Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
What reason is there to be skeptical?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer
- Thread starter Caper
- Start date
- Status
Roger Ramjets:
You may take aspects of the case in isolation and suggest plausibilty about rifle forensics, but they must mesh with a complete narrative.
ONLY ONE THING HAPPENED.
The website Kaosium posted is excellent for detail such as access to the blood vial, and this needs resolving.
But the website is very specific, the primary burn site was close to Steve Avery's cabin, and 5 steel belt tyres were the fuel.
For your part, are you buying this, given that this wrecking yard was essentially a commune?
At some point you must show your workings surely, how all flesh is eliminated from the bones, and that Steve took bones from here and distributed to the quarry and the burn barrel.
Please explain, because handwaving is how these absurd convictions are sustained.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,010
more work is needed
The quote I provided from the book chapter by Sarah L. Cooper indicated that the research that would perhaps allow one to individualize the marks on a bullet to a particular gun or rifle had not been done as of 2009. The article by Paul Giannelli (see link above) suggested the same thing. One person (at minimum) was wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous testimony on firearm markings and spent almost thirty years in prison (his name escapes me at the moment). There has been research done since then to establish error rates but I am not in a position to evaluate it.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
I don't need to 'explain' anything - that's your job. The only hand-waving here is being done by people with absurd theories about how all the evidence against Avery was either planted, tainted, or made up.
I can understand why someone might do that though. If you start with the conclusion that the perp is innocent then all the evidence must be invalid. Then you must invent improbable conspiracy theories to explain as much of the evidence as you can, and handwave away the rest.
I have been a juror on a few criminal trials so I know how defense lawyers work. Doesn't matter how airtight the evidence, just cast some doubt in the jurors minds and your client may get away with murder, literally. But their tricks didn't work on me, and they won't work here either.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
When you are a juror in a criminal trial you are supposed to start with the premise that the accused is innocent.
If the defense lawyer can establish reasonable (not 'some", of course) doubt then he isn't trying to "trick" you, he's doing his job as an effective defense attorney.
Do you recognize that the prosecution is, by the same token, trying to "trick" you by presenting the evidence he can in as slanted a fashion as he can manage to get away with?
Is it okay to be tricked by the prosecution because you don't want to assume the defendant's innocence (which is your legal obligation in a criminal trial), but somehow wrong to let the defense establish reasonable doubt using the same tools and techniques?
It's pretty apparent that if you sit on a jury with the preconceived notion that the accused is a "perp" and not a defendant then you aren't going to spend much time analyzing the defense case anyway.
I expect prosecutors love to see you on a jury.
Last edited:
It is statistically very likely you correctly convicted.
Agreeing on this contributes nothing to the case of Steven Avery.
The prosecution relies on the burn pit as the primary burn site because they realise Avery would not bring those bones there from elsewhere, but science says this can't be so. Ignoring this datapoint allows you to continue spouting nonsense.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
Did I say otherwise? But that 'presumption' doesn't mean what you might be implying - it's just the default position to take before seeing the evidence.
If the defense promotes lies to get a guilty person off then they are scum. I don't care if that is doing their job - it's wrong. I'm not just talking about sowing reasonable doubt, but deliberate attempts to make the jury reject solid facts - using any trick they can get away with. And yes, this actually happened in trials I was on.
If the prosecution tries to sway the jury with lies to convict someone they know is innocent, then they are also scum.
But that's why we have juries - so disinterested parties can apply their intelligence and knowledge of human nature to prevent miscarriages of justice. Sadly however, most jurors are swayed by emotion, and few are able to think logically. Some of the arguments I heard in deliberation were appalling.
Since that doesn't apply to me it's irrelevant. But when the trial is over and the judge has made it plain that the accused was guilty all along, and a fellow juror remarks on what a good job the defense did of getting her off, I am perfectly happy using the word 'perp'.
I agree. Every case stands on its own merits. Some other convictions being overturned due to factual innocence doesn't have any bearing on this one.Samson said:
I came into this discussion thinking that Avery may be innocent (since that is what this forum is about) but the evidence for it is unconvincing. We are not in a courtroom now, but if we were I would ask how do you justify accusing various people of being part of a massive conspiracy without the evidence to back it up? Let's turn this around and say that they were the ones on trial - would you convict?
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
So you assert. I have yet to see the evidence which shows this to be the case.
But hey, I am old and probably a candidate for Alzheimer's. Perhaps the evidence is in this very thread, but I missed or forgot it. So if you or someone else has presented it already, a link would be appreciated.
I will see what I can find from Jerry Buting's book. Sorry to hear about the dementia, I think a lot of us are past our prime around here.
Last edited:
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
How did it graduate to "massive" conspiracy? A couple of people move a few things around. Then a tenuous if not non-existent case looks a bit stronger. Enough so that a jury who is already primed for guilt (after all, the bastard got off on a technicality once already. Right?)
It isn't exactly a "massive" conspiracy if a cop or two 'salts the mine', so to speak. Kinda 'helps' things a little bit just to firm up a shaky case.
Do you think that is something really unusual?
Not least when there is a lot of impetus to discredit the guy anyway.
Zellner seems to believe that there was some hanky panky going on. She doesn't take cases for people she doesn't believe are innocent. She has one hell of a track record of reversal and even exoneration.
When I stand this up against the weaknesses in the the evidentiary trail that we know about, and the proclivities of small town law enforcement then I have to think that the odds of Avery's innocence are not that unlikely.
Depends on the evidence, doesn't it?
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
You make it sound easy, but if all the 'salting' claimed actually occurred it would have taken more than 'a cop or two' to pull it off.
What I find 'really unusual' (ie. unbelievable) is that virtually every piece of damning evidence was 'salted' - as if this is necessary for Avery to be innocent. If you have to prove that someone is innocent, what better way to do it than simply assert that every piece of evidence against them was 'salted'? Just accuse 'one or two cops' of doing it and all the evidence magically disappears!
That's what you say. Others disagree. The 'impetus' wasn't as great as some are trying to make out.
Cops have to deal with scumbags all the time who they would like to 'discredit' (AKA frame for murder) - but they don't. They just keep doing their job and sooner or later they get them legally, because scumbags always screw up eventually.
I don't care what Zellner 'seems to believe'. Just give me facts that prove Avery was set up. Not innuendo, supposition, doubt, conspiracy theories - facts. That is all I ask.
If Zellner can show that evidence was planted or faked then we can agree that there was 'hanky panky'. Until then...
Great. So we can assume that anyone in a small town who is convicted of murder must be innocent?
Because any evidence can be faked. Blood vials tampered with, keys planted, bodies and vehicles moved, DNA results fudged, weapons fired to collect bullet fragments, eye witnesses bought off (or are in on it), cell phone records invented, people murdered to create a crime. There's no end to the amount of evidence those small-town cops will plant on you!
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
You should study carefully the duck rabbit shadow illusion, and decide what you wish to see.You make it sound easy, but if all the 'salting' claimed actually occurred it would have taken more than 'a cop or two' to pull it off.
What I find 'really unusual' (ie. unbelievable) is that virtually every piece of damning evidence was 'salted' - as if this is necessary for Avery to be innocent. If you have to prove that someone is innocent, what better way to do it than simply assert that every piece of evidence against them was 'salted'? Just accuse 'one or two cops' of doing it and all the evidence magically disappears!
That's what you say. Others disagree. The 'impetus' wasn't as great as some are trying to make out.
Cops have to deal with scumbags all the time who they would like to 'discredit' (AKA frame for murder) - but they don't. They just keep doing their job and sooner or later they get them legally, because scumbags always screw up eventually.
I don't care what Zellner 'seems to believe'. Just give me facts that prove Avery was set up. Not innuendo, supposition, doubt, conspiracy theories - facts. That is all I ask.
If Zellner can show that evidence was planted or faked then we can agree that there was 'hanky panky'. Until then...
Great. So we can assume that anyone in a small town who is convicted of murder must be innocent?
Because any evidence can be faked. Blood vials tampered with, keys planted, bodies and vehicles moved, DNA results fudged, weapons fired to collect bullet fragments, eye witnesses bought off (or are in on it), cell phone records invented, people murdered to create a crime. There's no end to the amount of evidence those small-town cops will plant on you!
These cases resolve nicely in this manner.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 13,010
Not just fraud but also bias
IMO there is more to this case than the work of the two gardeners. Here is a link to an article I had not seen before, which was written by four forensic scientists. The problems of bias and of a lack of objective standards applies to the conclusions about the ballistic evidence to which I linked upthread.
"In the evidence against Steven Avery, we saw striking examples of problems we have been studying...According to the Innocence Project, about half of DNA-related exonerations resulted from the authorities’ misapplication of forensic science; one analysis found that forensic scientists overstated their findings in more than 60 percent of cases."
IMO there is more to this case than the work of the two gardeners. Here is a link to an article I had not seen before, which was written by four forensic scientists. The problems of bias and of a lack of objective standards applies to the conclusions about the ballistic evidence to which I linked upthread.
"In the evidence against Steven Avery, we saw striking examples of problems we have been studying...According to the Innocence Project, about half of DNA-related exonerations resulted from the authorities’ misapplication of forensic science; one analysis found that forensic scientists overstated their findings in more than 60 percent of cases."
There are a range of ways of studying this case, one is to list what Avery allegedly did.
1. While knowing that her last movement is known to all and sundry to be into his precinct, he kills her.
2. He shoots her in his garage.
3. He drives her car off the property and the movements of the car remain unknown for a while.
4. At a point he had her bleeding from the head in the back seat of her car.
5. A few days later (aerial photographs seem to show the car's absence till then), he parks it in a highly visible location back on the property, having obviously concealed it elsewhere meanwhile, and throws a couple of branches on it.
6. He keeps the key which is unable to lock or unlock the rear door and cleans it but forgets to wear gloves.
7. He burns her body by his back door without anywhere adequate fuel, no one notices, and he transports some bones to two other locations.
8. He fits in a phone call to Jodi at 5pm from home after driving the vehicle off the property at 4pm.
I could go on, but these are stark claims, or inferred claims.
I see the same sort of list in the following cases, all of which have excellent and highly researched books to refer to.
1. Mark Lundy
2. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito
3. John Tessier/Jack Daniel McCullough
4. Ewen MacDomnald.
5. Arthur Allan Thomas
6. David Bain.
7. Jeremy Bamber
8. The Norfolk 4
9. The West Memphis 3.
10. Gloria Killian
11. David Wayne Tamihere.
12. Steven Kitchko
13. Teina Pora
The reason I make a long list is partly to emphasise I have done some homework, and I can see essential ingredients common to this case.
Some above are exonerated, some not convicted, some still in jail.
They all were prosecuted and had one or multiple trials and appeals, and in my opinion it is completely impossible any of them did the crimes.
Steven Avery did not do this one either, until one of you can make coherent my activity list for Steve.
It is straightforward to list the evidence that must be explained, far less straightforward how to make sense of it. Invariably there is splendid coherence in the evidence when the police have the right man.
1. While knowing that her last movement is known to all and sundry to be into his precinct, he kills her.
2. He shoots her in his garage.
3. He drives her car off the property and the movements of the car remain unknown for a while.
4. At a point he had her bleeding from the head in the back seat of her car.
5. A few days later (aerial photographs seem to show the car's absence till then), he parks it in a highly visible location back on the property, having obviously concealed it elsewhere meanwhile, and throws a couple of branches on it.
6. He keeps the key which is unable to lock or unlock the rear door and cleans it but forgets to wear gloves.
7. He burns her body by his back door without anywhere adequate fuel, no one notices, and he transports some bones to two other locations.
8. He fits in a phone call to Jodi at 5pm from home after driving the vehicle off the property at 4pm.
I could go on, but these are stark claims, or inferred claims.
I see the same sort of list in the following cases, all of which have excellent and highly researched books to refer to.
1. Mark Lundy
2. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito
3. John Tessier/Jack Daniel McCullough
4. Ewen MacDomnald.
5. Arthur Allan Thomas
6. David Bain.
7. Jeremy Bamber
8. The Norfolk 4
9. The West Memphis 3.
10. Gloria Killian
11. David Wayne Tamihere.
12. Steven Kitchko
13. Teina Pora
The reason I make a long list is partly to emphasise I have done some homework, and I can see essential ingredients common to this case.
