tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post2276657644853388828..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: "Making a Murderer" - Part 3DocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-12783375387785329352016-01-23T22:35:27.204-05:002016-01-23T22:35:27.204-05:00There have been many cases of false confessions fo...There have been many cases of false confessions for sure. But this case is very different. First of all, Dassey initially confessed to his cousin, who reported his confession to her school counselor. No sign of coercion there. Second, as we can see on the videos, the detectives are not coercing a confession out of Brendan as is so often the case with false confessions. They barely raise their voices. Nor do they accuse him. It's true that from time to time their questions could be seen as leading questions, and at one point at least they do seem to be prompting him. Most of the time, however, there is no prompting and no leading. He needs to be prodded from time to time as he's clearly reluctant to talk. But when he does talk he very clearly implicates both his uncle and himself. This is more than just a confession, it is an eye witness account.<br /><br />It's important to realize that Dassey was not even a suspect in this crime until he told his story to his cousin. False confessions are drawn from people the police have reason to suspect. No one suspected Dassey until he spoke up.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-86319977422666269232016-01-23T17:26:25.168-05:002016-01-23T17:26:25.168-05:00I remember a true-life-story on TV where the cops ...I remember a true-life-story on TV where the cops kept after the nineteen y/o to "tell the truth" about the girl he raped and killed at the side of the road. Eventually he confessed and went into greater and greater details about the crime and they arrested him etc.<br />It turned out that records showed his family had spent the whole summer in Brazil, and cops had fed him all the intricate details of the crime. The kid was just big and dumb, and bully-bait for the cops. I wish I knew where I could see that interogation video again. Anyone know the case?Franklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082089903646026473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-82849831804549237822016-01-23T17:24:28.434-05:002016-01-23T17:24:28.434-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Franklinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082089903646026473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-77203303971474455262016-01-17T01:20:19.227-05:002016-01-17T01:20:19.227-05:00Well- I have spent over 4 hours on this diversion ...Well- I have spent over 4 hours on this diversion from the Ramsey case.--- Not enough to say anything more than they are both guilty <br /> Got so bogged down in the case I forgot what the reason was that we are looking at it in depth . robertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-65176939833987739542016-01-16T15:56:16.751-05:002016-01-16T15:56:16.751-05:00I don't see that the defense had much to work ...I don't see that the defense had much to work with after the judge prohibited third party culpability, other than a frame. I've never played for that team, so I can't speak with authority, but I agree - it seems it would have been in Avery's best interests to fold after the EDTA and try to cut a deal. Perhaps the client wouldn't permit it? <br /><br />Both sides played to the media. The pre-trial "Children, cover your ears" press conference by the prosecutor was unduly inflammatory, and poisoned the jury pool irreparably. <br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-63402422769182084412016-01-16T15:13:38.899-05:002016-01-16T15:13:38.899-05:00So long as I've got your attention, CC, I have...So long as I've got your attention, CC, I have a question for you as a lawyer. It looks to me as though Avery's lawyers were motivated more by their eagerness to "expose" some sort of police conspiracy than properly defend their client. At some point they must have realized that Avery was guilty as hell and that the jury would see through all the bluster and nail him to the wall. Seems to me as though they were playing more to the media than the jury, to make a case for official corruption, inspired by what happened to Avery on the previous charge. <br /><br />Their one chance to actually prove their theory was with the testing of Avery's blood as found in the car. And that test failed. At that point, they should have realized there was no hope of a "not guilty" verdict, as none of their other allegations were backed by actual evidence, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming, even if we discount Dassey's testimony.