Author Topic: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder  (Read 378 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

A few people here have commented on this case.

The docudrama as well as Avery's current lawyer grossly distort the facts and evidence so I decided to summarize the case against Avery in case anyone is interested.

Halbach, the victim, was a photographer who worked for Auto-Trader magazine.


1) The evidence proves Avery decided to list his sister's van with Auto-Trader in order to lure Halbach there.  Barb (his sister) didn't want to sell the van period let alone through AT. He lied about Barb asking him to help her sell it. He decided to list it against her will solely to have an excuse to get Halbach to come out.  He had zero reason to list the vehicle against her will other than to get Halbach there.  He didn't lure her there just to look at her for 5 minutes he either intended to rape and kill her or to try to get her into bed willingly.  In order to try to conceal that the appointment was made just to lure her there he lied to police saying his sister asked him to list it for her.
 
According to some Avery apologists he had already listed 5 vehicles of his own and couldn't list anymore the rest of the year because you need a dealer license to sell more than 5 a year so this is why they claim he didn't list it in his name.  That would be a reason why he couldn't use one of his own vehicles to lure her there.

2) Avery arranged the visit by pretending to be his sister.  He said he was B Janda and provided her address and phone number. He did this either so police would not know he arranged it or so Halbach would not know he arranged it and not know she would be coming to meet him.  Auto Trader told him that they usually don't do same day visits so were not sure if she could make it or not and said if she could not make it that day then they would schedule it for the next week.  Even if he already was at his limit he could have told AT though the vehicle was not his that he was the one the photographer had to collect the money and ad from so should call his number to set up the appointment.  Indeed his landline number was provided to AT for the prior Tom Janda appointment since Avery was setting it up. That appointment the Jandas actually decided on their own to sell a vehicle it wasn't forced by Avery. 

3) He went to work for a couple of hours then told his brothers he was leaving work early because of the Auto Trader appointment.  He knew Halbach would phone his sister to confirm whether the appointment would be that day or the next week because he provided her number instead of his own.  He intentionally provided her unmanned phone to conceal his role.  She ended up calling Barb  and leaving a message. He had Halbach's number but chose to call AT a second time pretending to be Barb instead of Halbach to find out if Halbach would be able to make the appointment that day. Auto Trader told him yes but were not sure of what time.  He knew from experience it was usually between noon and 2.

4) Since he didn't give his own name and address he had to alternate between sitting outside waiting for her and watching out his window for her like a dog to make sure he didn't miss her.  If he failed to see her she would take the photos, knock on Barb's door and either leave or call Barb's number then leave and he would have planned everything for naught.

5) First she drove to Schmitz.  She was there between 1:30 and 1:45 then drove to Zipperer.  On the way to Zipperer (1:52pm) someone called but she let it go to voicemail.  The houses on Zipperer's block were not in consecutive numbers they jumped.  Rather than to walk to all 10 houses to check the numbers she called Zipperer at 2:12 to ask for a description of the house.  No one answered so she said she was in their neighborhood looking for their house but having trouble finding it but would be there in a few minutes. Then she called her voice mail to listen to the voicemail that had been left at 1:52.  Then she continued to look for Zipperer and found the house.  Mrs Zipperer was outside so not sure of the exact time she just knew it was between 2 and 2:30. 

6) By 2:24 Avery was really antsy and wondering what was going on and in the words of his lawyers naturally anxious and thus he called Halbach's cell phone to find out if she was still coming. He used *67 so that she would not know it was him calling and so it would not show up on her phone bill that he called her.  She didn't answer.

7) By 2:27 she had already left Zipperer and was on her way to the Janda appointment. Dawn called her and she answered. Dawn asked her if she had been able to make the Janda appointment.  Halbach told Dawn that she was on her way there now and added that the Jandas are basically the Avery's meaning relatives. Dawn knew she didn't like meeting the Averys which is why she said it.

8) At 2:35 Avery called her again but hung up before the call even connected to her carrier. Presumably he saw her arriving and that is why he hung up. He called out to her to come to his trailer to be paid when she was done and went inside.

