Agreed. In a way it reminds me of the Leonard Peltier case, where FBI agents were shot and killed on the Pine Ridge reservation years ago. Everything I've ever heard about it says that Peltier didn't get a fair trial, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Being "Innocent" and "Not Guilty" are two different things, legally speaking. Peltier, as well as Avery, deserve new, fair trials. And something tells me neither one is ever going to get one.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. -- Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot)
ac084c (01-18-2016)
I don't like to sound egotistical, but every time I stepped up to the plate with a bat in my hands, I couldn't help but feel sorry for the pitcher.
-Rogers Hornsby
I've spent a lot of time this past year reading up on wrongful convictions. I almost didn't watch this because I thought it was just going to make me angry.....which it did. I understand Steve Avery's case is so intriguing because of his previous exoneration, but there are a lot worse cases out there as far as people getting convicted on utter nonsense. I'm astonished at how juries can convict so easily. To me, that's the most scary thing of all. I think the jury system is broken.
I know the West Memphis 3 was long time ago, but that one still blows my mind. The Central Park 5 and Michael Morton case were equally egregious, and there was no confession with Morton. And Michael Morton had to fight for years to get the DNA tested and they still wanted to fight after the test. The prosecutors in that case should be in jail (one was actually convicted of a misdemeanor related to the case).
For a more recent one, go google Floyd Bledsoe who was released from prison back in December after being in for 16 years. You will not believe how he was actually convicted. Perhaps the worst case I've ever read was Juan Rivera in Illinois. What happened to him may the worst I've ever seen (hint: there was police planting blood evidence).
http://www.innocenceproject.org/case...nt/juan-rivera
I used to believe (in total ignorance) that these things were rare. They are definitely not rare. They're way too common. How they happen in the first place is bad enough, but the worst part about it, IMO, is how stringently prosecutors fight to keep them in prison when it becomes fairly clear they shouldn't be there. That's the part I can't understand. They fight every step of the way to find the real truth just so they don't have to admit they may have made a mistake.
One particular case in Baltimore is especially awful, Sabein Burgess, who was freed 2 years ago. In that case the police didn't share the report of the 6 year old son who told police it was not Burgess (the victim's bf) but 2 men who came to the door and ordered her to the basement. Burgess came to the house from the store found the mother shot and dying and had the neighbor call 911 while he tried to help the mom. He was convicted on faulty forensics of gun shot residue, that they lied about in court. The son later came out and said Burgess didn't do it and said he told the police as much, but police didn't disclose that to the defense.
Here's the kicker. The real killer was arrested on a different murder charge and 2 years after the Burgess conviction, wrote several letters confessing to the one Burgess was accused of (this was 1998). Detectives finally interviewed him and dismissed the story because they said it didn't include details the killer would know.......except the letter said exactly the weapon that was used, where the wounds were, the correct number of shots fired, and a description of the safe they were trying to get into and the fact that it was on a 2nd floor bedroom, and personal papers they also stole. And later they found evidence that these same officers actually suspected this guy was involved in the murder before they arrested Burgess. But rather than admit mistake, they let Burgess sit in jail for another 16 years. How they sleep at night, I'll never know.
So why do I share this last one? Because that same detective was one of the 2 who investigated the now famous Hae Min Lee murder that resulted in the conviction of Adnan Syed, the focus of the Serial Podcast season 1, whose case has been reopened and who may also be exonerated very soon. This same detective was also the lead detective on the Ezra Madel conviction, who was exonerated in 2013 after 11 years in prison. That was a case of them pressuring 2 people who did not see the murder to testify that they saw Mabel do it. They both later signed affadavits that they were pressured by this detective and threatened with being arrested on other charges.
There's some bad stuff going on out there. I'm just glad some light is finally being shone on this.
Last edited by MWM; 01-19-2016 at 01:59 PM.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Razor Shines (01-20-2016)
Trial transcripts and documents: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/
My dad got to enjoy 3 Reds World Championships by the time he was my age. So far, I've only gotten to enjoy one. Step it up Redlegs!