<br /><br />As I see it, responsible lawyers would at that point, or even earlier, have advised their client to admit his guilt and cut a deal with the prosecution. As I've already mentioned, if they could get him off with a reduced sentence, the 18 years he'd already spent in prison could have been counted against that, so his sentence would have been reduced even more. Do you agree, or do you think they did the right thing in persisting, against all odds, in claiming their client was being framed and was innocent. The result of their decision was a lifetime sentence with no hope of parole. Was that so difficult to anticipate?DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-37887881180360566212016-01-16T14:48:30.010-05:002016-01-16T14:48:30.010-05:00C'mon your own self, Doc. You know as well as...C'mon your own self, Doc. You know as well as I that prosecutorial overzealousness is a fact, and that "loose practice"by LE is just another term for police misconduct, and that both occur all too often. We don't yet have enough information to judge, but I submit that LE had a $36M motive to play fast and loose with the law.<br /><br />Let's agree to disagree, and see what the transcripts tell us. Personally, I hope you're right. LE in this country doesn't need to be tarnished further.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-1637096394105487492016-01-16T14:24:21.262-05:002016-01-16T14:24:21.262-05:00Oh, sorry. I thought you were referring to the org...Oh, sorry. I thought you were referring to the organization called Anonymous, which has also weighed in on this case, apparently. I really wish people would routinely identify themselves with some sort of moniker because these conversations can get very confusing.<br /><br />Yes, I'm very well aware of that segment of the interview,and yes, it does seem as though they are leading him on. But as I said, that's only one fraction of the interviews and that's an exception. Again, a good defense lawyer looks for anything he can find to blow smoke and produce a foul smelling red herring to fake us off the scent. <br /><br />As far as the legal system is concerned, I agree that there are aspects of this case that could be looked at as examples of loose practice. But I see NO evidence of any conspiracy or any attempt to plant evidence. While there are aspects of the case that might seem suspicious, that's not enough. Just because evidence was found after a delay does not mean it was planted. In fact, as I've already argued, planted evidence is more likely to have been "found" right away.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-52080710295026239022016-01-16T14:13:48.559-05:002016-01-16T14:13:48.559-05:00The policeman wandered around the lot on the first...The policeman wandered around the lot on the first day of the investigation and found something significant that could not be officially reported because a warrant had not yet been issued. If that's what you mean by a "conspiracy" then I suppose it was a conspiracy, yes. I would call it good police work. Do you expect the police to appear on a crime scene wearing blindfolds until a warrant is issued? C'mon CC, you know the drill. Anything a defense lawyer can use to blow smoke is acceptable. You as a lawyer can argue whatever you please. I as a juror have the responsibility to take everything with a grain of salt.<br /><br />As for the key, if they'd decided to plant it they'd have planted it as soon as possible, and made sure to discover it as soon as possible. What was gained by waiting until after seven searches? Same with the bullet, which took even more. As I understand it, someone jiggled the bookcase a bit and the key fell on the floor. To me that makes more sense than some "conspiracy" involving its discovery after seven attempts. DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-38106127809278779042016-01-16T14:01:09.862-05:002016-01-16T14:01:09.862-05:00Anonymous accurately recited the portion of Brenda...Anonymous accurately recited the portion of Brendan's testimony regarding Teresa's head; see above I don't believe he claimed to be an authority on anything. <br /><br />I make no claims whatsoever that a law degree helps me in a review of what little evidence is available. I started my discussion with a comment about potential damage to the legal system. I stand by that, and I can now refer you to articles by law professors who agree. Based on a few years' experience as a prosecutor, I feel LE could have, and should have, done a better job eliciting his stories. <br /><br />Otherwise, my comments are those of a private person, no more or less credentialed than Anonymous, or than you.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-34327072976352010492016-01-16T13:46:49.929-05:002016-01-16T13:46:49.929-05:00Why do you assume he lied? You know what happened ...Why do you assume he lied? You know what happened from some other source? He's on record as confessing the crime to his cousin and incriminating Avery. She is on record as reporting that to a school counselor. He's on record as informing his mother of what he and Avery did. What more do you need? You're claiming he was in on some sort of conspiracy to nail Avery? Why?<br /><br />As for inconsistencies, sure why wouldn't there be? He's obviously under tremendous pressure from his own family to lie about what happened, so why wouldn't we expect him to mislead the interviewers about certain details?<br /><br />This is not the sort of case, as with Amanda Knox, where the subject is berated, intimidated and basically told what to say.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-31013688955283500062016-01-16T13:37:21.697-05:002016-01-16T13:37:21.697-05:00What does Anonymous have to do with anything? They...What does Anonymous have to do with anything? They are some sort of ultimate authority on this case? Can you be more specific? <br /><br />Sorry but I don't see any reason to discount someone's testimony because he is mentally challenged. If you watch the two interviews you'll find a great many details that destroy Avery's defense. Even if you discount 90% of that, there are still things he said that make Avery's involvement clear. Unless you can come up with some reason for Brendan also being "in on it," which I strongly doubt.<br /><br />I don't have a hypothesis about the trailer. But I do accept Brendan's account of what happened and where, as I see no reason for him to lie about that. The lack of blood evidence is another matter. If Steven had prepared this assault in advance, which seems likely, he would certainly have been prepared to deal with the blood. The notion that blood would have been "everywhere" is naive. Every crime is different, there is no blueprint for committing this sort of atrocity.<br /><br />Now is it possible for a lawyer to convince a judge to toss it on the basis of some things that might seem improper? Yes, of course. But that carries no weight with me. Now, CC, you can claim you know more about such things because you're a lawyer -- but I represent a higher authority: the jury. If I were a juror, having reviewed those tapes, I would certainly not agree that they should be discounted. And I see no reason why I should be "protected" from seeing any of that, as though I were some sort of fool who couldn't make a reasoned judgement based on the evidence, however "tainted."DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-65460281912004058082016-01-16T13:29:20.272-05:002016-01-16T13:29:20.272-05:00Sergeant Colborn made that call on 11/3, the day T...Sergeant Colborn made that call on 11/3, the day Teresa was reported missing. The car was not "found" until 11/5. Why the time lapse, if not to set up a plausible find by a disinterested party - though in fact the PI who found the car after 15 minutes on a 40-acre property containing 4,000 vehicles was a Halbach relative. Sorry, Doc, but there was a police conspiracy, at least with regard to the car, and probably with regard to the key. It took seven searches to find that key? I don't think so.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-90336376870685825162016-01-16T13:15:59.212-05:002016-01-16T13:15:59.212-05:00The explanation I've heard that sounds most pl...The explanation I've heard that sounds most plausible is that the cop wandered around the lot for a while and spotted Teresa's vehicle, identifying it by the license plate number. So he called in with that info. That could not be made official, however, because they had not yet obtained a search warrant, so they didn't officially report it and continued denying it for fear of getting their case tossed out on a technicality. Later that day or perhaps the next, Steven got worried and, not realizing the car had already been identified, removed the license plate and hid it elsewhere on the lot.<br /><br />Regardless of how one might explain the cops behavior, I can't see this as part of some conspiracy. If the police brought the vehicle onto the lot themselves, the last thing they'd have wanted to do is report its presence before doing an official search, based on an officially approved warrant. You plant the evidence and then wait for it to be discovered. Conspiracy 101.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-32198417795355089752016-01-16T10:01:21.128-05:002016-01-16T10:01:21.128-05:00I don't see how anyone can view the interviews...I don't see how anyone can view the interviews with Dassey as appropriate or believable, or feel that he was represented by his lawyer properly. I do think it is likely that Avery & Dassey are guilty but I didn't see/read one thing that Dassey said on his own that made it clear he was telling the truth. Why did he make up slitting her throat, cutting her hair, stabbing her in the car, shooting her in the car, the kind of knife used? He lies about things that make little sense for him to lie about - lies that neither help him nor offer the truth. If he can make up those details, it is not beyond possibility that he could have made up similar details. The only thing he seems to say that never changes is that he was at the "bonfire". Suprahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305689975540605007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-6218550162746370042016-01-16T09:07:11.579-05:002016-01-16T09:07:11.579-05:00Agreed. That cop on the stand was utterly speechl...Agreed. That cop on the stand was utterly speechless when asked for an explanation about the license plate. Another sticky wicket for your case theory, Doc.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-41708614582056712532016-01-16T08:46:57.921-05:002016-01-16T08:46:57.921-05:00Why consider Brendan's testimony at all? It w...Why consider Brendan's testimony at all? It was certainly cajoled, if not downright coerced, as ably demonstrated by Anonymous yesterday at 10:49, and he's clearly mentally challenged, which calls the entire thing into question. <br /><br />You're clinging to it because it bolsters your attack in the trailer hypothesis, Doc. In fact, it has no probative value, and a case can be made without it.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-15993607368027738152016-01-16T08:30:20.523-05:002016-01-16T08:30:20.523-05:00How is the police calling in her plates as if he i...How is the police calling in her plates as if he is looking right at them & then not being able to provide any sort of explanation or "memory" of the incident that makes sense much ado about nothing? Of course the filmmakers wanted us to know about this... because it is one of many things the police did that they can't provide a reasonable explanation for... and you can't either.Suprahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305689975540605007noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-14326117723389619432016-01-16T00:57:58.704-05:002016-01-16T00:57:58.704-05:00And I completely agree about his call to his mothe...And I completely agree about his call to his mother. That's the clincher for sure. He admits to being with Steven during the assault. I can't imagine him making up a story like that to tell his mother, I don't care how much he's been manipulated. The mother's reaction is also very convincing. She is genuinely alarmed, as would be expected.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-74412464563055388572016-01-16T00:54:31.684-05:002016-01-16T00:54:31.684-05:00Thanks, bb, for the kind words. Thanks also for yo...Thanks, bb, for the kind words. Thanks also for your very astute take on this case. From some dribs and drabs of information I've been finding online, I understand that you can't just crush a car as is. You first need to remove some things, including, of course, the fuel, which could catch fire or make a huge mess. All that would take time, so it makes more sense just to hide it. And yes, he might have gotten greedy and decided he could make some money by removing valuable parts at a later date.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-58360632976285538802016-01-15T22:35:42.735-05:002016-01-15T22:35:42.735-05:00Doc, thank you for taking the time to delve into y...Doc, thank you for taking the time to delve into yet another murder case. In my earlier post I did not state my opinion of the case. I wanted to see what you thought first, and I must confess I was secretly hoping you would confirm everything I already felt: that Steve Avery is guilty.<br /><br />I cannot take the time now to comment on all the points you have raised, nor do I really feel the need to because I believe you once again spot on in your analysis and I agree totally with what you have said. But I did want to mention a couple things in the documentary that sealed the deal for me.<br /><br />There is an episode where Brendan has been told by the investigators that they are going to tell his mom what he has confessed to. Later, when Brendan is talking to his mom on the phone, he asks if they have talked to her yet and she responds that they have not. She then asks him what they are going to talk to her about and he basically says he is afraid to tell her because she will be mad at him and she asks him why. At his point he says something like, 'because of what we did to that girl." <br /><br />Brendan is the key in this case. If he were indeed innocent and coerced into making up that huge story, he would NOT have made that comment to his mom. He is not a bright young man by any means and I don't think he has the capability of making up a story like that. Also, in that same conversation with his mom, he expresses how disappointed he is that he won't be released from jail in time to see some wrestling mania show on TV. He is clearly very upset about this. Now why on earth would a guy like that make up a story that would land him in jail if he main concern seems to be being at home to watch wrestling? He may not be bright, but he certainly knows right from wrong and he certainly knew if he told that story, he would not be going home anytime soon. In other words, I find it unbelievable that he would make up that story if it weren't really true. I actually think that he may have felt he would be released if he told the truth. And then he could go home.<br /><br />Another point regards the Rav 4 vehicle that was barely hidden under bramble and shrubs. The defense claims that Steve had a vehicle crusher readily available to completely crush the vehicle and, in fact, he had used it just that day or the day before and it was in good working order. They suggest that if he really wanted to hide Teresa's car, he could have crushed it. Steve Avery is a man who made his money off of junk cars, selling any salvageable parts, then crushing them. I believe that is the nature of this type of business. He most likely felt he could pull all the good parts out of her car, then crush the vehicle, and then have perfectly good parts to sell. Why waste a perfectly good vehicle, eh?? He just never figured they would find the vehicle so quickly.<br /><br />bbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-18463160986707427192016-01-15T16:41:47.828-05:002016-01-15T16:41:47.828-05:00You're quoting from the portion of the intervi...You're quoting from the portion of the interview the defense wanted you to see, where they very awkwardly and unnecessarily prompt him. These guys were inept for sure, and their constant patronizing reminders that "it's OK," or "we know what happened" become very irritating. In spite of all that, however, Brendan offers information in other segments of these videos that is not a response to prompting and it becomes very clear that he could only have said what he said if he'd actually been there and participated.<br /><br /><br />One example of many where prompting isn't important would be the part from 32 minutes on in the first video. He mentions them lifting the body onto a "creeper," and confirms that Steven told him he raped her. There is some prompting but it's not significant. For example they offer the term "creeper" when he doesn't know what to call the device she was placed on after they lifted her body from the bed. And they sometimes repeat what he's already told them.<br /><br />It's important to remember that they originally interviewed him on audio tape but thanks to their ineptness the tape was too noisy to use, so they had to go over everything again on the video. That's why they sometimes prompt him, because they already know what he said earlier and want him to repeat it. As a result, due to their general ineptness and impatience, they sometimes prompt him, which was certainly a mistake. But as I've said, important things are revealed in these interviews that are not the result of prompting. Obviously. NOwhere does Brendan say he was not there at the time or that he was told what to say. And as far as I can tell, the tapes are unedited.<br /><br />Whether his statements are consistent with the forensic evidence or not I don't know. But in view of the pressure he was under, not only from the interviewers but his own family, it wouldn't be surprising if there were some inconcistencies.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-15291248165940031982016-01-15T13:49:16.332-05:002016-01-15T13:49:16.332-05:00Well I don't know what interrogation clips you...Well I don't know what interrogation clips you watched.<br /><br />What did he do with her head?<br /><br />Cut her?<br /><br />No what did he do to her head, try to remember?<br /><br />Cut her hair?<br /><br />No what he did he do with the head? This is very important?<br /><br />Punch her maybe?<br /><br />Ok I'm going to just come out and say it, did he shoot her?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />I stand by my view that the interrogation is crap and revealed nothing but I admit I have not watched every second. I would like to see points where he actually generates information completely unassisted that's also consistent with the forensic evidence. <br /><br />And keep in mind I am 99% sure Steven Avery is guilty. But this interrogation is just bad. I suppose it's good from a police generating guilt and incriminating statements point of view, but in terms of generating truthful information it doesn't seem to accomplish that at all. If the interrogation was the only piece of evidence they had, and had nothing else, I think the prosecution would be in trouble. But that wasn't the case obviously. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-7424251339965664812016-01-15T10:45:24.461-05:002016-01-15T10:45:24.461-05:00Yes, I think it possible Avery just assumed they w...Yes, I think it possible Avery just assumed they wouldn't find her car among the hundreds of others on that lot. And possibly didn't realize the charred remains could be identified. Driving the car off the property to some other location would have been very risky, as would moving the charred remains.<br /><br />It's also possible he'd convinced himself that his previous conviction made him invulnerable, since he could always accuse the police of trying to set him up -- which as we know, he did.<br /><br />I don't know what to think of that earlier conviction. I don't think the other guy looks much like Avery at all, but the woman might have just gotten confused.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-84144276236692161562016-01-15T05:17:28.599-05:002016-01-15T05:17:28.599-05:00I havn't watched the programme I've only r...I havn't watched the programme I've only read about it. Although it is thought the nephew was coerced and was somewhat retarded, are we not giving too much credit to this and the fact that Avery was considered to be of lower than average intelligence. It's possible that they just didn't think anything out about the car or bones being discovered in a messy salvage yard. We're not looking at a JR here are we. As of the first victim of attack, although Penny wasn't shown a pic of Gregory, she did pick Avery from a line up. Seems like she was convinced Avery did it, then when told DNA doesn't lie, she was confused. Now she hears of second attack she is even more confused. After her apology to him, before the second crime, he asked Penny to buy him a house. Then came the civil suit.evejnoreply@blogger.com