the county in Nebraska in which the Beatrice Six case took place.
3. If the Calumet county police had found evidence on a first pass through a crime scene, it would have carried more weight. Contrary to your implication, I am not claiming that the Manitowoc police necessarily planted evidence; what I am saying is that the jury should have discounted evidence collected in this manner because they might have (that they did not is one of the many failures of the justice system in this case).
5. You did not answer my question. If one performs a control experiment and ignores the result, then why perform it? A previous comment of mine should be consulted for what usually happens when a negative control gives a positive result. If you wish to propose a different standard by which the results of all negative control reactions should be assessed, then feel free. Until that new standard is accepted, my point stands.
In addition, Sherry Culhane did not even disclose what she did in her report, which is an ethical violation. Culhane's behavior is an object lesson in how not to perform DNA forensics. The essay "Tarnish on the Gold Standard" can be consulted for other examples.
IMO it is irresponsible to minimize the importance of what you refer to as legal technicalities. If we abandon good forensic practice, then we consign future individuals to be convicted on the basis of bad evidence. Some of us are interested in avoiding those future wrongful convictions.
Last edited: