Late last night I watched episodes six and seven causing me to change me feelings on a few things.
Initially, I had a pretty strong feeling that Steven Avery was framed, however I don't believe it was just the Police. However, the major issue is that there is no concrete evidence to prove this. At the moment, all we have to go on is circumstantial. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimonies of Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych, who both provided matching alibis, and placed Teresa Halbach on Avery's property at the time of her disappearance. However, I felt their testimonies were a little strange. It's plainly clear that Scott Tadych really dislikes Avery, painting him as a terrible person at every opportunity. His testimony also seemed strange, he seemed uncomfortable and not completely sure of his timeline that day. The only thing he really remembers clearly is seeing Bobby Dassey on the road. In contrast to Tadych, I found Bobby was surprisingly calm during his cross examination, he seemed like he was pretty sure of his story. Again, he was most sure of seeing Tadych on the road, relying on the fact that Tadych would somehow remember the exact time. In my own opinion, I found both men very suspicious. Again, the problem is that there is no concrete evidence to suspect them. The Police never really investigated either of them even though they were both around the "crime scene" at the time of Halbach's disappearance. Considering the fact that they both had their alibis worked out, conveniently knowing exactly what time they passed on the road, seems strange to me. No one else can corroborate this information, and it is heavily relied upon by the prosecution.
I believe this speaks to a greater issue of a systemic bias in the American criminal judiciary system. The prevailing ideology is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, however, it seems like the system is set up to favor the prosecution. It seemed to me like the prosecution and the judge basically figured this trial was just a formality, just another positive statistic. The prosecution and the Police are biased in that they seem more interested in getting their conviction as soon as possible rather than pursuing the actual truth. The prosecution built a case based on what they think would allow them to win, rather than what was the truth. This is an issue you see across the whole American judicial system, they're more interested in results rather than ensuring true justice. The judge similarly wants the process to go smoothly, not having to deal with mistrials, etc, risking putting a dangerous person back on the street. They have no interest in a long, drawn out trial, because that just takes too much time. Judge Willis also makes some interesting decisions in that he allows all this evidence to be used even when it shouldn't be allowed under normal circumstances. The DNA test was contaminated, normally we'd say it's inconclusive, but we're going to allow it as definitive proof. The EDTA test is widely known to be unreliable, no one uses it anymore for this purpose, but oh, I will let the prosecution use the test because it will help their case.
Speaking of the evidence, I find it unbelievable that the court would allow the prosecution to submit all their tests even though all their experts said they were done improperly. Starting with the investigation of the burn sites, it was very clear that the Police made critical errors in procedure when collecting the ashes and bone fragments. These errors should have made it impossible for them to determine what really happened to Teresa's body and where she was burned. They really destroyed their own evidence, making impossible to determine whether the body was moved, or if the bones were damaged during processing, but the court didn't throw it out. Next to that you have the DNA evidence from the bullet, which was presented by a very smug and arrogant looking Crime Lab Technician. She admitted to basically ruining the test, and the sample, but yet they were still allowed to submit it as evidence when it would have been ruled inconclusive under normal circumstances. What use are all of these protocols for ensuring accuracy when the court is going to disregard them? Then there is the EDTA test, which was regarded by all experts as being unreliable, being used as a concrete definitive truth. What is worse is that the court did not even allow the defense to run their own test, neither could they have access to anyone to run that test for them. Either way, it should never have been included as evidence because of the tendency to give false negatives.
Another major issue I have with the procedure of the trial as a whole is the fact that they deemed it necessary to hold the trial in Calumet county because of the conflict of interest and fears of bias but yet they still used a jury from Manitowoc... Shouldn't they have assembled a jury of people from a different county as well?
Ultimately, I still feel like this case should have been ruled a mistrial by judge Willis from pretty early on, considering all the procedural errors made during the investigation. However, I'm not completely surprised he didn't. I think my thinking has definitely changed in that I don't necessarily believe this was a set up by the Police to begin with. I'm leaning more towards that someone else killed her, perhaps Bobby and Scott, and then the Police aided in pinning it on Steven Avery. Either way, I don't really think Steven or Brendan really had anything to do with it, at least they didn't kill her. However, I feel like if Steven hadn't actually killed her, but was somehow involved that he would have admitted to it. It wouldn't have hurt his defense if he had, and likely would have helped.
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Making a Murderer - Impressions so far
Like many others I've gotten deep into watching Making a Murderer on Netflix...
Last night, I binge watched episodes one through five and it left me with a lot of questions and observations that have been troubling me all day. I felt it would be a good idea to write them all down, as I remember them, so that I can look back and see how my feelings on the case change as the series goes along. Maybe some of these questions will be answered in the later episodes. I feel I should mention that I really have no prior knowledge of this case, or anything relating to it. I'm trying hard not to go off and research the case, to preserve future episodes for myself. I'm basing my observations, conclusions, and observations solely on the material that was presented in the show. I'm also not a lawyer, just a Political Scientist, so I'm not completely familiar with criminal trial procedures and formalities.
Firstly, I wanted to address what I believe is the greatest grievance in this case so far, Brendan Dassey's initial confession to the investigators. I feel he was treated unfairly, basically coached, pressured, and bullied into a confession. I understand that Police sometimes need to put pressure on suspects or people of interest if they believe that individual has useful information. However, in this case it seemed fairly obvious that Brendan really didn't comprehend the situation he was in. I find it a bit egregious that he was interviewed by the Police a number of times without a lawyer, or anyone else present. I wonder if the Police ever mentioned to him that he had the right to have an attorney present, and if they did, whether Dassey would have understood what they meant. In that sense, I feel it is unfair for the Police to keep questioning him when they know he is unaware of his rights. In all likelihood he was unaware of his rights. We don't really know what happened in the previous interviews before the initial "confession", but it seems clear from Dassey's answers to questions that he was probably just guessing. He seems like at every step, whenever he is presented with information he doesn't understand, he just does what he is told to do. The Police shouldn't have rushed a confession out of him and allowed someone to be present who could explain the situation in terms Brenden could understand. The most heartbreaking moment for me was at the conclusion of the interview, when the two investigators leave the room, Brendan asks about whether he can get back to class in time to hand in his project that was due. That really made it sink in for me that he didn't grasp the gravity of the situation he was in, or what he had just admitted to doing. This too, should have made it clear to the judge that this kid needs a psychological evaluation to determine whether he is mentally fit to give statements or stand trial. It should have been clear that Brendan is unable to make difficult decisions on his own.
Then in the subsequent interviews with his lawyers, investigators, etc, they pray on the fact that they can manipulate him into doing what they want. They all happily let him dig himself deeper into the hole. If they pressure him enough, he just does what they say. The fact that he doesn't fully understand what is being put before him and therefore you can't say he is able to make decisions on his own. Like when he told his Mom in a phone call that he didn't know the definition of "inconsistencies". How is this kid supposed to understand the complex legal jargon, or even more basic terminology, when he doesn't understand that? Yet, he is essentially being forced by his legal team to sign these documents where he is admitting guilt while he maintains he didn't do anything. Though, ultimately, this is what got Len Kachinsky fired as his lawyer.
Speaking of Kachinsky, I got the impression that he was never really interested in listening to Brendan. It seemed like he basically just wanted to get his name on TV and in the papers by accepting a high profile, but seemingly cut and dry, case. Perhaps he figured that he'd just get Brendan to sign the official confession and then plea out, the simplest solution for both the prosecution and defense. It just seemed to me that his legal team had no intention to listen to him when he said he was innocent. An innocent plea would make Kachinsky's job much harder, since Brendan had already "confessed" to the crime. He seemed convinced of Dassey's guilt before even speaking to Dassey. Kachinsky probably wanted to avoid a long drawn out case that he was convinced he would lose anyway, so why go through the trouble of trying to prove his client's innocence and losing? This would certainly not look good if he tried to run for office again.
I also have some procedural grievances with the trial and the judge. Judge Willis, off the bat, should have realized that it was very difficult to insure a fair trail considering the overwhelming publicity of the case in the media. He also made a number of key decisions that I feel really made it very difficult for the defense to try and present a fair case for Avery's innocence. Most notably, the issue of Third Party Liability, which meant the defense had no ability to ever prove that Avery didn't do it because they weren't allowed to blame anyone else. Maybe it's because I'm not a trial lawyer or a judge, but it seems like everyone should be given the chance to argue that someone else did it. The impression I basically got was that Avery's lawyers could say, well, he didn't do it but we can't tell you why because then we'd be blaming a third party. Even when the Police investigation hadn't even explored the possibility of other suspects, and therefore could not concretely rule out that someone else had done it. This all just made it seem as if the trial was just a formality, the Police, State, and Judge all just wanted to get it over with, they got their man, now let's lock him up and call it a day. Another thing I was wondering about was whether Judge Willis may himself be coming from a point of bias. There are a number of opportunities where Willis could have called a mistrial, that I feel would have been warranted, but then chose not to. Especially when presented with statements by the Sheriff saying it'd be easier to shoot Avery instead of framing him.
Moving on, I started thinking about what Avery's motivation would be if he was actually responsible. The theory has been thrown around that Avery's time in prison might have changed him and left him with some psychological damage. If that is the case though, wouldn't there have been some signs visible to his family that he was unstable and might become violent. People don't usually murder others completely out of the blue. Then you think about the letters he sent to his ex-wife while in prison, which were definitely troubling. You could also make a case that he is impulsive, when you take into account his previous criminal exploits. However, If they really thought he is so cold blooded and dangerous, why not subject him to a psychological evaluation? If he is otherwise healthy, then why'd he do it? Did he have any personal issues with Teresa Halbach that have been undisclosed?
The biggest question I have though is why didn't Avery destroy the evidence? I mean, sure, it's clear that neither Avery nor Dassey are criminal masterminds, but even the most simple minded criminal with a car crusher could put two and two together. Avery crushes cars for a living, that'll be the first thing he thinks about doing. You're not going to put the car off in a corner and cover it with branches. That just makes no sense. You also won't just leave the key laying open on the floor. It also seems strange to me that they would then try to burn the body in the backyard rather than move it somewhere far away. There is just too much damning evidence on the property that it just seems odd. Then again, Avery is no criminal mastermind so it is conceivable that he may have panicked and not been able to think.
The evidence just doesn't seem right, but neither does the sequence of events from the moment it was found through the Police searches. Obviously, there is a very easy argument to be made that the Police have a major conflict of interest. The also have a motive to want to get put Avery in jail. It is also quite clear that the Sheriff really dislikes Avery for whatever reason. As do other Officers under the Sheriff's command. It can't be easily discounted that they have plenty of reason to interfere with the investigation, even if they themselves didn't facilitate a set up. For one, you have to wonder why it took four searches to find a car key that was apparently out in the open. Then that car key had no other dna on it other than Avery's. Then the car, also had no other evidence other than a few drops of Avery's blood. If Avery was smart enough to wear gloves, or perhaps scrub his prints out, or whatever, then he'd have been smart enough to clean the blood. Or, you know, crush the car. It is also strange that the Police had basically unlimited, unmonitored, access to the property for a number of days. Who knows what happened within that time? A time when Avery himself wasn't even in town.
I'm trying to view this case as objectively as possible, not allowing myself to fall into the bias that he was set up or is innocent. Though, I feel like the number of procedural errors made in the investigation should have prompted the judge to rule a mistrial. This seems like the most fair thing to do.
Last night, I binge watched episodes one through five and it left me with a lot of questions and observations that have been troubling me all day. I felt it would be a good idea to write them all down, as I remember them, so that I can look back and see how my feelings on the case change as the series goes along. Maybe some of these questions will be answered in the later episodes. I feel I should mention that I really have no prior knowledge of this case, or anything relating to it. I'm trying hard not to go off and research the case, to preserve future episodes for myself. I'm basing my observations, conclusions, and observations solely on the material that was presented in the show. I'm also not a lawyer, just a Political Scientist, so I'm not completely familiar with criminal trial procedures and formalities.
Firstly, I wanted to address what I believe is the greatest grievance in this case so far, Brendan Dassey's initial confession to the investigators. I feel he was treated unfairly, basically coached, pressured, and bullied into a confession. I understand that Police sometimes need to put pressure on suspects or people of interest if they believe that individual has useful information. However, in this case it seemed fairly obvious that Brendan really didn't comprehend the situation he was in. I find it a bit egregious that he was interviewed by the Police a number of times without a lawyer, or anyone else present. I wonder if the Police ever mentioned to him that he had the right to have an attorney present, and if they did, whether Dassey would have understood what they meant. In that sense, I feel it is unfair for the Police to keep questioning him when they know he is unaware of his rights. In all likelihood he was unaware of his rights. We don't really know what happened in the previous interviews before the initial "confession", but it seems clear from Dassey's answers to questions that he was probably just guessing. He seems like at every step, whenever he is presented with information he doesn't understand, he just does what he is told to do. The Police shouldn't have rushed a confession out of him and allowed someone to be present who could explain the situation in terms Brenden could understand. The most heartbreaking moment for me was at the conclusion of the interview, when the two investigators leave the room, Brendan asks about whether he can get back to class in time to hand in his project that was due. That really made it sink in for me that he didn't grasp the gravity of the situation he was in, or what he had just admitted to doing. This too, should have made it clear to the judge that this kid needs a psychological evaluation to determine whether he is mentally fit to give statements or stand trial. It should have been clear that Brendan is unable to make difficult decisions on his own.
Then in the subsequent interviews with his lawyers, investigators, etc, they pray on the fact that they can manipulate him into doing what they want. They all happily let him dig himself deeper into the hole. If they pressure him enough, he just does what they say. The fact that he doesn't fully understand what is being put before him and therefore you can't say he is able to make decisions on his own. Like when he told his Mom in a phone call that he didn't know the definition of "inconsistencies". How is this kid supposed to understand the complex legal jargon, or even more basic terminology, when he doesn't understand that? Yet, he is essentially being forced by his legal team to sign these documents where he is admitting guilt while he maintains he didn't do anything. Though, ultimately, this is what got Len Kachinsky fired as his lawyer.
Speaking of Kachinsky, I got the impression that he was never really interested in listening to Brendan. It seemed like he basically just wanted to get his name on TV and in the papers by accepting a high profile, but seemingly cut and dry, case. Perhaps he figured that he'd just get Brendan to sign the official confession and then plea out, the simplest solution for both the prosecution and defense. It just seemed to me that his legal team had no intention to listen to him when he said he was innocent. An innocent plea would make Kachinsky's job much harder, since Brendan had already "confessed" to the crime. He seemed convinced of Dassey's guilt before even speaking to Dassey. Kachinsky probably wanted to avoid a long drawn out case that he was convinced he would lose anyway, so why go through the trouble of trying to prove his client's innocence and losing? This would certainly not look good if he tried to run for office again.
I also have some procedural grievances with the trial and the judge. Judge Willis, off the bat, should have realized that it was very difficult to insure a fair trail considering the overwhelming publicity of the case in the media. He also made a number of key decisions that I feel really made it very difficult for the defense to try and present a fair case for Avery's innocence. Most notably, the issue of Third Party Liability, which meant the defense had no ability to ever prove that Avery didn't do it because they weren't allowed to blame anyone else. Maybe it's because I'm not a trial lawyer or a judge, but it seems like everyone should be given the chance to argue that someone else did it. The impression I basically got was that Avery's lawyers could say, well, he didn't do it but we can't tell you why because then we'd be blaming a third party. Even when the Police investigation hadn't even explored the possibility of other suspects, and therefore could not concretely rule out that someone else had done it. This all just made it seem as if the trial was just a formality, the Police, State, and Judge all just wanted to get it over with, they got their man, now let's lock him up and call it a day. Another thing I was wondering about was whether Judge Willis may himself be coming from a point of bias. There are a number of opportunities where Willis could have called a mistrial, that I feel would have been warranted, but then chose not to. Especially when presented with statements by the Sheriff saying it'd be easier to shoot Avery instead of framing him.
Moving on, I started thinking about what Avery's motivation would be if he was actually responsible. The theory has been thrown around that Avery's time in prison might have changed him and left him with some psychological damage. If that is the case though, wouldn't there have been some signs visible to his family that he was unstable and might become violent. People don't usually murder others completely out of the blue. Then you think about the letters he sent to his ex-wife while in prison, which were definitely troubling. You could also make a case that he is impulsive, when you take into account his previous criminal exploits. However, If they really thought he is so cold blooded and dangerous, why not subject him to a psychological evaluation? If he is otherwise healthy, then why'd he do it? Did he have any personal issues with Teresa Halbach that have been undisclosed?
The biggest question I have though is why didn't Avery destroy the evidence? I mean, sure, it's clear that neither Avery nor Dassey are criminal masterminds, but even the most simple minded criminal with a car crusher could put two and two together. Avery crushes cars for a living, that'll be the first thing he thinks about doing. You're not going to put the car off in a corner and cover it with branches. That just makes no sense. You also won't just leave the key laying open on the floor. It also seems strange to me that they would then try to burn the body in the backyard rather than move it somewhere far away. There is just too much damning evidence on the property that it just seems odd. Then again, Avery is no criminal mastermind so it is conceivable that he may have panicked and not been able to think.
The evidence just doesn't seem right, but neither does the sequence of events from the moment it was found through the Police searches. Obviously, there is a very easy argument to be made that the Police have a major conflict of interest. The also have a motive to want to get put Avery in jail. It is also quite clear that the Sheriff really dislikes Avery for whatever reason. As do other Officers under the Sheriff's command. It can't be easily discounted that they have plenty of reason to interfere with the investigation, even if they themselves didn't facilitate a set up. For one, you have to wonder why it took four searches to find a car key that was apparently out in the open. Then that car key had no other dna on it other than Avery's. Then the car, also had no other evidence other than a few drops of Avery's blood. If Avery was smart enough to wear gloves, or perhaps scrub his prints out, or whatever, then he'd have been smart enough to clean the blood. Or, you know, crush the car. It is also strange that the Police had basically unlimited, unmonitored, access to the property for a number of days. Who knows what happened within that time? A time when Avery himself wasn't even in town.
I'm trying to view this case as objectively as possible, not allowing myself to fall into the bias that he was set up or is innocent. Though, I feel like the number of procedural errors made in the investigation should have prompted the judge to rule a mistrial. This seems like the most fair thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)