Wife and I just finished. With each additional episode I would get angrier and angrier about the state of our judicial system. Granted this show was produced with Avery/Dassey slant, but we can't have a society where you are guilty until proven innocent and have total disregard for beyond a reasonable doubt.
I wouldn't even say I am the most angry at Dassey, just saddened. It is pretty evident that he is mentally disabled to a certain degree. They way the police interrogated him in the first place is maddening, coercing a confession out of him. But to further allow his idiotic defense attorney to have his investigator interrogate is beyond stupid. The sad thing is that had they allowed idiot to try the case, Dassey probably would have had a decent chance getting a new trial on appeal because of a incompetent defense attorney (I think that is how it works, but I am not positive.) The sad thing with Dassey is no physical evidence in regards to his murder charge. One thing that really pissed me off about the case is Dassey had public defenders while the state sent a special prosecutor, the assistant attorney general to prosecute. The number two guy in the state against a mental disabled kid and his bad of public defenders.
Too much of the Avery stuff hinged on circumstantial evidence if you ask me. Even if he kills her, the evidence found and its timing are too suspect to me. First off, the Avery Salvage Lot is enormous, acres upon acres of cars. All of a sudden in a random search, her car turns up near an access road? Granted most convicts are convicted because they are stupid, but why would Avery, who knew how to use the car smasher on his property allow the car to stay on the lot? The blood doesn't make any sense either. Why would Avery's blood be in the car in the first place? Then when the evidence from his rape trial 20 years prior is tampered with, his vial of blood, it least more questions. The finding on the key in the room in plain sight doesn't make sense. How do you not find it the first time, especially if it was that easy to spot. So they slashed her throat, yet they can not find any blood in the room? I can't remember but I don't believe they found any of her DNA in that room. Then weeks later a new theory comes up that they cut her throat in the room, drug her to the garage, while bleeding, and shot her in the garage. But there were no traces of blood on the path and no signs of any kind of bleach to clean up the blood in the garage. The only thing that was found was shells, shells that probably were prevalent on the Avery property. From what I saw all the Avery evidence was conveniently found at times that were a little questionable. It appeared as if the state wanted a conviction of Avery, evidence or guilt be damned.
Judge overturns Brendan Dassey's conviction
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2...rder/88632502/
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”
It's always a good day when an unelected federal judge decides to overturn the considered verdict of 12 citizens.
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
Cincinnati Reds: Farm System Champions 2022
Just ugh, CE.
I'd argue he didnt like the verdict because it was based on a shoddy process.
I heard the judge had just woken up from a nap when his team presented the details to him and he overturned the ruling before they got halfway through because he wanted to go home before traffic.
In a perfect system, police and prosecutors would collect evidence and present it to a jury in a constitutionally sound manner that complies with our understanding of fairness and justice, the defense would have fair access to their client and to the evidence so that they can challenge any deficiencies in court, and the jury would then make a decision based on the facts and the jury instructions. But we do not live in a perfect system, which is why we have an appeals process.
I don't really understand your objection to the decision either. I know a lot of prosecutors get ticked off when a judge overturns a conviction based on sufficiency of evidence or a verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence, which cases prosecutors argue that the judge is reinterpreting the facts of the case. This ruling was based on the decision that the circumstances surrounding Dassey's confession were coercive and therefore the confession shouldn't have been allowed to be used. That is a question of law and clearly within the realm of judicial review. This is different than if the court had decided to overturn the conviction based on it not being supported by sufficient evidence or being against the manifest weight of the evidence. But even if the court had overturned the conviction, our justice system allows appellate courts to do that. If the framers of the Constitution had wished for jury verdicts to be sacrosanct, they wouldn't have given appellate courts to power to overturn those jury verdicts.
Wear gaudy colors, or avoid display. Lay a million eggs or give birth to one. The fittest shall survive, yet the unfit may live. Be like your ancestors or be different. We must repeat!
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |