- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Making a Murderer - Part 2
Posted on 10/24/18 at 2:58 pm to brmark70816
Posted on 10/24/18 at 2:58 pm to brmark70816
quote:
Now how is that an illegal interrogation? If that goes to the Supreme court, if changes how "minors" are questioned and thousands of cases are up for review. It was a fair interogation. The cops just broke him. That is their job..
I'm not sure I have a problem with the interrogation either. I don't think you should have to change your tactics just because the kid might be an 80 IQ or whatever he is.
I think one of two things happened:
1) Dassey was actually involved and everything that the prosecutors said happened DID happen.
or
2) Dassey knows that another family member (maybe Scott or Bobby) was responsible for framing Avery as retribution for some of the sick shite that Avery has done (allegedly assaulted a niece, for instance). I could see Dassey getting nervous during the interrogation and panicking about the cops finding out the real truth and (idiotically) incriminate himself by accident.
2
Posted on 10/24/18 at 3:01 pm to brmark70816
quote:
The guy told his cousin and confessed 4 times.
What did he tell his cousin?
What did he say in those confessions that was not fed to him by the interrogators?
quote:
They can't throw them all out.
Wrong. They can throw every single one out.
quote:
The police took him and his mother to a resort. They asked his mother if they could talk to him without her, she agrees. Dassey is 16 (old enough to be considered an adult in many jurisdictions). They advise him of his rights before they begin questioning. They other him food and drink periodically. He is sitting on a plush couch in a temperature controlled room. The cops never threaten, touch or raise their voices.
If I take you out for a nice dinner, ask you if we can talk, bring you food and drinks, then punch you in the face...are you cool with that? No harm, no foul, because I was really nice before I fricked you over?
quote:
It was a fair interogation. The cops just broke him. That is their job..
Several judges have disagreed with you. Dassey was extremely close to being released before some questionable behavior in Wisconsin's legal system.
Posted on 10/24/18 at 3:17 pm to VinegarStrokes
quote:
I'm not sure I have a problem with the interrogation either. I don't think you should have to change your tactics just because the kid might be an 80 IQ or whatever he is.
The problem is technique and results, not necessarily ethical behavior. The goal of the interrogation is to get the truth, not get the information you want or need to hear. There's absolutely some significant doubt as to whether this interrogation led to truth, or simply what the investigators needed to hear.
Posted on 10/24/18 at 3:28 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
There's absolutely some significant doubt as to whether this interrogation led to truth, or simply what the investigators needed to hear.
I don't disagree with this at all. Based on everything I've read and seen though, I think the gist of what really happened is one of the two scenarios I outlined in my previous post.
I'm also an idiot guy on a message board who hasn't reviewed all of the facts.
Posted on 10/24/18 at 4:04 pm to VinegarStrokes
The first scenario is quite literally impossible based on the evidence. There's zero chance that this crime happened how Kratz presented it in his narrative for either trial.
He guessed and he was wrong. The details he goes into and his mannerisms while he talks about everything is also creepy as hell. Even more so, when you consider his history and behavior.
He guessed and he was wrong. The details he goes into and his mannerisms while he talks about everything is also creepy as hell. Even more so, when you consider his history and behavior.
Posted on 10/24/18 at 4:12 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
None of that matters. The time line, version of events or details. The prosecution doesn't have to prove or show any of those. Just that she was murdered and he was the killer. There is tons of evidence and circumstantial details that tie him to the crime. That is all they needed.
Posted on 10/24/18 at 4:48 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The first scenario is quite literally impossible based on the evidence. There's zero chance that this crime happened how Kratz presented it in his narrative for either trial.
Lol...if it was literally impossible then they wouldn't be in jail
Posted on 10/24/18 at 6:32 pm to VinegarStrokes
Only a few episodes into Part 2. Like many I'm not sure he is innocent, but the new investiagtion brings a lot of the initial evidence into question.
Regarding the blood in the vehicle. If I remember correctly from the first season they searched that property several times. At least once was over several days and they had to completely vacate their residence. It's not so far fetched to think they planted his blood or other DNA, which they had previously obtained. The vehicle key was found on the 3rd or 4th search of his house, sketchy to say the least.
In fact it's very likely they found her or some evidence, but knew they didn't have enough for a conviction so they came up with more evidence. Has happened in many other cases so it wouldn't be a first. Probably happens more than you would think but sometimes I'm sure the right guy gets framed so it goes unnoticed.
Regarding the blood in the vehicle. If I remember correctly from the first season they searched that property several times. At least once was over several days and they had to completely vacate their residence. It's not so far fetched to think they planted his blood or other DNA, which they had previously obtained. The vehicle key was found on the 3rd or 4th search of his house, sketchy to say the least.
In fact it's very likely they found her or some evidence, but knew they didn't have enough for a conviction so they came up with more evidence. Has happened in many other cases so it wouldn't be a first. Probably happens more than you would think but sometimes I'm sure the right guy gets framed so it goes unnoticed.
Posted on 10/24/18 at 7:01 pm to brmark70816
quote:
None of that matters.
Of course it matters. It's not required, but it shows that Kratz has no clue what happened. It definitely matters when the things he said are directly contradicted by the evidence. It's called reasonable doubt.
Posted on 10/24/18 at 7:03 pm to VinegarStrokes
quote:
Lol...if it was literally impossible then they wouldn't be in jail
Wrong. All Kratz needed to get was an opinion from 12 people. He got that. He doesn't need to actually prove his narrative or even that Avery did it. He did neither. He just needs to convince the jury, and he did.
Posted on 10/24/18 at 7:13 pm to GoldenSombrero
quote:
I'm sure the right guy gets framed so it goes unnoticed.
This is exactly where I'm at right now. I think Avery probably did it and that he should be a free man. It sucks but that's the way it is. Law enforcement absolutely manufactured some of the evidence again Avery. The other dude convenient ignores that for a reason, because at the end of the day, he knows it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Dassey is even worse. He was convicted solely on his confession, which was completely unreliable and manufactured...again, by law end.
Whether you believe they are guilty or not, they shouldn't be in prison.
Here's Dassey's original attorney, btw.
This post was edited on 10/24/18 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 10/24/18 at 9:17 pm to VinegarStrokes
Just now watching Part 1 and I'm at the Dassey quesitoning.
" I'm detective Jacobs, do you have any weapons on you right now ?"
" Just some stuff to give to my mom like a CD player"
Damn this kid is not bright . Feel bad for him
" I'm detective Jacobs, do you have any weapons on you right now ?"
" Just some stuff to give to my mom like a CD player"
Damn this kid is not bright . Feel bad for him
Posted on 10/24/18 at 11:00 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Here's Dassey's original attorney, btw.
Imagine this, you are Dassey's first lawyer. The guy just confessed to the police. The girl was murdered on his property. He was with the accused killer the majority of the evening. He built and tended the fire that the body was placed. He had told his cousin that he saw the victim that night and burned her remains (she didn't recant until the trial). Given all of that, how would you build your defense?
Posted on 10/24/18 at 11:11 pm to brmark70816
quote:
Given all of that, how would you build your defense?
I don't care.
It's been shown that he didn't represent Dassey as he should have. Now he gets arrested for...yep, being a lowlife scumbag.
Posted on 10/24/18 at 11:41 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Wrong. All Kratz needed to get was an opinion from 12 people. He got that. He doesn't need to actually prove his narrative or even that Avery did it. He did neither. He just needs to convince the jury, and he did.
How am I wrong. I get and agree with pretty much everything you are saying, but if it was "literally impossible", then he wouldn't have been able to convince all 12 (or however many they use in Wisconsin) jurors to convict, AND had it stand up in however many other courts during the appeals process.
I though Avery's two trial lawyers did a good job, but had he had Zellner from the start, he would have most certainly been acquitted. And unfortunately for Dassey, his lawyer was essentially the equivalent of that stuttering doofus in My Cousin Vinny
Posted on 10/25/18 at 5:35 am to VinegarStrokes
quote:
How am I wrong.
You're wrong because you think Kratz's narrative is a requirement for conviction. Things he stated have been proven to be false. It cannot have happened the way he described in the time frame he gave. It's not physically or logically possible. He also happened to give different accounts in each trial. Both of those accounts cannot be true.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 3:51 am to VinegarStrokes
quote:
Lol...if it was literally impossible then they wouldn't be in jail
That's not true at all.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 3:57 am to GoldenSombrero
quote:
It's not so far fetched to think they planted his blood or other DNA, which they had previously obtained.
I didn't realize how sketchy the blood on the dashboard was until they got into it in season 2.
quote:
The vehicle key was found on the 3rd or 4th search of his house, sketchy to say the least.
Anybody who thinks this wasn't planted is naive, and I'm far from a conspiracy theorist.
quote:
In fact it's very likely they found her or some evidence, but knew they didn't have enough for a conviction so they came up with more evidence. Has happened in many other cases so it wouldn't be a first. Probably happens more than you would think but sometimes I'm sure the right guy gets framed so it goes unnoticed.
Some people might think it's okay to frame a guilty man. I do not. That's why I don't think the question of whether Avery did or didn't do it is the important one.
And Brendan Dassey clearly didn't do it. Poor guy needs to be released yesterday.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 3:58 am to MidnightVibe
There are few individuals as hateable as Ken Kratz. Maybe that sheriff from season 1, but it's arguable.
Posted on 10/26/18 at 6:33 am to MidnightVibe
quote:
I didn't realize how sketchy the blood on the dashboard was until they got into it in season 2.
None of the blood is "sketchy". The tests she is doing are conjecture and have already been ruled immaterial. Re-creations are just guides and guesses, but they can't do it correctly because they don't know all of the circumstances. For example, when the guy goes to start the car, the lights are on and he puts the key right in. What if it is dark and he can't see the ignition? There are just tons of variables they can't envision.
quote:
Anybody who thinks this wasn't planted is naive, and I'm far from a conspiracy theorist.
I don't think that it was, but not sure what it would prove. His blood and DNA in the car is more than enough. Why would they need to plant the key if they already "planted" that evidence?
I don't think people understand the time frame involved. Avery had 3 full days to clean, hide, corrupt and destroy evidence. He isn't some master criminal. But that is a lot of time and he knows what they look for.
quote:
And Brendan Dassey clearly didn't do it. Poor guy needs to be released yesterday.
Dassey is involved. He lied to the police and obstructed a murder investigation. He clearly knows facts and the particulars of the crime. Now he made up a lot of other crap to muddy the waters. But he was there and some of the details are only things that the killer or an accomplice would know. He should have cooperated with the police and told the truth from the jump. Now nobody can believe anything he says. Did he get screwed over? Yes, by his family. They turned and twisted him, so that he wouldn't testify against their sweet Stevie. They are the reason he is in prison now. But I don't feel sorry for the guy, he has blood on his hands.
Page 7 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News