Some above are exonerated, some not convicted, some still in jail.
They all were prosecuted and had one or multiple trials and appeals, and in my opinion it is completely impossible any of them did the crimes.
Steven Avery did not do this one either, until one of you can make coherent my activity list for Steve.
It is straightforward to list the evidence that must be explained, far less straightforward how to make sense of it. Invariably there is splendid coherence in the evidence when the police have the right man.
And here is a narrative that does cohere.
1. She drives her car away from Avery's property.
2. She gets out of the car, is shot in the back of the head and her body is rolled into the back seat.
3. The car is driven to a crematorium style burning place.
4. Some bones are planted with the steel radial wire intact in Steve's burn pit.
5. Her car is parked on the property
6. 4 and 5 occur because someone believes that the police will blame Steve, which they indeed do.
Participants and motives are not necessary to show that this involves plausible candidates, and thus the converse with Steve.
1. She drives her car away from Avery's property.
2. She gets out of the car, is shot in the back of the head and her body is rolled into the back seat.
3. The car is driven to a crematorium style burning place.
4. Some bones are planted with the steel radial wire intact in Steve's burn pit.
5. Her car is parked on the property
6. 4 and 5 occur because someone believes that the police will blame Steve, which they indeed do.
Participants and motives are not necessary to show that this involves plausible candidates, and thus the converse with Steve.
Last edited:
Wayward son
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 541
Here is the blood in Rav4 headline argument
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL ..................................... .43
Applicable Law Re: Ineffective Assistance ofCounsel ................................................................. .43
Applicable Law Re: Duty to Investigate and To Present Expert Testimony ................................. .45
Failure ofTrial Defense Counsel to Investigate Mr. Avery 's Claim that his Blood Was Removed
from his Bathroom Sink and Planted in the RA V-4 ....................................................................... 50
Trial Defense Counsel 's Failure to Present a DNA Expert 's Opinions about Blood Being Planted
in the RA V-4 ................................................................................................................................... 54
Applicable Law Re: The Admissibility of Conducting Experiments and Recreations ................... 54
Failure of Trial Defense Counsel to Present a Blood Spatter Expert Who Had Conducted
Experiments Which Demonstrated that Mr. Avery's Blood was Planted in the RA V-4 ................ 55
Failure of Trial Defense Counsel to Present a Blood Spatter Expert Who Had Conducted
Experiments Which Refitted The State 's Blood Spatter Expert 's Opinion About Cause of Blood
Spatter on Rear Cargo Door of RA V-4 ...................................................................... .................... 56
Failure of Trial Defense Counsel, Because of Not Having A Blood Spatter Expert, To Recognize
1996 Blood Vial Was Not the Source of Blood in the RA V-4 ..
So the vial was a red herring no pun intended.
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL ..................................... .43
Applicable Law Re: Ineffective Assistance ofCounsel ................................................................. .43
Applicable Law Re: Duty to Investigate and To Present Expert Testimony ................................. .45
Failure ofTrial Defense Counsel to Investigate Mr. Avery 's Claim that his Blood Was Removed
from his Bathroom Sink and Planted in the RA V-4 ....................................................................... 50
Trial Defense Counsel 's Failure to Present a DNA Expert 's Opinions about Blood Being Planted
in the RA V-4 ................................................................................................................................... 54
Applicable Law Re: The Admissibility of Conducting Experiments and Recreations ................... 54
Failure of Trial Defense Counsel to Present a Blood Spatter Expert Who Had Conducted
Experiments Which Demonstrated that Mr. Avery's Blood was Planted in the RA V-4 ................ 55
Failure of Trial Defense Counsel to Present a Blood Spatter Expert Who Had Conducted
Experiments Which Refitted The State 's Blood Spatter Expert 's Opinion About Cause of Blood
Spatter on Rear Cargo Door of RA V-4 ...................................................................... .................... 56
Failure of Trial Defense Counsel, Because of Not Having A Blood Spatter Expert, To Recognize
1996 Blood Vial Was Not the Source of Blood in the RA V-4 ..
So the vial was a red herring no pun intended.
- Status