Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Here is a new post from Wayward son on International Skeptics Forum:

7th Circuit affirmed that Dassey's confession was involuntary, upholding the overturning of the conviction. The State looks as though they will appeal yet again.

"The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED in all respects. The writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED unless the State of Wisconsin elects to retry Dassey within 90 days of issuance of this courtís final mandate, or of the Supreme Courtís final mandate.Ē U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, June 22, 2017.

---
"officers try to pin him down on time frames and details, but they are like waves on the sand. Even the State has trouble telling its version of the timeline of the story in any cogent manner due to the fact that it changed with each re‐telling."

I suppose you think 7th circuit is in on the conspiracy to ridicule Manitowoc County.

You should join the forum, it is completely neutral. People there like to argue both sides without anger.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11895063&postcount=3771

That opinion is bad law and can and should be reversed.  It doesn't assert that Brendan was innocent let alone in any way support Avery's innocence. 2 activist judges decided to ignore the current law and make up their rules of what constitutes an involuntary confession.  I suggest you read the dissent that is the proper legal ruling and we may see that be used as a template for an appeal to the full 7th Circuit or US Supreme Court.

2
All the watchers that were noticed were watching by day agreed.

But that doesn't mean that after dark other watchers were not there.   Just not noticed in the dark on balconies etc, maybe??

Recon of any potential babysitter had to be done prior to 8.30pm during daylight hours.

3
All the Watchers in the files were watching by day, which would have told them precisely nothing about the McCanns' nocturnal activities. It was a holiday resort; there was a school at the end of one street & a supermarket at the end of another, adjacent to 5A. 
 As someone who had cause to spend 10 minutes hanging around on a street corner in the middle of a housing estate today, near the school, I can't begin to describe how conspicuous I felt. Two men parked in a car almost beside me actually drove off - maybe they were casing the joint behind me.
All the watchers that were noticed were watching by day agreed.

But that doesn't mean that after dark other watchers were not there.   Just not noticed in the dark on balconies etc, maybe??
4
We discussed this on another thread. The first 2 floors of block 6 were fairly well occupied. 4 of the 5 apartments on the first floor were occupied by MW holidaymakers, including the one at the end nearest to Block 4. I think the ground floor one underneath that was privately occupied & the lady living there spoke to the media on 4/5.
IMO it is highly unlikely that the balcony/front door area on either of those floors could have been used by a Watcher over a few days. Going up to the second floor, would the visibility for the front of 5A be as good?


The top floor stairwell balcony (block 6) has a window or door to the adjoining flat on it, so if anyone was in residence it would have been a little dicy to use it IMO. 
Also from G.Earth, i am inclined to think that a watcher up there would not be able to see straight into 5A flat in as perfect a way as from the middle balcony.
 ... nor on to the patio area as well as from the middle floor stairwell and balcony.

This is because the views would be downhill rather than straight in ... and ceilings and rooves might block some of the view.    From the upper balcony in block 6, the ceiling above the patio area of 5A would have cut off some of the view on to that patio.   The view of the area in front of the front door and Madeleines window might, i think, also be somewhat obscured by the roof between  5A and Mrs Fenns apartment.  but it is difficult to be sure.


It really needs someone to go up and look to see exactly what is hidden by ceilings and rooves, but certainly the middle balcony seems a better spot.  Everything is visible from there.


Do you now agree, gunit?
5
If he believes the rubbish he is spouting about, then he is either:
-  thick,
-  deliberately putting out disinformation to denegrate The Mccanns, or
-  negligent, cos he hasn't bothered to do the necessary research and check


Which is it ?
This us the point I am making which posters reusfufuse to address
6
Here is a new post from Wayward son on International Skeptics Forum:

7th Circuit affirmed that Dassey's confession was involuntary, upholding the overturning of the conviction. The State looks as though they will appeal yet again.

"The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED in all respects. The writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED unless the State of Wisconsin elects to retry Dassey within 90 days of issuance of this courtís final mandate, or of the Supreme Courtís final mandate.Ē U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, June 22, 2017.

---
"officers try to pin him down on time frames and details, but they are like waves on the sand. Even the State has trouble telling its version of the timeline of the story in any cogent manner due to the fact that it changed with each re‐telling."

I suppose you think 7th circuit is in on the conspiracy to ridicule Manitowoc County.

You should join the forum, it is completely neutral. People there like to argue both sides without anger.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11895063&postcount=3771
7
It was nothing to do with Inability.  She only saw his profile, and The PJ couldn't do profiles.
To put a full face image on that picture of Tannerman would have been stupid, if Jane didn't see his face properly.   Much better to show what she did see properly and leave the face blank.

The drawing was very good because it showed a type of person, his characteristics and his vigorous movement.  it also showed his hair and his clothes.   Anyone who had seen that man in  motion would recognise him from these things, IMO
8
Maybe so, but if he believes it he's not deliberately lying, is he?
If he believes the rubbish he is spouting about, then he is either:
-  thick,
-  deliberately putting out disinformation to denegrate The Mccanns, or
-  negligent, cos he hasn't bothered to do the necessary research and check


Which is it ?
9
Why ever not? There were watchers pretty well every where else [allegedly]. It was almost like a convention of the revenue in PdL that week if the scuttlebutt is to be believed.
http://rmhh.co.uk/occup/w.html

All the Watchers in the files were watching by day, which would have told them precisely nothing about the McCanns' nocturnal activities. It was a holiday resort; there was a school at the end of one street & a supermarket at the end of another, adjacent to 5A. 
 As someone who had cause to spend 10 minutes hanging around on a street corner in the middle of a housing estate today, near the school, I can't begin to describe how conspicuous I felt. Two men parked in a car almost beside me actually drove off - maybe they were casing the joint behind me.
10
We discussed this on another thread. The first 2 floors of block 6 were fairly well occupied. 4 of the 5 apartments on the first floor were occupied by MW holidaymakers, including the one at the end nearest to Block 4. I think the ground floor one underneath that was privately occupied & the lady living there spoke to the media on 4/5.
IMO it is highly unlikely that the balcony/front door area on either of those floors could have been used by a Watcher over a few days. Going up to the second floor, would the visibility for the front of 5A be as good?

Why ever not? There were watchers pretty well every where else [allegedly]. It was almost like a convention of the revenue in PdL that week if the scuttlebutt is to be believed.
http://rmhh.co.uk/occup/w.html
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10