(Part 2) Top products from r/MakingaMurderer

I don't think he testified though. My guess now is that was the price tag for either Sherry Culhane, the one who contaminated the bullet dna, or Marc LeBeau, the FBI expert who only tested half of the blood swabs but went on record saying the remaining untested swabs were positively Avery's.

Btw, I found Marc LeBeau wrote a book... http://www.amazon.com/Drug-Facilitated-Sexual-Assault-Forensic-Handbook/dp/0124402615/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453225254&sr=1-1&keywords=Marc+LeBeau

I wonder if this book can be shown to invalidate his testimony. Meaning he wasn't even following his own advice. The $12k basically being witness for hire scenario.

I was writing about Phil Houston, an ex-CIA employee who was paid by the CIA to develop software to detect deceptive responses. I think the man is as flaky as the MK Ultra and the Men Who Stare At Goats guys. Form your own opinion.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/deception-experts-jury-is-correct-steve-avery-is-guilty/

http://www.amazon.com/Spy-Lie-Former-Officers-Deception/dp/1250029627/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458654169&sr=1-1&keywords=Phil+Houston

http://www.amazon.com/Get-Truth-Former-Officers-Persuade/dp/1250043336/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458654169&sr=1-2&keywords=Phil+Houston

If you would like some true information regarding the CIA's ability to detect deception watch the documentary Taxi To the Dark Side.
http://www.amazon.com/Taxi-Dark-Side-Alex-Gibney/dp/B018TLEPMU/ref=sr_1_1?s=instant-video&ie=UTF8&qid=1458654891&sr=1-1&keywords=taxi+to+the+dark+side

Mark Fuhrman wrote a great book about this: http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Business-Entertainment-Subverts-Justice/dp/1596985844/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541740803&sr=1-4&keywords=mark+fuhrman

This is an insert from a book written by John Schafer. Schafer is a professor at Western Illinois University in the Law Enforcement and Justice Administration (LEJA) Department. He is a retired FBI Special Agent. He served as behavioral analyst assigned to FBI's National Security Behavioral Analysis Program. This book points out ways to determine deception. He analysed Brendan's interview and broke it down.

Book was released in 2010 and can be found here: http://amzn.com/0398079285

I recommend you read this: http://www.amazon.ca/Unfair-The-Science-Criminal-Injustice/dp/0770437761
This story will be an even bigger heartbreaker when you realize that type of judiciary misconduct goes on (on a smaller level) every single day in the United States.

according to this book, painting cats is something people do

Some materials to try to understand it:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180124-the-enduring-appeal-of-conspiracy-theories


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201801/why-do-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724570/

https://www.amazon.com/Suspicious-Minds-Believe-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/1472915631

>... syntax, phonetics, and semantics...

here is an entire book on it.

[here] (http://savethevowels.org/praat/UsingPraatforLinguisticResearchLatest.pdf) is a very long journal article on the use of praat in linguistic research.

Here is a youtube video showing some of the basic uses of praat in a linguistics context, for identifying vowels, similar to what I was trying to do.

Here is the wiki for acoustic phonetics, the subfield of phonetics that would do recording analysis.

This is a must read for anyone who works, or who has worked in radio. It's a hoot.

http://www.amazon.com/Original-Sex-Broadcasting-Handbook-Community/dp/0917320018

The photo is from the criminal complaint on page 3 of this link:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Criminal-Complaint.pdf

Aside from that, he is never mentioned in this case again that I have seen. Did a quick google search and found his obituary (he passed away in 2014) which does list his credentials.

http://www.informedchoicefunerals.com/obituary/122525/Kenneth-Bennett//

Also he wrote this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Human-Skeletal-Identification/dp/0398058849/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Edit: Forgot to include a link

a lawyer can believe his client is likely guilty, and even be pretty certain based on the evidence.

the point i'm making is that a lawyer cannot have evidence of guilt and keep it "for internal use". both sides are obligated to disclose material evidence to each other.

i would recommend Kirk Makin's "Redrum The Innocent", which tells the story of an infamous murder/false conviction/bumbling police investigation story in Canada around the same time coincidentally as Avery was being framed up for the assault conviction that put him in jail for 18 years. It has a good section on the appeals process followed and how the defense argued that the prosecution was not disclosing pertinent information from their investigation.

of course, there is always a grey area in these matters. what constitutes material evidence/information? generally, the investigators offer up whatever info/evidence is requested specifically on top of whatever they dutifully disclose as material. however, you get into semantics and bullshit sometimes. e.g. defense asks for anything from the investigation relating to the victim's fibres, and the investigators comply to the literal request but then don't offer up further fibre evidence that they dealt with that they discarded from their case because it pointed away from the suspect/defendant.

I remember reading a book by Alan Dershowitz aft the trial and he all but said that the police framed a guilty man.

