tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post6916427220958069385..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: "Making a Murderer" - part 4: red herringsDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-83497049156798956632016-07-16T22:58:32.759-04:002016-07-16T22:58:32.759-04:00If you think you know something about the Ramsey c...If you think you know something about the Ramsey case, I'll be happy to read anything you'd like to send me. If you prefer privacy you can email me at: doktorgosh@live.com<br />DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-3745386663684747922016-07-16T21:01:07.855-04:002016-07-16T21:01:07.855-04:00I have made numerous comments on earlier blogs. I ...I have made numerous comments on earlier blogs. I have even made contact with the boulder police over the internet a short time after the murder. I was misunderstood and discouraged by the way they interpreted my Email. But most of all I was concerned for my safety and my young daughters. So I just didn't try to talk anymore about it. I couldn't take a chance that the police would again misunderstand me and try and name me as a possible suspect, or put my daughter and I in danger. I would be grateful to share my story, in person, with Boulder Police. Then they could differentiate fact or theory and I can finally put this life changing experience behind me, because what I know is very real to me, I have lived in fear for so many years,tbis is not a joke. I am a brutally honest person and hate liars and thieves. My email is, shoadley@cox.net please respondShoadley@cox.nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16327976868323113198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-24761645045282617302016-02-08T04:35:27.786-05:002016-02-08T04:35:27.786-05:00I fully agree with your final statement, Doc. Ther...I fully agree with your final statement, Doc. Theresa Halbach is the true victim and she is all too often ignored in discussions about this case.Canucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-48535979462730596242016-02-06T11:12:47.974-05:002016-02-06T11:12:47.974-05:00I am not defending Avery. I am, emphatically, de...I am not defending Avery. I am, emphatically, defending the judicial system and everyone's right to a fair trial, even a cold-blooded killer.<br /><br />Voir dire was not included in the trial transcripts, so there's no way to be sure, but perhaps the defense had exhausted its challenges.<br /><br />What you call "smoke and mirrors" I call the only viable defense available. I have no trouble viewing it with a jaundiced eye, but that does not change my perspective on the improprieties of the trial.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-62436470790350287572016-02-06T10:52:38.105-05:002016-02-06T10:52:38.105-05:00I'm surprised to see such a response from some...I'm surprised to see such a response from someone claiming to be conversant with the legal process. All jurors are routinely reviewed by the defense and any would have been excused if Avery's lawyers thought they might be biased.<br /><br />It astonishes me that someone as obviously intelligent and knowledgeable as you is unable to see through the smoke and mirrors emitted by Avery's legal team. You claim to be convinced of his guilt, yet you neverthless defend him. My oh my. This is a cold blooded killer and you want to see him given another trial, in which he could be released to commit more horrendous crimes?DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-57827982177682147352016-02-06T10:19:37.841-05:002016-02-06T10:19:37.841-05:00Canuck is correct to "set himself above"...Canuck is correct to "set himself above" the judge and jury, as is anyone who cares about the judicial system. The trial was rife with judicial error. The jury pool was hopelessly tainted. Two jurors should have been disqualified. <br /><br />I don't understand how you can defend the LE investigation or the integrity of the trial, but so be it. I take heart from the fact that, so far as I can tell, you have only two supporters, and their arguments are as emotionally based and shrill as Nancy Grace's and your own. <br />CC Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-69487571229686999982016-02-06T09:27:55.499-05:002016-02-06T09:27:55.499-05:00"I know police are human and make mistakes bu..."I know police are human and make mistakes but, with all the blatant procedural errors I see here, Avery should not have been convicted."<br /><br />Really? So you see yourself as standing above the judge and above the jury and above the appeals court. Your knowledge of this case, based on an extremely biased TV series and various "facts" garnered from the Internet, gives you some special insight not afforded the judge or jury in this case? <br /><br />There are always going to be procedural errors and mixups in any case and a smart defense lawyer is paid to ferret them out. That's what Avery's lawyers did here and their results were amplified by a shamelessly biased "documentary." All these issues came up in the trial and were dealt with by the judge and the appeals court. And it's not at all clear from what you might have seen in the film or on the Internet, exactly what happened. From what I've read, the people doing the search initially had permission from the Avery family to search their lot. So as far as I can tell, no warrant was needed. <br /><br />As far as Dassey is concerned, I agree he got a raw deal. But as I see it that was his lawyer's fault for not urging him to testify against his uncle. In any case he certainly does not deserve life in prison as he was clearly being manipulated by someone more clever, older and stronger than he, and also far more dangerous. Hopefully he'll win an appeal and get time served, which seems fair.