9) The evidence proves he lied to police about her not going inside his trailer.  He told numerous different stories to police the last of which was that he walked out to meet her by the van and handed the ad and money to her as they walked to her vehicle and then he walked back to his trailer to put the magazine inside and walked back out to ask her to photograph another vehicle for him but she was already at the corner turning left onto 147.  If this were actually true then Bobby (his nephew who lived next door) would have seen him with her.  Bobby said after she finished taking photos he saw her walking to Avery's trailer. Bobby also said that when he left around 3PM she was no longer outdoors but her vehicle was still there. Thus she must have been inside with Avery.  The last time anyone saw her alive was Bobby seeing her walk to Avery's trailer.  If she went to his trailer was paid there and then left after Bobby was gone why did Avery lie?  His first encounter with police he lied saying he only saw her through the window and didn't interact with her.  During is second encounter with police he admitted she came into his trailer. After her vehicle was found that is when he changed his story again and insisted he went to her vehicle to meet her and stuck his hands inside to try to provide an excuse for his pints and DNA being inside.

10) At 2:41 she received a phonecall but didn't answer and it was forwarded to her voicemail and a voicemail was left.  She never listened to this message.  If she actually left his trailer alive and got in her car before driving away she would have listened to the voicemail or would have listened to it very shortly after driving away. She didn't listen to it because she never left alive.

11) Either she rejected his advances and he raped her or he raped her without even trying to seduce her.  Then he killed her. The evidence proves Avery shot her in his garage.  At least one bullet either exited her body or grazed her body leaving her DNA on it. Another bullet either missed, grazed or exited her but failed to leave enough of her DNA on it to get a reading. Analysis of the remains revealed that the victim was shot at least 2 times in the skull.  Two different pieces of skull remains each had a hole that was assessed to be a gunshot wound.

12) There was a stain in the garage which Avery had Brendan help clean up.  Barb admitted Brendan's pants were stained while cleaning Avery's garage on 10/31. While Luminol flouresced the chemicals were sufficient to destroy DNA and inhibit the KM blood test from working. While you can defeat such tests the visual stain still remains.

13) She was then tossed in the cargo area of her vehicle and her blood stained hair transferred blood to the areas her hair touched.

14) He burned her electronic items including her phone in his burn barrel, the charred remains were found by police and tied to the exact model phone and camera that she owned. On 10/31 Robert Fabian spoke to Avery by the fire and told police the smoke smelled like burning plastic which is understandable since the casings of the various items were plastic.

15) Around 4:30m in Fabian's presence, Avery's brother asked if the photographer showed up yet and Avery lied saying no she never showed up.

16) After telling his brother she didn't show up he realized if he told police she didn't show that they would ask why he didn't call Auto Trader to report it. He didn't want to call Auto Trader because he didn't want people to know she was missing before he could dispose of the evidence so he got his phone and called Teresa's number knowing the phone was destroyed already so there was no danger.  He failed to leave a message.

17) He decided to hide her vehicle in the salvage yard because if he drove it far away and then walked back he would be missing a long time and that would be suspicious and if he was seen driving her car or got pulled over driving her car he would be doomed. Crushing it would take time and VINs of crushed vehicles are reported by the recyclers so police would find out about it if they sold her scrapped vehicle. He removed her body, removed the plates and cut himself somewhere during the process. He dripped blood in her vehicle from his hand and also there were some blood transfer stains from touching the interior in the vehicle.  He disconnected the battery so that it would not drain much in case he needed to move it in the future and left his DNA on the hood latch.  He locked the vehicle so no one could get inside and find any evidence.  He kept the key in case he would ever need to move it or to get inside to clean it.  The seat was left in a position for a short person of his height to be using it.

18) He hid the key in his bedroom leaving his DNA on the key.

19) He burned the bedding that had been on his bed, her clothing and other evidence in a bonfire along with her body.  Since a human skull is so unique he broke it up and removed the crowns of her teeth since teeth are also unique and in fact so unique they can ID a victim not just establish the victim is human.  He left behind 24 pieces of roots not realizing they could be matched as well. They managed to do a DNA test on some tissue that didn't burn completely. They got readings for 8 loci including the one that determined gender.  The victim was a female.  The other 7 loci matched Halbach.  They also did a mt DNA test that matched Halbach's female line.  They also were able to put a root back together to put it in the jaw fragment from which it was torn from and match such to Halbach's dental xray. They found fragments of human bones from nearly all bones below the neck. Tehy were small but able to be identified as human bones and which bone they had come from.

They also found any of the tiny loose teeth of the zipper from her jeans, the zipper pull, and rivets from her jeans as well as eyelets that appeared to be from a tarp. It is possible her body had been wrapped in a tarp.

20) The fire lasted until after 11 so was of duration to burn her body. The 10 plus tires he burned were more than sufficient to reduce a human body to the state of hers. The metal tire rims had bone melted to them. He moved some items to Barb's burn barrels to keep burning them further and shoveled some bone along with such items thus some bone fragments were found in Barb's burn barrel number 2.

21) Each time police questioned him he gave them different stories.  He also gave his friends and family different stories for instance around 4:30 on 10/31 telling his brother she had not shown up and telling Jodi that Bobby saw Halbach after she was done with him thus implying Bobby could have done it to try to keep her on his side. If questioned by police Avery originally planned to say Halbach had never shown up. He called her phone around 4:35 as support so that he could say he called to find out why she didn't show up but she never answered. He did this for show and hung up before it went to her voicemail.  When he learned that Bobby had seen her this ruined everything. When Colborn arrived on 11/3 Avery made sure he was the one to talk to him not anyone else and claimed he happened to see Halbach from his window but never interacted with her and made it appear he wasn't involved int he transaction at all.  CASO learned later that night that Avery made numerous appointments with her and about the towel incident and the next morning decided to send MTSO back for more information and to ask to do a consent search. Avery's mother was with him and lying about not being involved at all in front of her would be bad so this time he admitted he was the one who set up the appointment but lied saying he did so at his sister's request. He admitted he paid her in his trailer but said she was only there a short time. After the vehicle was found and he was a suspect then he changed his story and said she didn't actually come inside his trailer she just came to his door. His final version was that he went to the van to pay her and provide the ad and walked her to her vehicle and that she didn't go anywhere near his trailer. Eventually he knew police found out about his call that he made to her and he had to come up with some excuse for it.  The only excuse he could think up was to say that after he put the magazine in his trailer he remembered he wanted her to photograph another vehicle and went out to ask her but she was already turning onto 147 so it was too late. He decided to call her to see if she would return but she didn't answer.  He thought this was clever because it made it appear she left alive. He didn't remember what time he called her and thus didn't realize how bad this was. If she left a little after 3 it makes no sense to wait until 4:30 to call her to ask her if she could return.  Moreover, if she didn't answer he should have left a message asking her it she could return or to call him.  Instead he left no message and made no subsequent effort of any kind to try to schedule such appointment.  Auto Trader was not contacted to set up an appointment for a loader to be photographed and he failed to call her again to ask her to do it. At trial the defense tried to push back the time she arrived and left  as late as possible in part so that the distance between when she supposedly left would not be that far off from the time of the 4:30 phone call to make his story of calling to ask her to return to sound more plausible. But the evidence proving she was on her way there at 2:27 and suggesting she arrived at 2:35, was seen by Bobby around 2:45 severely harmed the defense claim that she arrived around 3:40 and left around 4.     

22) Each time police asked him what he did on 10/31 he left out the fires.  On 11/6 police expressly asked about fires and he said the last time he had any fires was a week or more before Halbach's visit. Police had not yet discovered the burned property and remains in the ashes of his fires.  If he were innocent and he would have had no reason to lie.  The only reason he lied is because he knew what was int he ashes of his fires and didn't want police to look.  The chance of them looking for evidence he might have destroyed in the fires would greatly increase if he admitted he had fires after her visit.

This is why Avery was convicted and his conviction was upheld repeatedly on appeal.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 07:56:28 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Samson

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2017, 11:30:42 PM »
I will respond here as well. It is an interesting case.
It is not unreasonable to approach any crime scene by seeking a realistic narrative that includes the suspect. This is quite different to your approach, and shows how we can arrive at different conclusions. I certainly have respect for the level of detail you go to, but I need time to study your material first.
As I have pointed out my current primary interest is in the Lundy case in New Zealand where there is startling and complete proof of innocence, yet 94% of New Zealanders consider him guilty. Theoretically this is a disastrous starting point in comparison to Bamber or Avery, who have fan clubs.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2017, 03:26:57 AM »
I will respond here as well. It is an interesting case.
It is not unreasonable to approach any crime scene by seeking a realistic narrative that includes the suspect. This is quite different to your approach, and shows how we can arrive at different conclusions. I certainly have respect for the level of detail you go to, but I need time to study your material first.
As I have pointed out my current primary interest is in the Lundy case in New Zealand where there is startling and complete proof of innocence, yet 94% of New Zealanders consider him guilty. Theoretically this is a disastrous starting point in comparison to Bamber or Avery, who have fan clubs.