Can't remember the name of the book now.

Edit Found it: Reasonable Doubts: O.J.Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0684830213/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_3MQ2wbTFYCSCJ

So when you are wrong you double down? So if Gershman is wrong, why is his book on Prosecutor Misconduct used by law schools all over the country, including Wisconsin law schools like Marquette, where Ken Kratz went to school. Gershman's book on Prosecutor Misconduct came out in 1985, so Kratz was a law student then and may have read it (or probably not). But somehow you want me to ignore 100s of law schools and believe YOU, an anonymous person on the internet that posts here 100 times a day. Do you want to know what real people think about Gershman's book on Prosecutor Misconduct.

>From time to time we run across a law book that is exemplary, this book is such a book. This book does the best job we have seen on the subject matter of Prosecutorial Misconduct. In this day of our age, where the Constitution is treated like a mere fable enshrined in mythology, while nearly every arrest is flawed with rights violations, due process violations and worse. It would be a much better world if both the prosecutors and the defendants were to read and apply this book.

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0314934804/ref=acr_dpproductdetail_text/139-7344384-0181548?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Also, here is a review of Gershman's Prosecutorial Misconduct book from John Edwards (the U.S. Senator and candidiate for Vice President)

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1514&context=plr

I hadn't heard of Tom Monfils, sounds like an interesting case:

On November 21, 1992, Thomas Monfils, an employee at the James River paper mill in Green Bay, Wisconsin, disappeared. After an intensive search, his body was found the next evening, submerged in a pulp vat. The police called it murder. In 1995, six of Monfils' coworkers were wrongfully convicted of his death, the result of a preordained theory and a reckless prosecution.

Highly detailed and meticulously researched, The Monfils Conspiracy reveals the true story of a botched case that landed six innocent men in prison. Through extensive interviews, court documents, police reports, and other documentation, Denis Gullickson and John Gaie present a powerful look at the troubling events surrounding the death of Thomas Monfils and the mistake-riddled investigation that followed.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Monfils-Conspiracy-Conviction-Innocent/dp/0595484735

Problem is that police use a tactic that almost guarantees that a victim will pick "the guy they like" out of the line up. They have the suspect somewhere where the victim can see them before the line-up inside the police station. Then they do the line-up. Victim has seen the "perp" in custody and figures it must be that guys. The victim picks their guy. Slam dunk and compelling as hell. Problem is that some of these folks then get DNA testing after being in prison for decades. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Actual-Innocence-Justice-Wrong-Right/dp/0451209826/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452823186&sr=8-1&keywords=actual+innocence

If you are remembering that quote from Mind Hunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit (http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Hunter-Inside-Elite-Serial/dp/0671528904), you are remembering it wrong. It states that serial sexual killers become skilled in "domination, manipulation and control". (key word being serial)

Again, it is far too nuanced to talk about it with such certainty. Are there people who get sexual gratification from the power they have over people in hose situation? 100%. More often than not most likely. But not always.

Here is a scenario. Drunk man takes home drunk girl and they begin to have consensual sex. But part way through, right before he is about to finish even, she wants to stop and expresses that clearly. He keeps going though. That is rape. But I wouldn't say that the motive was power over women. Another good example is spousal rape.

>Imagine holding down someone who's crying and pleading for you to go away, and forcing yourself on them sexually.

Rapes rarely happen like this.

Here are a couple sources on sexual gratification and rape:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=64084

http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ifep/article/view/23610

http://www.jstor.org/stable/800239?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616660110049609

http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/3/251

Also a practicing criminal defence lawyer. Going to analyse this and be a bit of a devil's advocate.

>The car - Colburn called in to dispatch asking them to run plate numbers that turn out to be Teresa Halbech's, and after she tells him its a missing person's car, he tells the dispatcher "99 Toyota?", which she confirms. He had no real explanation on the stand. He looked like a deer in the headlights under questioning. Really strong proof Colburn was involved in moving the car to Avery's property.

No - not "really strong proof". It's a circumstantial suggestion that Colburn moved the RAV4 to the Avery salvage yard. It doesn't prove that he did so. Circumstantial proof can only be relied upon for a conviction if the ONLY logical inference from that circumstance is guilt. If there is any other logical inference that can be drawn that favours innocence, that must be favoured.

is it shady? Yeah. Does it raise reasonable doubt to the prosecution case? Yes! But does it prove Colburn moved the car? No.

> The key - They searched that room for days, and the cabinet. ... A key with blood on it, found by the same officer who knew about the blood vial because he had been in charge of transmitting it earlier, a blood vial that had been compromised and had blood drawn from it.

This is the really compelling evidence of police planting the DNA evidence. Yes, it's circumstantial again, but this time what are the logical inferences?

• the house has been searched for days
  
• no key has been found previously
  
• no blood has been found previously
  
• one of the police who has been in contact with a blood sample from Steven Avery suddenly and conveniently finds crucial evidence damning Avery?
  
  Yeah. The only logical inference from those circumstances is that Lenk planted the evidence.
  
  > This is the place where he "shot" her in their theory, but they can't find a trace of blood on ANYTHING in a garage strewn with a hundred objects. They can't find blood seeped into cracks in the concrete they tear up.
  
  This is also really telling. The house is pretty grotty. It's very hoarder-esque. But NOTHING got blood spatter on it? From what was, by Dassey's description, a violent and bloodthirsty crime?
  
  It beggars belief.
  
  > Just a guess, of course, but we know the judge wasn't bothered by admitting a test that can produce false negatives. And juries are often in awe of FBI forensics. It's like magic to them. You can practically hear the CSI theme song running in their heads.
  
  The damn CSI effect. I've seen judges lose their shit in criminal trials in Australia when the jury foreperson has requested further forensic evidence. "It's not like TV! You have to make your decision based on the evidence available, not the evidence that you think can be found via the magic of forensic testing that doesn't exist outside of TV land!!"
  
  Some good reading on the topic:
  
  
• http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-csi-effect-fact-or-fiction
  
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Donald_Shelton/publication/222705662_Examining_the_CSI-effect_in_the_cases_of_circumstantial_evidence_and_eyewitness_testimony_Multivariate_and_path_analyses/links/02bfe50d7d658bdac7000000.pdf
  
• http://archive.cspo.org/documents/csieffectheinrick.pdf
  
• I'm reading this at the moment - looks at more than just DNA or forensic evidence but the way science is misused in law to razzle dazzle juries and judges http://www.amazon.com/No-Magic-Wand-Idealization-Science/dp/0742550230
  
  > The confession of the nephew - That confession might have me more angry than the planting of the evidence. No one should be able to watch that tape and think that confession has an ounce of validity to it.
  
  Me too. I've represented a lot of children in criminal matters and a lot of people with intellectual disabilities. The way that Dassey is interrogated is awful. He is clearly just guessing and fishing around for what he thinks the investigators want to hear. It's the most striking example of gratuitous concurrence. There is no way that "confession" should have been permitted in court.
  
  > I feel confident Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are innocent.
  
  I'm confident Dassey is innocent. I'm very open to being persuaded that Avery is innocent.
  
  But you know what? None of that really matters. What matters is that the investigation, prosecution and trial were such a sham, such a violation of fair trial rights. The Prosecution could not, should not have been able to discharge its burden of proof: to prove the elements of the offence of homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
  

I don't know of any particular source to point you on that directly, but I think you should read From Slavery to Mass Incarceration by Lois Wacquant, and Racecraft by Karen and Barbara Fields, and The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

[From Slavery to Mass Incarceration article and PDF] (http://newleftreview.org/II/13/loic-wacquant-from-slavery-to-mass-incarceration)

Racecraft (book)

New Jim Crow

None of these sources addresses for-profit prisons directly, I don't think (I don't recall maybe New Jim Crow does) but I think they'll be informative. I know you aren't talking about race but you can't talk about poverty and incarceration in this country without talking about race. From Slavery demonstrates how the economic system of the US has always depended on the extraction of cheap or free labor from black people while socially ostracizing black bodies. This began with slavery and it tracks its evolution to mass incarceration, and ends with a note about how there is developing a for-profit prison system which is basically extracting slave labor from large numbers of blacks and repeating the same pattern. The New Jim Crow does a good job of explaining how mass incarceration is the direct result of post Civil Rights era attempts to roll back the gains made during the Civil Rights movement, and goes into detail about the suppression and theft of black productivity that it institutes.

You asked about for profit prisons, but here I am talking about black people - why? This is where Racecraft comes in because it demonstrates how the entire purpose of racial distinctions and classifications is not only to create hierarchies between black and white, but to create hierarchies between rich whites and everyone else. The effect of this for hundreds of years has been, by injecting racial divisions, to destroy the ability of the lower classes, black white or otherwise, to unite and act productively in order to achieve class equality.

Thinking about that, it follows that the drug war, and the irrational, racist fears of the crack epidemic, and extremely harsh penalties in favor of "law and order" spiraled into a system where all poor people are at risk of being scooped up and enslaved in a system where their labor can be extracted for almost no wage -they are still economically productive but they can't actually reap the benefits of their own production. But whenever we talk about the issue, notice the discussion always devolves into a discussion about "black culture" and "white privilege" and so on...Racecraft really made me believe that it's not just that race and class are "linked" - in America, they are identical issues, whose two facets are obscured from each other.

You might also want to read Discipline and Punish for a background on prison systems generally, and how they are designed to perpetuate criminality and create a criminal underclass for the exploitation of the rest of society.