popcorn sounds good about now
With all due respect, this is simply not true. Several posters have responded countless times with a list of evidence that cannot be simply explained away due to incompetence or conflict of interest. Essexman posted several of these, again, right after yours.
It seems you are the one operating from a default position of bias, that ALL of the evidence against Avery is "tainted by incompetence, conflict of interest, or both."
One, I posted a link to the evidence that Manitowoc County had a hand in gathering. This article rebutted the claim made by Essexman in comment #204: "The evidence gathered in this case was gathered by CCSO not MTSO." This is yet another example of Essexman's misrepresenting the facts case, sometimes after having been corrected (IMO everything that Manitowoc County deserves to be deeply discounted on the basis of its conflict of interest partially but not wholly resulting from Mr. Avery's suit). My point here is that Essexman's credibility must be gauged in light of this and other statements in this thread.
Two, I posted a number of things relating to the flaws in the EDTA test. Essexman included the EDTA test anyway, not noting the objections.
Three, Essexman's list also included Brendan's supposedly knowing about the bones in the quarry. I have not researched this exhaustively, but in the portion of Dassey's interrogation that I just found, it was
Fassbender who first mentioned the "pit." This is not a surprise to anyone who had read the links I provided, to experts both associated with and not associated with this case. The experts indicated that Brendan was fed information, and that seems to be what happened in this instance. For example, Richard Leo's affidavit stated, "Brendan did not volunteer non-public crime facts not likely guessed by chance absent contamination." Elsewhere his affidavit stated, "In this case, Brendan Dassey provided no unique non-public details of the Halbach murder." These are strong statements from a nationally recognized expert in false confessions. Again, there was no mention of the contamination problem in the present list.
Four, Essexman's list mentioned Kayla Avery while ignoring information that I learned and reported in comment #362, namely that she recanted her earlier statement. Either her earlier statement was true, or her testimony was true. Only an omniscient being can known which one it was, but the legal system takes what a witness says under oath very seriously, yet gives little or no weight to statements not made under oath. An honest evaluation of Kayla's claim would have included the inconvenient fact of Kayla's recantation.
Here is what I found with respect to the burning:
Link. It is my understanding that the interview happened on November 9th. "During the interview, Investigator Wiegert acted as the primary questioner, while S/A Fassbender took notes. The following is a synopsis of the information provided by Steven and is not verbatim. A transcript will be prepared at a later date...Steven advised that he has not burnt anything in his burn barrel for quite a while, probably longer than a week. He did not burn anything that night. His burn barrel is out in front of his house. Steven said the week before last or over a week ago and before Teresa was there, he burned brush, some tires and some garbage in an area behind his house right by his dog." It is unclear whether Mr. Avery was denying using the burn barrel or denying all burning that night. That is one reason that I would prefer an actual transcript to Fassbender's synopsis. A second reason is Fassbender's actions concerning Brendan Dassey. Even if a transcript were available and showed that the synopsis was accurate, the information is not very probative.
If others want to dissect the rest of the list this evening, they are welcome to do so; for the moment, I prefer to pop some popcorn.
