This Aint Packers Talk v69

[incognito_man]

Is the only source for your information above the docu-drama?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

1 hour ago, Sasquatch said:

I would disagree that it's an open and shut case, and that there's no reasonable doubt.  Had the detectives in this case provided the state with well over a 1,000 images from Bobby Dassey's computer - pictures of woman being tortured and mutilated - combined with the fact that Bobby was last seen leaving the Avery property after Tereasa Halbach had just left the premises, combined with the eye-witness statement of credible witness who saw Halbach's car parked in the woods just off the road close to where Bobby was heading to deer hunt - had all of this made it's way to the DA's office (and maybe it did and was suspiciously left out of the "primary documents" that you read), then the State would have had more than enough evidence to conduct a thorough investigation into Bobby Dassey. 

For my money - because the detectives and officers wanted to pin this murder on Avery, they left very important pieces of evidence out of their investigation so that it couldn't be examined by the defense and therefore never made it into the trial, or any documents as such.  Bobby Dassey had motive - he's one sick f**K - he was seen at Avery's while Halbach was there, and immediately left the property when she left, he was seen driving towards the last known location of where Halbach's car was parked in the trees off the side of the road and where Halbach's cell phone made its last ping.  It's quite possible that he even had help from his Scott Tadych, his now stepfather.  None of this evidence was provided at the trial because detectives never submitted this to the DA. 

Steven Avery, as unsavory as he is, has literally spent 30 years in jail for crimes he didn't commit.  He was acquitted of the rape charge from 1985, where he spent 18 years in prison, and he's spent 12 plus years in jail for Halbach's murder, a crime his nephew most likely committed.   In the Halbach case, the State had the right derelict family, but they got the wrong derelict in my opinion.

Have to be careful with the documentary- they mislead at various points.

I am not as far as you in the second season, but as an example, they make the claim that there was no blood on the gear shift, but clearly from the evidence presented at trial, sample b4 was from the gear shift and consistent with Steven's blood.  It is an obvious lie by the show, and it shouldn't be in there.  If they are lying about that, what else?

The small town cops did a poor job with data collection, not getting enough samples and things like that. But the documentary doesn't critically evaluate any of the defense claims, which i find disturbing, and makes me question the veracity of the whole thing.

It would be interesting at this point to get an actual neutral investigative piece to look at the case and evaluate both sides of the issue.

 

[Sasquatch]

31 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Have to be careful with the documentary- they mislead at various points.

I am not as far as you in the second season, but as an example, they make the claim that there was no blood on the gear shift, but clearly from the evidence presented at trial, sample b4 was from the gear shift and consistent with Steven's blood.  It is an obvious lie by the show, and it shouldn't be in there.  If they are lying about that, what else?

The small town cops did a poor job with data collection, not getting enough samples and things like that. But the documentary doesn't critically evaluate any of the defense claims, which i find disturbing, and makes me question the veracity of the whole thing.

It would be interesting at this point to get an actual neutral investigative piece to look at the case and evaluate both sides of the issue.

 

Don't disagree, and you can't necessarily take anything at face value, with the show, and certainly not the primary case documents, because there's so much evidence missing from these documents that was never entered into evidence that most certainly should have been because it was relevant to the case.  So where does that lead us?  You just have to make up your own mind based upon a combination of primary case documents and evidence presented by the show that - that was discovered by detectives but never entered into evidence during the trial.  There are certain facts about this case that you can't ignore - regardless of who brought them to the public's attention:  the location of Halbach's last cell phone ping, which put her miles away from the Avery house, the eye-witness account of seeing her car parked in the woods off the road at that same location as the last known cell phone ping, and Bobby Dassey's mysterious departure from the Avery house immediately after Halbach left the house, and eyewitness account of seeing him driving down the same road where Halbach was last known to be at the same time.  How about the thousands of images of mutilated, tortured and raped girls that detectives found on Bobby's computer?  How in the ever living F**K do you not submit that to the DA's office as evidence, when the guy is placed at the scene at the time of Halbach's visit to Avery's house?  Cuz the detectives didn't want to muddy their case agains Steven Avery.  These images are material facts - not some machinations by the show.  It's not a stretch to say that Avery didn't chase her down - Bobby Dassey did.  Never mind that the police dogs detected Halbach's scent in that same location in the quarry where she was known to be. 