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-84529182102405939002016-02-06T09:12:21.636-05:002016-02-06T09:12:21.636-05:00Thanks, Canuck. Everything you say regarding viola...Thanks, Canuck. Everything you say regarding violations of proper procedure makes sense. There are certainly some instances in this case where it does look like proper procedures were violated. The folks from the Manitowoc sheriff's office should not have been involved in any aspect of this case, that's for sure.<br /><br />It is not at all certain that evidence was planted, however -- that's another matter entirely. If there were good reason to assume evidence was planted, then Avery's lawyers would probably have sued -- but clearly they did not, because they had no case. And as I've said before, there are far more effective ways to plant evidence if that's what you are up to.<br /><br />My own take on procedural questions is that anyone in LE who violates some law or rule should be held personally accountable for the violation -- BUT their behavior should have no bearing on the outcome of the trial. In other words, the jury should be trusted to come to a just decision regardless of such violations, so long as the violations are made clear to them, so they can properly assess the consequences for themselves. LE who violate such rules can and should be prosecuted, but that should have no bearing on the case at hand.<br /><br />Of course, our system doesn't work that way, but don't forget: the jury had its say; the appeals court had its say. All these issues were brought out in the trial and appeal and they were not sufficient to help Avery's case. End of story.<br /><br />We are not on any jury. We are not constrained by any procedural rules. So when it comes to arguing as to whether or not Avery got a raw deal as far as I'm concerned he did not and deserves the punishment he got. The one who got the raw deal was his victim.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-52454613379504893582016-02-06T04:25:14.467-05:002016-02-06T04:25:14.467-05:00Pt. 2
I know police are human and make mistakes b...Pt. 2<br /><br />I know police are human and make mistakes but, with all the blatant procedural errors I see here, Avery should not have been convicted. Most of the search and what was uncovered at the Avery compound should have been thrown out because of the invalid warrant.<br /><br />If the young men had told the truth about finding the car, perhaps that evidence would have been thrown out as well.<br /><br />If these standards and practices are in place for a reason, they need to be abided by as closely as possible. Much of this investigation was not on the up and up. Shoddy police work (and vindictiveness) wrongfully convicted Avery the first time. Police procedure should have been doubly adhered to the second time around...but it wasn't.<br /><br />The way I see it, if following proper procedure isn't important for one of us, it isn't important for any of us. There was a case in Canada several years ago involving an Iranian-Canadian woman who was tortured and murdered in police custody after being arrested in Iran. The Canadian gov't tried to negotiate her release but to no avail. Canadian representatives wanted to attend her trial, but were denied. The Iranian gov't refused to recognize her Canadian citizenship.<br /><br />Some people here argued that, while her death was tragic, she wasn't really a Canadian and so we needn't worry about it. I disagreed. She was granted Canadian citizenship and issued a Canadian passport. I argued that she was indeed Canadian and if that status could be so easily disregarded in her case, then none of us should feel safe, even if we were born in Canada. I argued that her citizenship status had to mean something, despite the fact that they stripped her of it so readily.<br /><br />It's the same in the Avery case. If authorities can ignore the most basic procedures and lie to the public but still obtain a conviction for one man, then they can do it for anyone. No one should feel safe.<br /><br />People can come back and say that they believe Avery is guilty and his incarceration DOES make them feel safe, and that's fine. I, too believe he's probably guilty. What I'm saying is the way the conviction is achieved matters. It just has to. Otherwise, what's the point of having these standards and procedures at all?<br /><br />Imagine if you were being accused of a crime, and you knew the police investigating you were playing fast and loose with proper police procedures. I'm quite sure you would believe that the way your case came together mattered greatly.<br /><br />Sorry, I know this is already long, but I also wanted to quickly mention Dassey. I saw an ex-FBI profiler talking about the case online a few days ago. He studied Dassey's confessions closely and said there is only one time in all the hours of interrogation where Dassey speaks clearly, fluidly, and of his own volition. He maintained that Dassey said during this time that he had helped his uncle move the body after Theresa was already dead. (I believe he said Avery called and asked him to come over to help with something.) The profiler said, based on what he knows about guilty people and the way they talk in interrogations, this was the only part of Dassey's story that even remotely rang true to him. I certainly don't believe Dassey should be serving a life sentence for this. It's kind of equivalent to what Jay Wilds admitted to doing in the Adnan Syed case. And you'll remember that Wilds never spent a day in prison (despite the fact that the fine details of his story changed from telling to telling).<br /><br />Thanks.Canucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-79700172012057153932016-02-06T04:23:41.264-05:002016-02-06T04:23:41.264-05:00Sorry for the delay, CC, but I just saw your reque...Sorry for the delay, CC, but I just saw your request for more information a couple days ago and it took me some time to get all this down. I'll try to elaborate further, but the crux of my problem with the case is the lack of procedural standards. Even though I find the phone call evidence quite damning against Avery, I very much believe that standards and proper procedures were disregarded in this case.<br /><br />I believe:<br /><br />1. Theresa's brother and ex-boyfriend found her car while trespassing on the Avery compound and then lied about it. That's why they specifically gave the woman who found the car a camera and told her to go to the salvage yard and not to touch anything. Of all the searchers taking part, the woman was the only one issued a camera. Her story about god leading her to the car in five minutes was bizarre.<br /><br />2. Officer Colburn found Theresa's car while she was still a missing person, phoned in her license plate to HQ, and then lied about it on the stand.<br /><br />3. The lab technician ignored proper procedure in her DNA tests. Wait, I don't have to just believe this one. The lab tech testified to that fact while on the stand.<br /><br />4. The police did not obtain proper/sufficient warrants for the search of the Avery compound. How one warrant turned into a free for all to keep a property hostage for eight days is beyond me. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I'm pretty sure warrants have to cover specific areas for a specific time frame. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, CC.<br /><br />5. The key was planted -- and planted by Lenz for that matter. This officer should never have been allowed to set foot on the Avery property. The MCSD lied when they assured the public they were only there to provide equipment needed. And the police maintaining that the key fell out from behind a cabinet and somehow managed to fall underneath a slipper is just silly. If they had just followed police procedure and protocol and actually done what they assured the public they would do, Lenz would never have been granted access, the key could have been discovered by a legitimate officer (if it was actually there), and all this speculation could have been avoided. <br /><br />6. Prosecutor Ken Kratz ignored his ethical duty when he gave the public that twisted account of Theresa's murder, and tainted the jury pool as a result. (The case should have been tried in a different county, far from Manitowoc.)<br /><br />7. The juror who was related to one of the MCSD's officers should never have been allowed to pass judgement. Another juror was also reported to be related to a county employee. These two were likely biased against Avery and should have been dismissed from serving on the jury.<br /><br />8. The police denied Avery his right to consult an attorney by hiding him in the days after his arrest. First they said they didn't know where he was but, upon realizing how ridiculous that sounded, the sheriff quickly reversed himself and said he DID know where Avery was, but they weren't allowing him access to an attorney at that time. They denied Avery his Miranda rights.<br /><br />I know it may sound strange that I would profess my belief in Avery's probable guilt while also saying he shouldn't have been convicted (or, at minimum, should get a new trial) but, as I said earlier, my issue is with standards and proper police procedures. These things are there to protect the integrity of the police force, and also to protect people accused of crimes.Canucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-85611687964689822132016-02-06T02:31:45.378-05:002016-02-06T02:31:45.378-05:00I see no evidence of anyone asking his attorney (s...I see no evidence of anyone asking his attorney (s) to lie for him. SA maintained his innocence. Brendan changed his story. Lawyers can only proceed based on information provided. We are not, thankfully, required to be psychics.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-10723297231591696342016-02-06T02:26:56.630-05:002016-02-06T02:26:56.630-05:00TH didn't live at home; remember the roommate?...TH didn't live at home; remember the roommate? Her brother, Mike, went to her place the night she disappeared, the night he and the boyfriend and roommate (or some combination thereof) accessed her voicemail - and potentially erased messages, as the Cingular rep testified someone did. One of those uninvestigated gents could have helpfully given LE her spare key. <br /><br />Gravity being what it is, I'm going with Newton on the nightstand. If LE replaced objects on its surface before photographing the key in situ they're committing yet another breach of proper procedure.