Support NeoGAF

[IAmtheFMan]

What is the explanation for the EDTA not being found in the blood test by the FBI?

We have absolutely no idea what the statistical measures are, i.e the sensitivity and the specificity of the test (also taking into consideration of the other measures like power and so forth).

It sounds like, at least from the non-FBI witness that the test is probably highly specific but not very sensitive, therefore a positive result would mean that EDTA was present but a negative result can not by any means rule out that it came from that vial.

 

[Frodo]

Edit: double post :|

 

[Vampire On Titus]

About the EDTA test, it is not conclusive, you can not say with 100% certainty that there is NO EDTA in the sample if it is not detected. The test is reliable if it finds EDTA, but if it doesn't find EDTA in a sample it could be either that there is actually no EDTA mixed into the sample, or simply there is EDTA, but not in a amount the test is able to detect.

Unless you're the prosecutions witness. Then you can even say there's no EDTA in samples you've not tested!

 

[bishopcruz]

lol nope

actually they did test the blood. They were able to find EDTA from the blood in the vial. That doesn't necessarily mean a whole hell of a lot, because those tests were not considered reliable prior, and tend to not be used. This was supposedly a new version of the EDTA test, and I'm sure it did what it was designed to do in some manner, but it didn't suddenly prove there was no EDTA or more importantly that the blood did not come from the vial.

Remember though, the FBI does have a rather fun history of junk science that has gotten many wrongful convictions before.

There's a reddit thread on the whole thing, can't vouch for it's complete accuracy, but there we go.

 

[Frodo]

Unless you're the prosecutions witness. Then you can even say there's no EDTA in samples you've not tested!

Another good point, and extremely questionable.

 

[bishopcruz]

Don't get me wrong the system is in need of change and we as a society should always strive to improve it. However, how does one go about making the justice system truly "equal." Equal to what or to whom? How, realistically, do we deal with disparities in incentives, resources, and legal ability? The reason the State has such a high winning percentage is because they only try sure things and mostly plea out/down everything else. Increasing the burden of proof on the State in all likelihood won't have the impact you want in helping the poor or the underprivileged. If anything the upper middle class and the rich are the ones who would benefit most from these changes.

Maybe it makes more sense to focus on reforming our jury system or how to better instruct jurors. Again all of these suggestions work fine in the abstract but prove to be hard to implement in real life. Most jurisdictions have a hard time finding willing jurors who do not view jury duty as a burden but rather a duty.

I don't think equality will ever be a thing, especially considering how we look at defendants in criminal cases. However it does seem that we spend absolute peanuts on public defense options, and it really shows. You mention that we plea out/down the cases that aren't sure things, but in many ways that gives incentives to possibly innocent people to plead out instead of roll the dice. And again, we're looking at 90-95% of people with public defenders doing that, partly because there are so few public defenders have a caseload that is anywhere near manageable.

Also, when 80% of people can't afford better representation, things get even worse. Essentially, if you are arrested, you are boned. If its a misdemeanor, you have a decent chance, if its a felony, you have essentially none. I think we need to find a way to even these odds a bit.

As for Jury duty being a burden, let's be honest. For many people it is. If you are not a salaried worker, retired, unemployed or a student, you stand to lose a massive portion of your income if selected for a major trial, hell even having a day or two off can be crippling for hourly workers. Perhaps better pay would at least ease the blow, but that could get very expensive very quickly.

I feel the biggest issue honestly is the over-criminalization of just about everything in society, hell getting rid of a drug war alone would unclog the system immensely.

 

[CFMOORE!]

If anyone else wants to read a similar story of an innocent man who was wronged by the justice system, this is a must read article. I read it late one night and I was riveted the entire time-and in the end had tears streaming down my face. This is one of the most well written pieces of journalism I've ever read.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-one/

On August 13, 1986, Michael Morton came home from work to discover that his wife had been brutally murdered in their bed. His nightmare had only begun. - See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-one/#sthash.0oYO4mPw.dpuf

holy shit. that is an amazing read and another entirely fucked up story which shows how broken this system is and how prosecutors and police officials will go to any length to prove someone guilty when they are convinced they have the right guy.

 

[Doosi]

Is there gonna be a second season?

 

[bishopcruz]

Is there gonna be a second season?

It took like 10 years to make this season, I doubt if there is a second season it would come anytime soon.

 

[Deadstar]

It took like 10 years to make this season, I doubt if there is a second season it would come anytime soon.

I would hope that if Steven is not guilty, evidence is brought forth that will exonerate him and then they would film those results. There are too many holes in the story to say that he did it with 100% certainty.

 

[Jmanunknown]

I would hope that if Steven is not guilty, evidence is brought force that will exonerate him and then they would film those results. There are too many holes in the story to say that he did it with 100% certainty.

Its gonna be hard to find evidence to exonerate him. Theresa Halbach's body was destroyed and most of the evidence was compromised by corrupt cops. Unless someone confesses or they actually find the original murder site Steven Avery will probably spend the rest of his life in prison knowing he might have been framed not once but, twice. We still have no idea where the poor women died despite the prosecutions assertion it happened at the house and in the garage. If the crime was as violent and as brutal as they said their would have been a lot more evidence at the house than they collected on their like 8 different searches and if they wanna go on the assumption steven avery tried to cover up the crime why not hide the car better or why even allow the search party on the property in the first place without a search warrant.

The family was way to trusting with the people and law enforcement in that town. It was already a proven fact they tried to frame him once and low and behold just as the lawsuit against the county and people heats up he gets charged with murder.

 

[Dalek]

holy shit. that is an amazing read and another entirely fucked up story which shows how broken this system is and how prosecutors and police officials will go to any length to prove someone guilty when they are convinced they have the right guy.

The part of that story that told me he was fucked right from the start is when he rushes home to his house, walks into the now-crime-scene and the police are all just hanging out in his kitchen and have dumped ice and bottled drinks in his sink so they can chill out.

 

[Deadstar]

Its gonna be hard to find evidence to exonerate him. Theresa Halbach's body was destroyed and most of the evidence was compromised by corrupt cops. Unless someone confesses or they actually find the original murder site Steven Avery will probably spend the rest of his life in prison knowing he might have been framed not once but, twice. We still have no idea where the poor women died despite the prosecutions assertion it happened at the house and in the garage. If the crime was as violent and as brutal as they said their would have been a lot more evidence at the house than they collected on their like 8 different searches and if they wanna go on the assumption steven avery tried to cover up the crime why not hide the car better or why even allow the search party on the property in the first place without a search warrant.

The family was way to trusting with the people and law enforcement in that town. It was already a proven fact they tried to frame him once and low and behold just as the lawsuit against the county and people heats up he gets charged with murder.

I would have said the same thing in the first case. But after 18 years they did find proof. One thing that is very strange is the brother's behavior. Your sister was just murdered and you're cracking jokes and smiling during all of these interviews? I'm not a psychologist but that doesn't seem like an appropriate behavior.

 

[j_rocca42]

Why wasn't the defense able to point the jury to other suspects? Why did the judge not allow that? Stevens brother had no alibi. Scott and Bobby were they're own alibi. Theresa's ex admitted to getting into her phone records and shit. Hell, even Brenda was Brendan's alibi but that didn't seem to matter.

Also, I know it was presented in the case but not shown in the documentary, but it's pretty common knowledge that an open fire wouldn't get near hot enough to burn an entire body almost to dust. Basically proof that the body wasn't burnt in the burn barrels or Stevens back yard.

 

[CFMOORE!]

The part of that story that told me he was fucked right from the start is when he rushes home to his house, walks into the now-crime-scene and the police are all just hanging out in his kitchen and have dumped ice and bottled drinks in his sink so they can chill out.

yeah, i thought that was fucked up. i thought to myself "they're really using his sink as a fucking cooler for their beverages?"

Why wasn't the defense able to point the jury to other suspects? Why did the judge not allow that? Stevens brother had no alibi. Scott and Bobby were they're own alibi. Theresa's ex admitted to getting into her phone records and shit. Hell, even Brenda was Brendan's alibi but that didn't seem to matter.

Also, I know it was presented in the case but not shown in the documentary, but it's pretty common knowledge that an open fire wouldn't get near hot enough to burn an entire body almost to dust. Basically proof that the body wasn't burnt in the burn barrels or Stevens back yard.

as i understood it, the defense largely put forth the notion that the cops were framing Steven, the defense can't use more than one theory in their defense of anyone, not just in this case. you have to present one theory and that's it.

 

[j_rocca42]

as i understood it, the defense largely put forth the notion that the cops were framing Steven, the defense can't use more than one theory in their defense of anyone, not just in this case. you have to present one theory and that's it.

I see. Thanks.

 

[KingCookie5]

I didn't have much hopes for this when I first heard about it but I couldn't stop watching it, finished it all this past weekend. Not too sure what I think, but it definitely has me thinking! That part towards the end where Stevens father is taking the cameras through his big garden out in the trees with a pond and everything while with a voice over Steven is describing how if he gets out he's like to go to a secluded place with fishing, a garden etc that really hit home. I agree with what Strang said, a part of me almost hopes he did do it, just so if he does spend the rest of his life in their, it is because he was guilty.

I wonder what other cases could be made into like this, certainly a very interesting format!

 

[j_rocca42]

I really enjoyed this series. Is the jinx comparable? I think I'm gonna watch that one next.

 

[Homeboyd]

as i understood it, the defense largely put forth the notion that the cops were framing Steven, the defense can't use more than one theory in their defense of anyone, not just in this case. you have to present one theory and that's it.

No the state law requires that the defense must provide evidence and a proof of a motive for them to even mention a possible other suspect. Swimming up a river, etc, etc

 

[MrS]

I really enjoyed this series. Is the jinx comparable? I think I'm gonna watch that one next.

The Jinx is a little different to this but it's still incredible. Watch it for sure.

 

[Community Forum]

I decided to watch the first episode based on this thread. That was Thursday night. Well, I kept watching until episode 4, and then the next night finished it. It was all I could think of on Friday. By far the most riveting thing I've ever seen on my TV.

 

[RustyNails]

One thing that is very strange is the brother's behavior. Your sister was just murdered and you're cracking jokes and smiling during all of these interviews? I'm not a psychologist but that doesn't seem like an appropriate behavior.

I am rewatching the documentary and currently on the 5th episode. When I first saw the whole thing, I didn't care much for pointing fingers at him or the ex. I just figured the family and friends of Teresa are in distress and should be given benefit of the doubt for acting strange or peculiar under pressure. On my rewatch however I'm not as confident. I picked up a few things. First thing I noticed is Mike Halbach's very first appearance. This is when Teresa Halbach is declared missing and there are search parties going out looking for her. He seems very stoic and devoid of emotion or worry. Dude straight up says he wants to start the "grieving process". Few seconds later he catches himself and again repeats the line about grieving but with Teresa alive. Wut? Makes no sense. Put yourself in his shoes and imagine what you would say. I would say I am very worried and concerned for my sister and hoping/praying that we will find her alive and well. I wouldn't be fucking thinking about grieving process. Come on.

Okay, fine he was under duress so he said whatever. But the 2nd appearance of the ex during an interview with the press, Mike is acting super weird. So the reporter is asking the ex about how the Rav4 was found. Mike has this concerned look on his face, like really worried the ex would say something dumb. Next, the reporter asks the ex something about approaching the vehicle or something and check this, Mike gets really worried and jumps in and tells the ex "you weren't there" from behind. The ex parrots that and says he wasn't there. I mean, the interview is with the ex not you, Mike. Let him answer however he wants. Why are you jumping in? That I couldn't shake. Like, he definitely acted like he knew about something there. Dude is jumpy and worried. Here's the scene. Tell me what you guys think?

 

[royalan]

ON Teresa's brother:

Spoiler

Did anybody notice that in the Teresa Helbach's video that plays in the last episode, when Teresa is talking about the things in her life she's happy for, she says her mother, her sisters...but NOT her brother.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

I really enjoyed this series. Is the jinx comparable? I think I'm gonna watch that one next.

It is safe to say if you enjoyed Making a Murderer you could also enjoy The Jinx. They both tell extremely interesting stories of actual events.

 

[crazy monkey]

i could not watch more then 4 episode. it was too much for me to take. I looked up rest of them. fuck the system.

 

[CFMOORE!]

ON Teresa's brother:

Spoiler

Did anybody notice that in the Teresa Helbach's video that plays in the last episode, when Teresa is talking about the things in her life she's happy for, she says her mother, her sisters...but NOT her brother.

i caught that right away. thought that was really funny and perhaps an interesting omission.

 

[Gorger]

ON Teresa's brother:

Spoiler

Did anybody notice that in the Teresa Helbach's video that plays in the last episode, when Teresa is talking about the things in her life she's happy for, she says her mother, her sisters...but NOT her brother.

Yep I noticed that as well, found it a bit weird.

 

[Deadstar]

I found it disgusting how the judge was mentioning during the sentencing that Steven killed Teresa and that he is a dangerous person. I think it's safe to say, that if you are convicted of a crime, it does NOT mean 100% that you are guilty. He's talking to a guy who proved that!

I didn't notice the part about the brother being left out of the message, that's definitely strange...

 

[Morts]

Just finished episode 4. Fuck, I'm depressed.

Spoiler

When the investigator was making Brendan write that statement, and telling him what to draw. Jesus.

 

[CFMOORE!]

I found it disgusting how the judge was mentioning during the sentencing that Steven killed Teresa and that he is a dangerous person. I think it's safe to say, that if you are convicted of a crime, it does NOT mean 100% that you are guilty. He's talking to a guy who proved that!

I didn't notice the part about the brother being left out of the message, that's definitely strange...

yep. judge was a piece of shit too. so many people had it in for the whole Avery family.

 

[HeySeuss]

I haven't watched the last episode yet but I think now I can finally come in this thread without fear of spoilers.

I've been a cop for 13 years. The levels of ineptitude on display here are absolutely disgusting. That county had 39 million reasons to pin this all on Steven. The key magically appears in his bedroom of a tiny trailer? The room couldn't have been more than 12x12 and had been searched multiple times before so that obviously doesn't hold water.

The 2 cops that inserted themselves into the investigation when there was a clear conflict of interest is amazing to me. If I were either of those 2 you couldn't have ordered me to be directing traffic within 5 miles of that crime scene. Absolutely disgusting. And to act like it was just no big deal on top of it, lying under oath.

What kills me is that the phrase "I do not recall" is a standard answer we are told to say when we are unsure about something, but its also used as a canned answer for less than ethical police officers and that was on full display here.

And that prosecutor is a piece of shit. How he made such a big deal over allegations of misconduct of those 2 officers when fucking Stevie Wonder could see how shady they were. Did they plant the evidence? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Its possible that Avery did it. Bendans statements were pretty damming, but I don't understand why the legality of obtaining his statements weren't called into question a lot harder. We have a developmentally disabled child that was clearly guided into the answers that the investigators wanted. They exploited that poor kids mental abilities and that's sad.

If I was investigating the crime, my prime suspect would be her ex boyfriend and her brother. I think it was episode 2 where they found the car that the media was asking them about how it was found and they were stumbling all over themselves about if they touched it or something. I'd have to go back and research it, but when I saw it real-time I sat up and was like whoa. These guys know something. I've had specialized training on body language and deception and they were clearly hiding something.

I would get more info on the number that was calling her harassing her all the time. I'd bet it was her ex boyfriend. He seemed jealous of her living arrangements and was not comfortable answering the question about if her and her roommate was in a romantic relationship. He somehow was able to figure out her password to check her voicemail? And some were deleted? He needed to figure out her password to erase the voicemails he left her that would've shifted the investigation to him. He was in the center of the search directing people where to search and when. He recommended someone seach the scrap yard. Too many coincidental things happen with him. And why is an ex boyfriend so involved in a search anyway? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[electroshockwave]

I found it disgusting how the judge was mentioning during the sentencing that Steven killed Teresa and that he is a dangerous person. I think it's safe to say, that if you are convicted of a crime, it does NOT mean 100% that you are guilty. He's talking to a guy who proved that!

I didn't notice the part about the brother being left out of the message, that's definitely strange...

Considering the judge said something about his crimes escalating at the sentencing I don't think the judge considered him innocent of the rape conviction. Which shows how much of an uphill battle the defense had when even crimes he's been exonerated for ate held against him.

 

[electroshockwave]

No the state law requires that the defense must provide evidence and a proof of a motive for them to even mention a possible other suspect. Swimming up a river, etc, etc

Seems kinda unfair that the defense had to have more of a burden of proof for motive than the prosecution did. They had nothing for four months until Brendan and then they dropped those charges so what did they have?

 

[TTOOLL]

On to episode 6 and every fucking time Kratz opens his mouth I want to punch him so badly it's crazy.

 

[Dalek]

I haven't watched the last episode yet but I think now I can finally come in this thread without fear of spoilers.

I've been a cop for 13 years. The levels of ineptitude on display here are absolutely disgusting. That county had 39 million reasons to pin this all on Steven. The key magically appears in his bedroom of a tiny trailer? The room couldn't have been more than 12x12 and had been searched multiple times before so that obviously doesn't hold water.

The 2 cops that inserted themselves into the investigation when there was a clear conflict of interest is amazing to me. If I were either of those 2 you couldn't have ordered me to be directing traffic within 5 miles of that crime scene. Absolutely disgusting. And to act like it was just no big deal on top of it, lying under oath.

What kills me is that the phrase "I do not recall" is a standard answer we are told to say when we are unsure about something, but its also used as a canned answer for less than ethical police officers and that was on full display here.

And that prosecutor is a piece of shit. How he made such a big deal over allegations of misconduct of those 2 officers when fucking Stevie Wonder could see how shady they were. Did they plant the evidence? I don't know but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Its possible that Avery did it. Bendans statements were pretty damming, but I don't understand why the legality of obtaining his statements weren't called into question a lot harder. We have a developmentally disabled child that was clearly guided into the answers that the investigators wanted. They exploited that poor kids mental abilities and that's sad.

If I was investigating the crime, my prime suspect would be her ex boyfriend and her brother. I think it was episode 2 where they found the car that the media was asking them about how it was found and they were stumbling all over themselves about if they touched it or something. I'd have to go back and research it, but when I saw it real-time I sat up and was like whoa. These guys know something. I've had specialized training on body language and deception and they were clearly hiding something.

I would get more info on the number that was calling her harassing her all the time. I'd bet it was her ex boyfriend. He seemed jealous of her living arrangements and was not comfortable answering the question about if her and her roommate was in a romantic relationship. He somehow was able to figure out her password to check her voicemail? And some were deleted? He needed to figure out her password to erase the voicemails he left her that would've shifted the investigation to him. He was in the center of the search directing people where to search and when. He recommended someone seach the scrap yard. Too many coincidental things happen with him. And why is an ex boyfriend so involved in a search anyway? It doesn't make sense to me.

Thank you-I've said this from the start. There was someone in the this thread that said it is standard to bypass exes and the like and only investigate the last person that happened to see the victim alive. It's comforting to see someone in law enforcement back me up on this.

 

[Dan]

I would get more info on the number that was calling her harassing her all the time. I'd bet it was her ex boyfriend. He seemed jealous of her living arrangements and was not comfortable answering the question about if her and her roommate was in a romantic relationship. He somehow was able to figure out her password to check her voicemail? And some were deleted? He needed to figure out her password to erase the voicemails he left her that would've shifted the investigation to him. He was in the center of the search directing people where to search and when. He recommended someone seach the scrap yard. Too many coincidental things happen with him. And why is an ex boyfriend so involved in a search anyway? It doesn't make sense to me.

I'm always hesitant to extrapolate from such things, but I couldn't help but think that his facial expressions during his testimony were suspicious. He had a certain smug smirk that said "I'm being clever by withholding information, and I can't hide my enjoyment of that."

Also I thought it was odd how when he was asked to describe how he knew the victim, he said something like "I guess we were longtime friends. Oh, and we dated for five years." I don't think that's the natural, intuitive way people describe such personal connections.

 

[Homeboyd]

Seems kinda unfair that the defense had to have more of a burden of proof for motive than the prosecution did. They had nothing for four months until Brendan and then they dropped those charges so what did they have?

Yep, it is unfair. So is the entire fact that the police framed someone they didn't like.

This was absolutely a case of guilty until proven innocent, which is probably a lot more common in US courtrooms than you'd think. But definitely moreso if you also happen to be suing the investigating entity in your trial.

 

[HeySeuss]

Thank you-I've said this from the start. There was someone in the this thread that said it is standard to bypass exes and the like and only investigate the last person that happened to see the victim alive. It's comforting to see someone in law enforcement back me up on this.

I don't know how they did it, but I think they set Avery up and put that car on his property. I'm more inclined to believe the ex did it and the brother helped cover it up.

 

[HeySeuss]

I'm always hesitant to extrapolate from such things, but I couldn't help but think that his facial expressions during his testimony were suspicious. He had a certain smug smirk that said "I'm being clever by withholding information, and I can't hide my enjoyment of that."

Also I thought it was odd how when he was asked to describe how he knew the victim, he said something like "I guess we were longtime friends. Oh, and we dated for five years." I don't think that's the natural, intuitive way people describe such personal connections.

Most facial expressions that are commonly referenced aren't reliable and are not things that are scientifically sound. It used to be the myth that if they can't look you in the eye they're lying, if they look the the left side that's the part of the brain that lies. That's bunk.

There are microfacial expressions that are subconscious that are indicators, but better indicators are speech. Tripping over easy questions, stuttering, repeating the question to buy time to think of an answer. Those things are better tells. Cognitive dissonance is what happens when you tell a lie. That brief pause when you're trying to figure out the lie before your body tries to answer truthfully. The ex was really bad with this.

 

[Orthogonal]

No the state law requires that the defense must provide evidence and a proof of a motive for them to even mention a possible other suspect. Swimming up a river, etc, etc

Despite the State never having to establish a motive either. Talk about swimming upstream.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I am rewatching the documentary and currently on the 5th episode. When I first saw the whole thing, I didn't care much for pointing fingers at him or the ex. I just figured the family and friends of Teresa are in distress and should be given benefit of the doubt for acting strange or peculiar under pressure. On my rewatch however I'm not as confident. I picked up a few things. First thing I noticed is Mike Halbach's very first appearance. This is when Teresa Halbach is declared missing and there are search parties going out looking for her. He seems very stoic and devoid of emotion or worry. Dude straight up says he wants to start the "grieving process". Few seconds later he catches himself and again repeats the line about grieving but with Teresa alive. Wut? Makes no sense. Put yourself in his shoes and imagine what you would say. I would say I am very worried and concerned for my sister and hoping/praying that we will find her alive and well. I wouldn't be fucking thinking about grieving process. Come on.

Okay, fine he was under duress so he said whatever. But the 2nd appearance of the ex during an interview with the press, Mike is acting super weird. So the reporter is asking the ex about how the Rav4 was found. Mike has this concerned look on his face, like really worried the ex would say something dumb. Next, the reporter asks the ex something about approaching the vehicle or something and check this, Mike gets really worried and jumps in and tells the ex "you weren't there" from behind. The ex parrots that and says he wasn't there. I mean, the interview is with the ex not you, Mike. Let him answer however he wants. Why are you jumping in? That I couldn't shake. Like, he definitely acted like he knew about something there. Dude is jumpy and worried. Here's the scene. Tell me what you guys think?

Those two things you mentioned caused my wife and I to double take....we were instantly suspicious of them after that.

 

[HardRojo]

Wow I didn't think I'd get this hooked. On episode 5 right now and it's been a fucking rollercoaster of everything. Will continue watching tomorrow.

 

[Ayumi]

Thank you-I've said this from the start. There was someone in the this thread that said it is standard to bypass exes and the like and only investigate the last person that happened to see the victim alive. It's comforting to see someone in law enforcement back me up on this.

Plus that phone call (and the woman who found it in court) when they magically found the car was way too determined. It just seemed extremely planned.

 

[bishopcruz]

Ok, so I was reading up more on Michael O'Kelly, probably the biggest asshole in the entire series, a bigger con than even his employer Len Kachinsky.

First off, I read the full transcripts of his interview with Dassey, and they are even worse than what we saw in the series just by virtue of the context. Some choice lines:

MOK = Michael O'Kelly
BD = Brendan Dassey

MOK: Brendan, you haven't told me the truth yet. Listen to me carefully. Why don't you look at me? Brendan? Brendan, look at me please. This is your choice. Listen very carefully. Somebody is going to cooperate and tell the truth. I'd prefer it's going to be
you. If it's not, because your confession has been admitted, you heard that today. Right
now they're asking for life plus seventy-two years. That's your greatest exposure right
now. If you tell the complete truth, the complete truth, not just part of the truth, there's a
door open for you. You will still have to serve some time in prison; you don't get to go
home now. Somebody died. But this is your chance to tell the truth. If Steve Avery
decides to get up and lie and testifies against you, then he may get an offer and a deal
with the prosecutor's office and that's my concern. Right now, only the two of you know
what happened inside that crime scene. You know what happened, you know why it
happened, you know what time it happened. But like I said, I don't know if you're sorry,
I don't know if you're going to do this again. Those are the two things I don't know.
Steve right now is saying that you're to blame for part of this and so is Bobby. Are you
aware of that?
BD: [shakes head no)
MOK: Is Bobby to blame for any of this?
BD: No.​

and

MOK: Part of the truth was that you got up that day and went to school, so yes there was some truth. But everything else you said wasn't the truth. And what I don't want you to do now- can you look at me for a second? What I don't want you to do right now is tell me any more lies. If you lie to me, guess what I have to do? I have to stand up, put everything away, and leave. Because that means that you're going to go to prison for the rest of your life. If you want to go to prison for the rest of your life because you're going to hang onto some lies, then I can't help you. When you're all through telling the truth tonight, then you and I can have to talk about something else. Will you help me with that is? It's a good thing. You get to tell me all about your family history and what got you
to this point last October 31 that caused all these problems to happen. I have to unravel
all of that and ask the court to consider leniency based upon your family history and
what's happened to you. I can only do all these things if you tell the truth. If you say
even one single lie, I cannot help you at all. You've got to make a decision before you
start writing anything, you're going to write the complete truth, no matter what the truth
is, because then Mike can help you. If you write a lie, then Mike can't help you at all.
First question you have to ask yourself is, do you want to spend the rest of your life in
prison? [inaudible from BD] So is that a yes or a no? I can't hear you.
BD: No.​

The Mike he is referring to is Weigert, one of the detectives who questioned Dassey earlier. And it goes on and on from there. Basically throughout the whole interview O'Kelly says that Brendan is lying, and if he lies he will go to prison for the rest of his life, and that his family is plotting against him. I just do not understand how this, or anything that came from this can be used as evidence by the prosecution, it is the very definition of injustice.

It also turns out that O'Kelly himself is a huckster, he made a name for himself in the 2000s as an "elite practitioner of SCAN", nowadays he is a "Cellular Forensics Expert"

Really, read all about it here:

In 2010, O’Kelly was listed as one of the defense’s expert witnesses in the now infamous Casey Anthony trial, although he never gave testimony.
In 2011, Michael O’Kelly, billing himself as a “forensic cell phone data consult,” was paid $24,304 by the State of Illinois as a defense expert in a their case against Christopher Coleman, who was sentenced to life in prison for murdering his wife and two sons. O’Kelly’s testimony was not used.

In 2012, Michael O’Kelly, now using the nickname “Cell Tower Mike,” was paid $102,994 by the State of Texas as a defense expert in a case against Rickey Cummings, sentenced to death. O’Kelly was never even called to testify in this case, and the state was unable to recoup their expenses paid to O’Kelly. Initially, O’Kelly had been hired to examine cell phone records, but billed the county for 14 visits to the Cummings, actions which eventually got him removed from the trial and contributed to Cummings seeking retrial.

Oh and just so we're clear, SCAN is of course junk science. and to keep things fresh it looks like Cellular Forensics is junk too.

This fucking guy.

 

[f0nz0]

Those two things you mentioned caused my wife and I to double take....we were instantly suspicious of them after that.

Yeah super fishy.. The *gulp* speaks volumes..

 

[BarringGaffner]

Yeah super fishy.. The *gulp* speaks volumes..

not really.

keep in mind everyone on this show is not used to being on TV, or in court, so yes it seems suspicious but there's a better chance it's just people being nervous.

 

[poppabk]

not really.

keep in mind everyone on this show is not used to being on TV, or in court, so yes it seems suspicious but there's a better chance it's just people being nervous.

Yeah in a show about presuming people are guilty without evidence and then fabricating or fitting evidence to preconceived notions, it's probably best not to jump to conclusions about anyone else.
One thing that was mentioned above that stood out to me was that even if Avery was guilty, and if they didn't plant any evidence, the two cops were jeopardizing the prosecutions case by interjecting themselves into the investigation.

 

[reggieandTFE]

If anyone else wants to read a similar story of an innocent man who was wronged by the justice system, this is a must read article. I read it late one night and I was riveted the entire time-and in the end had tears streaming down my face. This is one of the most well written pieces of journalism I've ever read.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-one/

On August 13, 1986, Michael Morton came home from work to discover that his wife had been brutally murdered in their bed. His nightmare had only begun. - See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-innocent-man-part-one/#sthash.0oYO4mPw.dpuf

Thank you for posting this. It took me over an hour to read both parts, but I was overcome by Michael's grace and passion after enduring such an ordeal.

 

[mujun]

Most facial expressions that are commonly referenced aren't reliable and are not things that are scientifically sound. It used to be the myth that if they can't look you in the eye they're lying, if they look the the left side that's the part of the brain that lies. That's bunk.

There are microfacial expressions that are subconscious that are indicators, but better indicators are speech. Tripping over easy questions, stuttering, repeating the question to buy time to think of an answer. Those things are better tells. Cognitive dissonance is what happens when you tell a lie. That brief pause when you're trying to figure out the lie before your body tries to answer truthfully. The ex was really bad with this.

I've got a question. If I remember correctly the first search of the car yard was conducted over eight days. Is that an acceptable length of time in any shape or form? I was dumbfounded when I heard that. The ease with which the police could do anything they wanted to the crime scene given that much time is incredible.

 

[Realplumpbox85]

SoI have not started this yet but everyone I know that is watching says it will get you mad. Is is mad at the "killer", or they cops? You can explain without spoilers that would be great. I will not get to this for a few more weeks.