You haven't gotten far enough along in the show to understand how this all fits together, but give it a look and see what you think.  Just remember, the primary case documents that you can read for yourself (and which others here have read), are missing key pieces of evidence that were discovered at the time by detectives, and mysteriously not disclosed as evidence.  Evidence which could have changed the entire proceeding, had proper due-diligence been done by the defense had they known it existed.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Sasquatch

[Sasquatch]

31 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Is the only source for your information above the docu-drama?

No, I've actually read several of the primary case documents from this trail now.  Is the only source for your information the primary case documents, and your friends who are friends of the Halbach's? 

[incognito_man]

35 minutes ago, Sasquatch said:

No, I've actually read several of the primary case documents from this trail now.  Is the only source for your information the primary case documents, and your friends who are friends of the Halbach's? 

Yes the source of my information is the collection of primary documents that I have read.

That's the gold standard of sources.

[incognito_man]

I just took 3 min to Google this CD issue. 

I'm at work, but a 2 min scan tells me all the info was turned over to the defense 7 weeks prior to the trial.

Not surprised the show leaves that part out.

https://criminaljusticereformjournal.com/2018/08/02/when-dassey-became-brendan-dvds-became-cds-state-files-response-to-steven-averys-motion-to-supplement-the-record-zellner-to-reply-august-3rd/

 

The only problem seems to be some are (now) calling it "Bobby's" computer. It is not. Nor is it Brendan's. It's the home computer that multiple people had access to.

Just the facts, jack.

Please and thank you.

[Sasquatch]

14 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I just took 3 min to Google this CD issue. 

I'm at work, but a 2 min scan tells me all the info was turned over to the defense 7 weeks prior to the trial.

Not surprised the show leaves that part out.

https://criminaljusticereformjournal.com/2018/08/02/when-dassey-became-brendan-dvds-became-cds-state-files-response-to-steven-averys-motion-to-supplement-the-record-zellner-to-reply-august-3rd/

 

The only problem seems to be some are (now) calling it "Bobby's" computer. It is not. Nor is it Brendan's. It's the home computer that multiple people had access to.

Just the facts, jack.

Please and thank you.

Whoa buddy, before you start congratulating yourself, the show goes over all of this, "Jack".  Literally, all of it.  I can see, however, the fact that you haven't watched the show would lead to statements like this. 

Answer this, why didn't detectives give a full account of the contents on that computer, regardless of who's computer it was?  Notice the brief description about the contents grossly understates the actual severity of these images to make Bobby look like just another teenage boy looking at porn and such.  Hundreds if not thousands of images and hours.  And it was all tracked to Bobby - not Brendan.  Hell, the clueless mother didn't even know they had internet.

Care to post any other links from the case?  

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, Sasquatch said:

How about the thousands of images of mutilated, tortured and raped girls that detectives found on Bobby's computer?  How in the ever living F**K do you not submit that to the DA's office as evidence, when the guy is placed at the scene at the time of Halbach's visit to Avery's house? 

I was responding to this, which is clearly wrong. Why is this your takeaway if the show you watched stated the evidence WAS turned over?

[incognito_man]

17 minutes ago, Sasquatch said:

And it was all tracked to Bobby - not Brendan.

According to the show?

[Sasquatch]

7 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I was responding to this, which is clearly wrong. Why is this your takeaway if the show you watched stated the evidence WAS turned over?

It's more a question of what "wasn't turned over".  This is what the detectives said about the DVD's "

Fassbender further mentioned pornography found on the computer including, “mages depicting bondage, as well as possible torture and pain…images of injuries to humans, to include a decapitated head, a badly injured and bloodied body, a bloody head injury, and a mutilated body.”

There's no mention of the sheer volume of grotesque content and who was responsible for viewing it - that was purposely and deceptively left out of the report.  Again, I'll state it exactly as I did earlier;  "how do you not turn over the complete list of hundreds or thousands of images of this genre of content, and merely summarize or characterize this huge material fact in the above?

Edited October 24, 2018 by Sasquatch

[incognito_man]

55 minutes ago, Sasquatch said:

It's more a question of what "wasn't turned over".  This is what the detectives said about the DVD's "

There's no mention of the sheer volume of grotesque content and who was responsible for viewing it - that was purposely and deceptively left out of the report.

So your primary complaint is that the evidence wasnt handed over with a good description of the contents?

You also failed to read the very next paragraph, which appears to assauge your concern, anyway:

"Fassbender further mentioned pornography found on the computer including, “mages depicting bondage, as well as possible torture and pain…images of injuries to humans, to include a decapitated head, a badly injured and bloodied body, a bloody head injury, and a mutilated body.”

What am I missing?

The defense got this material 7 weeks before trial with the above description (s) according to actual facts. Yet your takeaway was:

"How in the ever living F**K do you not submit that to the DA's office as evidence, "

It was submitted.

It was submitted in a timely manner.

It was submitted with a descriptive summary of the contents.

 

Does your opinion on this change or no?

[AlexGreen#20]

Nashville is the greatest city in the world.

[Sasquatch]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

So your primary complaint is that the evidence wasnt handed over with a good description of the contents?

You also failed to read the very next paragraph, which appears to assauge your concern, anyway:

"Fassbender further mentioned pornography found on the computer including, “mages depicting bondage, as well as possible torture and pain…images of injuries to humans, to include a decapitated head, a badly injured and bloodied body, a bloody head injury, and a mutilated body.”

What am I missing?

The defense got this material 7 weeks before trial with the above description (s) according to actual facts. Yet your takeaway was:

"How in the ever living F**K do you not submit that to the DA's office as evidence, "

It was submitted.

It was submitted in a timely manner.

It was submitted with a descriptive summary of the contents.

 

Does your opinion on this change or no?

You missed where I added Fassbender's description of the contents into my post above.  I wanted to grab that paragraph and the one I inserted into my post initially, but only grabbed the first part.  It's there, and I never said that "no evidence was presented regarding the contents on the computer.  I've been arguing that a critical component of what was found was not entered into evidence properly ahead of the trial.  Where I, and Avery's new defense team have heartburn, is that Fassbender's description of what was found on the computer, does not even remotely do justice to capturing the volume of information , much less the psychological well-being of Bobby Dassey, who reportedly spent hundreds of hours over a long period of time viewing and fantasizing over this material.  You'd think this would raise a red flag to any detective, much less the DA, if a person-of-interest to the trial, who was in direct proximity of the victim at or near the time of her disappearance.

How can one reasonably capture the contents of this evidence in one sentence?  Ridiculous and gross misrepresentation of the facts.

As I mentioned to you in private message earlier, let's resume this conversation after you've had a chance to watch the show, since that's what we're debating now.  New, relevant evidence that brings about a discussion about the validity of the trial and the aforementioned court documentation from a trial that happened 12 years, well before some of this new technology was developed, or was intentionally withheld from the trial.  Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels in this current discussion.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

With regards to the second season of Making a Murderer, having spent a couple of hours on the CD issue, there are news stories quoting computer forensic specialists that state that the data referenced on the CD didn't allow attribution of the times that the images were downloaded accurately, so the images can't be attributed to one person on a shared computer. 

Who knows?  This is why I brought up the deception in earlier episodes.  The filmmakers ask that the viewer believe the defense when the defense has demonstrably mislead already in the series.  The film raises a good question, but hard to draw a conclusion without a neutral party having access to the drive in evidence and looking more carefully at the issue.

[incognito_man]

9 minutes ago, Sasquatch said:

You missed where I added Fassbender's description of the contents into my post above.  I wanted to grab that paragraph and the one I inserted into my post initially, but only grabbed the first part.  It's there, and I never said that "no evidence was presented regarding the contents on the computer.  I've been arguing that a critical component of what was found was not entered into evidence properly ahead of the trial.  Where I, and Avery's new defense team have heartburn, is that Fassbender's description of what was found on the computer, does not even remotely do justice to capturing the volume of information , much less the psychological well-being of Bobby Dassey, who reportedly spent hundreds of hours over a long period of time viewing and fantasizing over this material.  You'd think this would raise a red flag to any detective, much less the DA, if a person-of-interest to the trial, who was in direct proximity of the victim at or near the time of her disappearance.

How can one reasonably capture the contents of this evidence in one sentence?  Ridiculous and gross misrepresentation of the facts.

As I mentioned to you in private message earlier, let's resume this conversation after you've had a chance to watch the show, since that's what we're debating now.  New, relevant evidence that brings about a discussion about the validity of the trial and the aforementioned court documentation from a trial that happened 12 years, well before some of this new technology was developed, or was intentionally withheld from the trial.  Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels in this current discussion.

I doubt I'll watch it. Maybe at some point but way too busy now.

Regardless, I don't need to. Any worthwhile facts mentioned on the show can be found in their primary form for review (like the motions mentioned so far).

I'll happily review those documents outside of the slant the show would otherwise put on them.

You also seem to be confusing facts with interpretation. All the data was available for review by both sides. "The data" being the contents of the Barb Janda computer.

If there is new relevant data gathered I am sure it was included in the motions presented by Avery and his now Hollywood team for the courts to rule on.

Let's examine those documents directly.