<br />CC<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-42704848924562633362016-02-06T02:15:28.956-05:002016-02-06T02:15:28.956-05:00You're referring to subornation of perjury, of...You're referring to subornation of perjury, of which Strang and Buting were not guilty, as they presented no false testimony, a different issue Their client told them he was framed, that's the case they were obligated to present, as vigorously as possible, regardless of their personal beliefs as to innocence.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-912256883751324782016-02-05T23:45:19.082-05:002016-02-05T23:45:19.082-05:00CC: "It wasn't removed from a keyring. It...CC: "It wasn't removed from a keyring. It was a valet key, on a lanyard given Teresa by her mother. Women don't carry their spare key in their purse - that would make as much sense as you carrying yours in a separate pants pocket."<br /><br />Actually I do just that. In the past I've accidentally locked myself out(my wife did the same thing once also), so I always keep a spare handy. Teresa probably did the same. Or are you saying the police somehow persuaded her mother to give them the key so they could plant it? Now she's in on it as well?<br /><br />As far as the condition of the table, I'm sorry but it's very easy to draw assumptions from a photo. We have no way of knowing what happened after the key was discovered. Nor should we assume we know exactly what happened when the key fell from it. It's very easy to close one's eyes and imagine what happened and from my experience it's even more easy to get it wrong. DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-19009175345291108222016-02-05T23:31:00.270-05:002016-02-05T23:31:00.270-05:00As I understand it, he would have invoked his Fift...As I understand it, he would have invoked his Fifth amendment rights and thus could not be forced to testify. <br /><br />More important, however, is the fact that Dassey was a loose canon. His interviews are full of contradictions and there's no telling what he'd say in court if brought to the witness stand. Leaving him out of it was the best strategy, especially because there was so much other evidence of Avery's guilt.<br /><br />The more I read from the transcripts, the more Dassey fascinates me. I don't buy the "false confession" meme for one instant, not in this case. But his testimony certainly presented a challenge for the investigators. At time it almost seems as though they are the fools, and he's just playing them. I have a feeling that much of what he says and doesn't say is due to careful prompting from Avery and the family.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-53020222223057087672016-02-05T23:24:08.423-05:002016-02-05T23:24:08.423-05:00Your client cannot expect you to lie for him in co...Your client cannot expect you to lie for him in court. You work for your client, you are not his slave.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-45050359057555159442016-02-05T23:21:44.129-05:002016-02-05T23:21:44.129-05:00"LE did not investigate anyone other than SA...."LE did not investigate anyone other than SA."<br /><br />Yes, because all the evidence pointed to him and no one else. <br /><br />And just because cops have confessed to planting evidence (as did Mark Fuhrman), does NOT entitle anyone to assume evidence was planted in the Avery case. In fact one of the reasons I feel so sure of Avery's guilt is the fact that no blood or DNA of the victim was found in or around the bed. Any cop intent on planting evidence would have been a fool not to plant such evidence where it would have the greatest impact. <br /><br />DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-67112831357997018972016-02-05T23:13:16.333-05:002016-02-05T23:13:16.333-05:00Not every lawyer would agree:
From the website no...Not every lawyer would agree:<br /><br />From the website nolo.com (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/i-told-lawyer-i-m-planning-telling-lie-the-stand-what-happen.html):<br /><br />Criminal defense attorneys have a duty to zealously represent their clients and guard their confidences. However, they also have a duty to the court not to present evidence that they know is false, fraudulent, or perjured, whether it’s coming from the defendant or a witness whom the lawyer knows intends to lie. A lawyer who knowingly uses or presents perjured testimony risks serious consequences. Under the profession’s code of ethics (the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association), doing so subjects the lawyer to discipline—and quite possibly, disbarment.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-26497937013273720422016-02-05T18:02:46.789-05:002016-02-05T18:02:46.789-05:00Here's another question for you, Doc. Why, if...Here's another question for you, Doc. Why, if Brendan's "confessions" were so persuasive and so untainted, didn't the prosecutor put him on the stand in Avery's trial? <br /><br />I think his failure to do so is what persuaded Barb Janda that her son's defense would be best served by alleging coercion and recantation, not some grand scheme on the part of Buting and Strang.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-20092400087422295742016-02-05T17:33:45.141-05:002016-02-05T17:33:45.141-05:00It wasn't removed from a keyring. It was a va...It wasn't removed from a keyring. It was a valet key, on a lanyard given Teresa by her mother. Women don't carry their spare key in their purse - that would make as much sense as you carrying yours in a separate pants pocket. So somehow SA got his hands on this spare key attached to a bulky lanyard, probably kept in her home, and jammed the whole thing into a nook or crevice in that nightstand. And you'd have us believe it just fell out when Lenk and Sergeant Colborn shook the thing - DESPITE the fact that the photo of the found key shows a remote control, spare change and other objects undisturbed on top of said nightstand. Not buying it, Doc. <br />CC<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-59803381450090812122016-02-05T17:20:24.310-05:002016-02-05T17:20:24.310-05:00The Bar Code and Standard of Ethics in my state ma...The Bar Code and Standard of Ethics in my state make no such provision. Your argument is ridiculous on its face. Attorneys knowingly represent clients they know are guilty as a matter of course; in fact, they are ethically bound to do so, and to do so by whatever means available. <br /><br />I thought we had a deal? You don't attempt to practice law, I don't screw around with iambic pentameter.<br />CCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-74934539343685859402016-02-05T17:02:37.778-05:002016-02-05T17:02:37.778-05:00Not so. Once it became clear he was guilty as Hell...Not so. Once it became clear he was guilty as Hell, then, if he nevertheless refused to take a plea, the proper thing for an ethical lawyer to do would be retire from the case altogether. Especially if the only alternative would be to go after the authorities investigating the case and pretend your client is some sort of victim of "the system." These guys were not stupid, his guilt was obvious to anyone familiar with the evidence. You think they actually believed someone from the sheriff's office would go so far as to burn a corpse and then carry the remains to the Averys' property and dump it right in front of the guy's trailer? Or drive the victim's car onto the Avery lot?<br /><br />They knew. They had to know. And yet they chose to ignore the obvious and pursue some sort of paranoid crusade against "law enforcement." If they had any sort of conscience they have withdrawn from the case as soon as Avery refused to consider a plea bargain.<br /><br />DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-68461704357012654412016-02-05T16:50:09.627-05:002016-02-05T16:50:09.627-05:00I have in fact been doing more reading on this cas...I have in fact been doing more reading on this case, and as a result am able to respond to your questions, CC.<br /><br />DNA often doesn't show up, it's far from automatic, just like fingerprints. Recall that, according to Kolar, JR's DNA was not found on JonBenet's garments, though Patsy's and Burke's was. How could that be, since John carried her into the house after the party, and retrieved her body from the basement? You'd assume his DNA would have been all over her, but it wasn't. Why? I have no idea, but it's obviously not a sure thing.<br /><br />Also, as I understand from my readings on the Avery case, old DNA is often covered over by a fresh layer, and cannot be retrieved. Doesn't mean her DNA wasn't there or was removed, it's just been obliterated by his. And by the way, the presence of his DNA on that key is beside the point. What's important is that it was found in his bedroom.<br /><br />The key that was found was apparently a spare key -- probably retrieved from her purse. But even if it had originally been on a ring with other keys, it's certainly possible that Avery removed it from the ring and got rid of the other keys. According to Dassey he'd been planning to crush the car and would have needed the key to do that.<br /><br />From what I've been reading, the first few searches were directed at specific targets in the room, looking for specific things, such as blood evidence or DNA. It was only the last two or three that involved the entire room. Apparently Avery had jammed the key into the woodwork of the little table, hoping it would not be found and it was only when the table was shaken that it popped out.<br /><br />Could it have been planted? Technically yes, but as I see it, if the intention had been to plant evidence the best time to do it would have been right away, not after six searches. And why not plant her blood and DNA all over the bedroom if the intention had been to set him up? <br /><br />Also, according to Dassey's most recent interrogation, in which he provided the most detail, she was not stabbed at all in the bedroom, but in the garage. Dassey eventually denied slitting her throat, but claimed he stabbed her in the stomache. That last interview is one of the most fascinating documents of its kind I've ever seen, by the way. I'm tempted to do a blog post on it. If you're interested in contributing a post of your own on this topic, let me know.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-44212182286436850282016-02-05T14:48:12.799-05:002016-02-05T14:48:12.799-05:00CCCCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-4508618298732814742016-02-05T14:47:06.563-05:002016-02-05T14:47:06.563-05:00And before pontificating further on the sanctity o...And before pontificating further on the sanctity of LE, please read this linked article. You're being naive if you don't think cops routinely plant evidence and falsify testimony. It's become endemic to their culture.<br /><br />http://thefreepressthoughtproject.com/officer-reveals-planting-evidence-lying-part-of-game/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com