The starting point should always be the case made against the defendant like I went through.

Then you look to see if the evidence can somehow be defeated but the only way people have come up with is to make up nonsense.

It ended up not really being a very interesting case, most of my time has been spent playing whack-a-mole with dishonest conspiracy theorists.  They mostly post on a site where they ban anyone who doesn't believe Avery is innocent that way they make sure reality doesn't interfere with their nonsense.  So it would be like me reading blue each day (I was banned by Mike) and posting rebuttals here.

On occasion they will venture out of their echo chamber and get their butts kicked but usually they just stay in their echo chamber.  They just sit there each day making up new things from a position of ignorance.

I guess it depends on what you view as interesting.  Some people find stupid things funny and interesting, for instance Zellner repeatedly claimed in her brief that a hound that was given a shoe to sniff and then did various tracking, was tracking Halbach's vehicle because Halbach was inside the vehicle.  It is among the dumbest claims I ever heard. I established how stupid it was to Avery supporters who made the same claim months ago and Zellner adopted that stupid claim.  Fighting claims that are stupid like that ends up being boring not really interesting.

Busting more intelligent lies was more rewarding.  Cases that are less clear cut tend to be more interesting and the Avery case is way to clear cut.  I have my doubts that the appeal will even result in an evidentiary hearing.  Even Jeremy got that so if it doesn't, that tells you just how bad Zellner's claims are.

 



« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 03:21:08 AM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Samson

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2017, 12:32:29 AM »
Does your crime theory survive if the body burning to flesh elimination is unachievable by 11pm?

For example from IA Charlie Wilkes, (also a member here I see) a fellow American, states

I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the main evidence was planted.

I have followed many criminal investigations. I'm not sure if anyone else in this thread grasps the lunacy of this cremation scenario, or the vast divergence between the theory and practice of back yard cremation. It strains credulity far beyond the breaking point, especially given the witness accounts.

If Avery set off a funeral pyre behind his garage, sufficient to reduce a fresh corpse to ash and fragments of bone, the cops probably would have had reports from passing motorists.

They certainly would not have had to squeeze weak and pitiful confirmation out of their mentally deficient witness. That kid would have seen a spectacular fire, he would have been overpowered by heat and the stench of burning flesh, and he would have told the police all about it.

Instead, they asked him repeatedly if he saw body parts, and finally he conceded he saw toes.

Jesus wept.

Beyond that, the key could not possibly have failed to yield some trace of the victim's DNA unless it was scrubbed clean before Avery's DNA was transferred onto it. The bullet fragment could not possibly be all that was left IF in fact the victim was shot in a cluttered garage, with no blood spatter and no other biological trace to reveal what happened.

This was a staged crime scene. If someone wants to say Avery abducted her, shot her somewhere else, and cremated her body somewhere else, then it at least becomes possible. But he did not do anything remotely like what the police and prosecutor accused him of - dragging her into a building, raping her, murdering her, and burning her body in his fire pit with sundry debris from his yard. It did not happen.


Here you are up against a solid theorist and analyst. There is enough in that post to shoot your theory down in my opinion. I am completely certain, Bamber and Avery are innocent, yet you seem persuaded the contrary. You are rational enough sounding, but ultimately a victim of police corruption. Strange. I did read your introduction to understand your background better.

I watched the Arthur Allan Thomas case unfold in real time. The solicitor general from the day died believing he was guilty, yet evidence planting was proved. Similarly cases that followed were David Tamihere, Teina Pora, David Bain and Mark Lundy. All these guys are innocent but few care. The great exposee is happening in two court cases, August and October. I am convinced Avery will walk if the age of the rationalist can be recovered. What would Richard Dawkins believe on Avery?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 12:35:12 AM by Samson »

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2017, 04:08:20 AM »
Does your crime theory survive if the body burning to flesh elimination is unachievable by 11pm?

The fire was still lit after 11. It would only take a few hours particularly given the number of tires burned, there was actually a whole truckload he burned. In tests they have been able to achieve complete destruction with a single tire in an enclosed area. Though open the considerable number of tires would be more than enough.  Ironically Halbach captured the truck containing around 30 tires that was in his yard in a photo she took on 10/10, her prior visit. It is believed that he was going to attack her that day bu something happened that gave him pause. Maybe someone came home who knows.  He bought the handcuffs and legcuffs right before that visit and downloaded port.  That is the day he answered in a towel. On his computer he downloaded the photo of a penis. People say he was just aroused by it. I don't see signs he was gay I think he did it to leave on his screen hoping Halbach would see it to try to get a reaction out of her.

Those who say the body could not have been destroyed don't have the first damn clue what they are talking about they don't go by science they just go by their gut instincts.   

I think you should read about Pope's experiments.  This only broaches them a little but I think you will find it interesting:

https://www.sott.net/article/185067-Body-burners-The-forensics-of-fire


For example from IA Charlie Wilkes, (also a member here I see) a fellow American, states

I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the main evidence was planted.

I have followed many criminal investigations. I'm not sure if anyone else in this thread grasps the lunacy of this cremation scenario, or the vast divergence between the theory and practice of back yard cremation. It strains credulity far beyond the breaking point, especially given the witness accounts.


If Avery set off a funeral pyre behind his garage, sufficient to reduce a fresh corpse to ash and fragments of bone, the cops probably would have had reports from passing motorists.


This shows amazing ignorance on his part.  His opinion is ridiculous.  The fire was in his backyard with the only thing facing his backyard being the salvage yard and the next door quarry.  What motorists would be driving through a closed salvage yard and rock quarry at night?

His claim that the witness accounts are not credible is nonsense and in fact Avery admitted to the press and admits in his 2017 affidavit that he had a fire burning tires. 

The area marked cremains is where the fire pit was in this image what motorists exactly would see it?

http://i.imgur.com/ucRWsX7.png


They certainly would not have had to squeeze weak and pitiful confirmation out of their mentally deficient witness. That kid would have seen a spectacular fire, he would have been overpowered by heat and the stench of burning flesh, and he would have told the police all about it.

Burning flesh smells like charcoal simply but the smell of the tires would overpower anything. The only people who were around at any point in time when the fire was going aside from Avery and Brendan were Barb Janda, her boyfriend, Blaine Janda and Bobby Janda.  All of them except Bobby noticed the fire. Earl knew the fire happened though he didn't witness it (he went home before the fire was lit) because he witnessed the tire parts being collected from the pit. In addition Robert Fabian saw the fire that was in his burning barrel where he burned Halbach's phone, camera, palm pilot and some zip drives.   

People who don't want to believe Avery is guilty simply make up on their own that it is not believable that he burned her there though the claim someone else burned her elsewhere and then planted her remains is way more incredible.  Have you ever heard of a single case where someone burned a body then planted burned bones to try to frame someone?  It never happened before because it is crazy.  If you want to frame someone you plant an intact body not bones.  Moreover, there is no need to plant bones you can just bury them and you will never be caught.  Planting them is extremely risky.

Beyond that, the key could not possibly have failed to yield some trace of the victim's DNA unless it was scrubbed clean before Avery's DNA was transferred onto it.

This is complete nonsense. It is fiction that we always get out DNA on items we touch.  Moreover touch DNA is easily removed when objects are placed in a pocket or whatever.  This is not a scientific principle it is simply a made up one hence why there was no testimony by any experts to this effect at trial. 

The bullet fragment could not possibly be all that was left IF in fact the victim was shot in a cluttered garage, with no blood spatter and no other biological trace to reveal what happened.

This is more fiction. It is easy to destroy blood and DNA when cleaning up a garage. The only thing is that there will still be a stain on concrete but police won't be able to prove the stain was blood.  Avery cleaned such stain with gas, bleach and other items.   The stain flouresced from Luminol but the attempt to locate DNA in the stain and prove it was blood was futile because of the chemicals used to clean it.

This was a staged crime scene. If someone wants to say Avery abducted her, shot her somewhere else, and cremated her body somewhere else, then it at least becomes possible. But he did not do anything remotely like what the police and prosecutor accused him of - dragging her into a building, raping her, murdering her, and burning her body in his fire pit with sundry debris from his yard. It did not happen.[/i]

This is simply astounding ignorance on his part nothing more.

Here you are up against a solid theorist and analyst. There is enough in that post to shoot your theory down in my opinion. I am completely certain, Bamber and Avery are innocent, yet you seem persuaded the contrary. You are rational enough sounding, but ultimately a victim of police corruption. Strange. I did read your introduction to understand your background better.


It wasn't solid at all his opinion is not supported by evidence it is simply his ignorant opinion nothing more.  Proving items were planted requires proving who did what when and how. Conspiracy theorists have no evidence of that kind at all they just make up one ridiculous thing after the next without any proof.  They also make up their own scientific principles.
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Samson

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2017, 03:40:30 PM »
Kathleen Zellner proved who planted what when and how.
The Australian commissioner proved that Bruce Hutton planted the cartridge case outside Jeanette and Harvey Crewe's window. This did not stop commissioner Mike Bush praising Hutton for his police work at his funeral.
He remains commissioner, this is common place.
"Judge" Willis became state senator after trying to repeatedly execute Damien Echols.

You are in cloud cuckoo land with your crime theories. This seems quite usual, but sad.

Post the photographs that the police took of Steve Avery's burn pit, or explain why you would expect none.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 03:44:30 PM by Samson »

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2017, 04:38:57 PM »
Kathleen Zellner proved who planted what when and how.

No she didn't. She made a bunch of absurd allegations simply she had no proof of any kind.

You are in cloud cuckoo land with your crime theories. This seems quite usual, but sad.

You are projecting everything you claim is wrong and nonsense.


Post the photographs that the police took of Steve Avery's burn pit, or explain why you would expect none.

You mean like this:

http://imgur.com/jo7P4Ax

Take note that the dog chained there kept police from searching it the first few days.  The report of the k9 officer says that her dog wanted to go there but the big dog kept them from going closer.

Yet we are supposed to believe someone went and planted the remains while the dog was chained there?

Here are some more:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/exhibit-burn-pit-chair-frame.jpg

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/exhibit-363.jpg

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Dassey-Exhibit-175.jpg

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Dassey-Exhibit-169.jpg
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Samson

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2017, 05:15:17 PM »
This is nonsense.
Halbach was last seen there yet a dog kept police at bay for days. There were no photographs of the bones, and that firepit is in every way the wrong configuration for a successful cremation over a few hours. You stated 10 tyres, yet only 5 steel belts were recovered. 10 tyres is a ridiculous fuel deficit in 5 hours, the whole thing is not credible.
Surely a remote location as Charlie posits at least preserves a modicum of scientific plausibility.

Now Scipio.
Who would burn a victim close to home like this and expect the enterprise to go unnoticed?
I honestly think you have not thought this through, and the same goes for Bamber's "hare brained scheme".

We dealt with a not incomparable issue in David Wayne Tamihere, a functionally related case going to trial in August.
After killing two tourists the police got him convicted after he was busted for driving their car around.
A stolen car is one thing, but a car registered to two dead people, no. Plausibility of a plan is the key Scipio.

Offline Samson

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2017, 05:49:31 PM »
On the same theme, how could Steve not expect people to come seeking Teresa directly? Since he was so manifestly her last port of call. He should have been caught with the inferno and a few awkward questions about what he was burning.
Ryan Hillegas on the other hand was a different kettle of fish.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2017, 08:26:24 PM »
This is nonsense.
Halbach was last seen there yet a dog kept police at bay for days. There were no photographs of the bones, and that firepit is in every way the wrong configuration for a successful cremation over a few hours. You stated 10 tyres, yet only 5 steel belts were recovered. 10 tyres is a ridiculous fuel deficit in 5 hours, the whole thing is not credible.
Surely a remote location as Charlie posits at least preserves a modicum of scientific plausibility.

Now Scipio.
Who would burn a victim close to home like this and expect the enterprise to go unnoticed?
I honestly think you have not thought this through, and the same goes for Bamber's "hare brained scheme".

We dealt with a not incomparable issue in David Wayne Tamihere, a functionally related case going to trial in August.
After killing two tourists the police got him convicted after he was busted for driving their car around.
A stolen car is one thing, but a car registered to two dead people, no. Plausibility of a plan is the key Scipio.

The only nonsense is coming from you.  According to your nonsense argument Dahmer would not have kept body parts in his fridge since police could find the evidence.  Avery didn't expect police to find the bones and even if they did he didn't expect they could figure out they were human.  He didn't know experts can tell small human fragments by shape.  He thought there would be no way to get DNA and that such was sufficient.


You always turn logic on its head.  The things you say are ridiculous are logical while the things you say are logical are ridiculous.

You have no evidence of any kind to support wild planting claims let alone that someone dug in his pit while the dog was in their face.  There is no reason why someone would take hundreds of pounds of ash in buckets to the burn pit.  In fact there is no way someone outside of Avery's family would even know he had a burn pit.  They most certainly had no way to know he had a fire on 10/31 a all let alone one capable of destroying a human body. 

My claims are not only logical but well supported by evidence while you have no evidence and the most idiotic claims imaginable.  If you want to look so foolish more power to you but don't expect the courts or any rational people to share such insanity.

be able to prove the bones search for her bones in his pit
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Samson

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2017, 12:20:54 AM »
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 court’s final mandate, or of the Supreme Court’s final mandate.” 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

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2017, 03:31:45 AM »
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 court’s final mandate, or of the Supreme Court’s final mandate.” 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.

“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline Samson

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2017, 01:40:07 PM »
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.
Hehehe, now I understand. Authority rules. Dassey has been exonerated, you realise. It is perfectly predictable that tictocmanitowoc farts with the inevitable, but Scipio my good friend, you don't have their motivation, so why would you  be so obstinate? Dassey has been declared innocent!!!

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2017, 03:44:32 PM »
Hehehe, now I understand. Authority rules. Dassey has been exonerated, you realise. It is perfectly predictable that tictocmanitowoc farts with the inevitable, but Scipio my good friend, you don't have their motivation, so why would you  be so obstinate? Dassey has been declared innocent!!!

You are simply demonstrating that you know nothing about law or facts and are always wrong no wonder you ridiculously think Avery and Bamber are innocent.  My 16 year old niece understands these things better than you. 

No he was not declared innocent. The court erroneously held the police used illegal tactics to get him to confess, that the illegal confession was used to convict him and nullified the conviction saying he is either to be retried or released.  That is not a declaration of innocence.  The majority made up new legal principles to declare his confession was illegal though they have no right to do so. The dissent explains in detail how they were not applying clear federal precedent as established by the US Supreme Court but rather making up their own ad hoc rules. Don't be surprised if the 7th Circuit agrees to hear it en banc which would vacate the panel decision and treat it as if it never existed.   
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The Steven Avery (Making a Murderer) conviction for Halbach's murder
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2017, 06:13:28 PM »
The 3 most damning portions of the dissent:

1)

"The majority acknowledges that in Dassey’s case, the investigators “never made the type of explicit and specific promise of leniency that an adult of ordinary intelligence might understand as a promise.” Ante at 83. That’s right. The investigators’ statements were comparable to those permitted in Villalpando and Rutledge. The investigators made vague assurances that honest cooperation would make things easier for Dassey “if this goes to trial”; that “the honest person is the one who’s gonna get a better deal out of everything”; and that honesty is the “only thing that will set you free.” One investigator said at the very beginning of the interview, before Dassey had confessed to anything, that “from what I’m seeing …I’m thinking you’re all right. OK, you don’t have to worry about things.” But the other then cautioned: “We can’t make any promises but we’ll stand behind you no matter what you did.”

At no point did the investigators assure Dassey that he would escape prosecution or receive some other specific benefit if he cooperated or confessed. Cf. Sharp v. Rohling, 793 F.3d 1216, 1235 (10th Cir. 2015) (subject’s will was overborne where detective promised her she would not go to jail if she admitted to her participation in crime); Henry v. Kernan, 197 F.3d 1021, 1027 (9th Cir. 1999) (subject’s will was overborne where officer falsely informed him that what he said “can’t be used against you right now”).2

The majority insists, however, that whether police have made an impermissible false promise of leniency (or of anything else) depends on the subjective perception of the suspect, no matter how distorted or inaccurate his perception might be. Thus, to Dassey—with his borderline IQ and suggestible personality—the investigators’ vague assurances had in the majority’s view the “same effect” as a fraudulent promise. Ante at 83.

The Supreme Court’s “totality of the circumstances” test takes account of the subjective characteristics of the defendant (e.g., his age, health, and education). Yet no Supreme Court case has held that a confession should be deemed involuntary if the subject believed—however improbably or baselessly—that he had been promised a get‐out‐of‐jail‐free card. No case requires the reviewing court to disregard what police actually said (on a video recording, no less) in favor of what the defendant, with the benefit of time, hindsight, and savvy counsel, says he thought the police said. At a minimum, reasonable jurists could disagree whether the abstract assurances by the
investigators here were, in context, false and fraudulent. That alone should defeat any claim for habeas relief.


2)

"Second, the majority suggests that Dassey was at greater risk of being misled by the investigators’ vague moral support because they repeatedly told him that they “already knew” what happened. As the majority construes these statements, Dassey could have believed that—so long as he was honest—nothing bad would happen to him. See ante at 84. The majority cites no case from the Supreme Court or any other court holding that such bluffing by police about what they know could render a confession involuntary. On the contrary, we have recognized that “a lie that relates to the suspect’s connection to the crime is the least likely to render a confession involuntary.” United States v. Ceballos, 302 F.3d 679, 695 (7th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Sturdivant, 796 F.3d 690, 697 (7th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e have repeatedly held that a law‐enforcement agent may actively mislead a defendant in order to obtain a confession, so long as a rational decision remains possible.”) (alteration in original), quoting Conner v. McBride, 375 F.3d 643, 653 (7th Cir.
2004)."

3)

"Third, in concluding that Dassey’s confession was involuntary, the majority effectively departs from a string of our
habeas decisions involving confessions by juveniles who were denied relief despite being subjected to far greater pressures than Dassey was. For instance, in Etherly v. Davis, 619 F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2010), we reversed habeas relief for a petitioner with no prior criminal justice experience who at age fifteen was taken from his home before dawn and interviewed by police several hours later without the consent, let alone the presence, of a
parent or other friendly adult. Like Dassey, Etherly had borderline intellectual abilities; like the investigators here, the police in Etherly assured the juvenile that it would “go better for him in court” if he cooperated. Id. at 658.
In Carter v. Thompson, 690 F.3d 837, 839 (7th Cir. 2012), we denied relief to a habeas petitioner who at age sixteen endured an interrogation lasting fifty‐five hours in total. During gaps in the interrogation, the petitioner slept on a bench, without a pillow, a blanket, or a change of clothes. Id. at 841; see also Murdock v. Dorethy, 846 F.3d 203, 210 (7th Cir. 2017) (denying relief to sixteen‐year‐old who was interrogated over seven‐hour period); Gilbert, 488 F.3d at 784–86 (denying relief to fifteen‐year‐old who was kept from his mother and interrogated over nine‐hour period); Hardaway v. Young, 302 F.3d 757, 766 (7th Cir. 2002) (denying relief to fourteen‐year‐old
who was interviewed over sixteen‐hour period and abandoned for lengthy intervals in interrogation room). The majority describes these cases but makes no real effort to reconcile them with the relief it grants Dassey."

"This was a relatively brief and low‐key interview of a Mirandized subject who was not mistreated or threatened,
whose creature comforts were satisfied, and whose parent consented. If such a gentle interrogation can be treated as unconstitutionally coercive, what should police do the next time an investigation leads to a teenager with some intellectual challenges? Few wrongdoers are eager to own up to crimes as serious as Dassey’s. The Constitution is not offended by such police tactics as encouraging the subject to tell the truth, bluffing about what the police already know, or confronting the subject with what the police know from physical evidence and with the internal contradictions and improbabilities in his story. Today’s decision will make some police investigations
considerably more difficult, with little gained in terms of justice."

« Last Edit: June 23, 2017, 06:15:43 PM by scipio_usmc »
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli