http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/18/missing.photog.ap/index.html

A tragic ending in Wisconsin: A man is cleared of rape charges after 18 years in prison, and murders and rapes a 25-year old girl when he gets out.

I bring this up because of a recent thread which spent a lot of time second-guessing the Texas and U.S. justice system.

This is a good case for illustrating why second-guessing verdicts is a risky business. Even DNA tests need to be approached with a certain amount of skepticism.

This is my neck of the woods so we've been discussing this for a while up here. Yes, I know he was cleared and that it was "wrongful" imprisonment but we can't help thinking that the world was better with him stashed away or the young girl would still be alive.

These people should be executed next day. If you commit a crime like this, you should be taken out into a field and stabbed in the heart with a rusty dagger.

These people should be executed next day. If you commit a crime like this, you should be taken out into a field and stabbed in the heart with a rusty dagger.

I would be perfectly accepting of a punishment such as this - what he did to this poor girl is atrocious!

Strange case, looks like due process failed in this case

This is my neck of the woods so we've been discussing this for a while up here. Yes, I know he was cleared and that it was "wrongful" imprisonment but we can't help thinking that the world was better with him stashed away or the young girl would still be alive.

It's my neck of the woods too. His prior conviction wasn't "wrongful", it was just wrong. The world would be better off with a justice system that works right, not by imprisoning people because you think they might be guilty. BTW, at 25 I don't think she qualifies as a "young girl", or even as a "girl" which Leper referred to her as. She was a woman.

These people should be executed next day. If you commit a crime like this, you should be taken out into a field and stabbed in the heart with a rusty dagger.

No doubt some people said this about him when he was wrongly convicted of rape in 1985 as well. The problem is that they would have been killing someone who didn't commit the crime in question.

I am sure his 18 years wrongly spent in prison didn't do anything to soften him up for release into society.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/18/missing.photog.ap/index.html

A tragic ending in Wisconsin: A man is cleared of rape charges after 18 years in prison, and murders and rapes a 25-year old girl when he gets out.

I bring this up because of a recent thread which spent a lot of time second-guessing the Texas and U.S. justice system.

This is a good case for illustrating why second-guessing verdicts is a risky business. Even DNA tests need to be approached with a certain amount of skepticism.
I am curious here leper as to what you are saying. DNA cleared him of the first crime. You seriously think a man convicted of something he didn't do should not be released.

How in the hell does this justify problems and attempts to correct them within the Texas legal system? I am truly shocked by your post.

I am curious here leper as to what you are saying. DNA cleared him of the first crime. You seriously think a man convicted of something he didn't do should not be released.

How in the hell does this justify problems and attempts to correct them within the Texas legal system? I am truly shocked by your post.
Quite right, Sal.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/18/missing.photog.ap/index.html

A tragic ending in Wisconsin: A man is cleared of rape charges after 18 years in prison, and murders and rapes a 25-year old girl when he gets out.

I bring this up because of a recent thread which spent a lot of time second-guessing the Texas and U.S. justice system.

This is a good case for illustrating why second-guessing verdicts is a risky business. Even DNA tests need to be approached with a certain amount of skepticism.
Yeah, we should really imprison people for crimes they didn't commit so they won't be able to commit crimes that they "might" commit. Give me a fucking break. The guy was innocent, he should never have been in prison in the first place. So he committed a crime after he was released. Put him in prison for that, but imprisoning people for things they "might" do is asinine. Much less killing people, as Phyrex suggests. You can't undo a death sentence.

As OJ's defense told us, DNA evidence is only as good as the ability to collect it cleanly, store it properly and test it accurately.

Perhaps he was "not guilty" of his first conviction, but not "innocent".

in a court of law its the guilty bit they work on, you should know that Brooksy

Perhaps he was "not guilty" of his first conviction, but not "innocent".
in·no·cent /ˈɪnəsənt/
–adjective
2. free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime. [Boldface mine.]

I don't know if you're responding to me or paulc here.

In criminal court "not guilty" means that the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime, so your presumption of innocence stands.

It's very different from "innocent".

It's my neck of the woods too. His prior conviction wasn't "wrongful", it was just wrong. The world would be better off with a justice system that works right, not by imprisoning people because you think they might be guilty. BTW, at 25 I don't think she qualifies as a "young girl", or even as a "girl" which Leper referred to her as. She was a woman.

If you prefer "wrong" feel free to use it instead and she WAS a YOUNG woman (that's OK too). And, many people at least wish he wouldn't have been let out - never said his imprisonment was right. Is that clearer and more appropriate for you?

This is a good case for illustrating why second-guessing verdicts is a risky business.

I don't think it demonstrates that at all. If he wasn't guilty, he wasn't guilty. It does illustrate, however, that even the wrongly accused are frequently bad people. The whole reason they get caught up and accused of something they didn't do is because they hang out in the wrong places with the wrong crowd.

I don't think it demonstrates that at all. If he wasn't guilty, he wasn't guilty. It does illustrate, however, that even the wrongly accused are frequently bad people. The whole reason they get caught up and accused of something they didn't do is because they hang out in the wrong places with the wrong crowd.
i'm still looking for the details of the 1st case. like Brooks posted, not guilty doesn't mean innocent, and a rape/murder this grizzly doesn't seem like a 1st time offense.

i'm still looking for the details of the 1st case. like Brooks posted, not guilty doesn't mean innocent, and a rape/murder this grizzly doesn't seem like a 1st time offense. Ummm...he was innocent. Did you ever thinks he was probably really fucking pissed off for being in prison for 18 years when he was innocent?

Ummm...he was innocent. Did you ever thinks he was probably really fucking pissed off for being in prison for 18 years when he was innocent?
so he rapes, murders and mutilates the corpse of a photographer.....with his nephew? not hardly:rolleyes:

I'd like to hear the details of the first case before I argue this much further, but the standard of proof was the same in the 80's as it is today, so I think it's safe to assume that there must've been at least SOME pretty good evidence that the guy did the first rape...even if you choose to ignore the fantasticly amazing coincidence that he's been convicted in a separate rape/murder just 2 years out of prison.

People need to remember DNA evidence is STILL circumstantial evidence, just like fingerprints. The best evidence is still a credible victim who says "There's no doubt in my mind that that is the guy who did it."

I don't have a good link to the details of the first case. I will look for it later. I do remember pretty well what the details were however, as I was interested at the time.
The evidence that convicted him in the 1980's was based on several things. First, the local police suspected him immediately because he had a history of being convicted previously as a juvenile for assault, and because the victims description was consistent with him. They brought him in for a lineup, and the victim positively identified him. There was also a pubic hair and semen that was tested, and the blood type was consistent. His alibi was that he had been at a local store purchasing hardware, which was backed up by a credit card receipt and witnesses. That was enough to convict him.
What got him released was the invention of DNA testing. The pubic hair had been saved, and the DNA was not only not his, but was matched to another inmate in the prison system from a nearby town. That inmate had been convicted of another rape with many similarities to the original crime. That was enough evidence to free him.

He had a large lawsuit awaiting trial against the police in his local town at the time of the second crime. It saved his hometown millions of dollars when he was convicted of the murder. Some will always suspect that much of the evidence was planted. I don't know what did happen that day, but I do know that the nephew is considered mentally retarded, and that his story changed several times. It is a troubling case, and the jury deliberated for a long time. I sincerely hope that further advances in testing do not show in another couple of decades that it was a frameup.

Here is a good link to the Wisconsin Innocence Project website.

http://law.wisc.edu/fjr/innocence/avery_summary.htm

I sincerely hope that further advances in testing do not show in another couple of decades that it was a frameup.

I don't think you have to lose sleep over that.

One of the articles said that the woman came to his house to photograph something for him, this wasn't just a random homeless body that the DA and the police linked to him.

Unless one believes that the police saw her leave his property and killed her themselves........

If you prefer "wrong" feel free to use it instead and she WAS a YOUNG woman (that's OK too). And, many people at least wish he wouldn't have been let out - never said his imprisonment was right. Is that clearer and more appropriate for you?

It's certainly clearer and less emotionally charged. I didn't mean to jump on your post, and I'm sorry if it came off that way, but I see no reason to use emotionally charged terms to describe his crimes. What he did was horrible enough without trying to make it sound worse.

Cool Vilepagan but:) I do think that it was atrocious, keeping her bound to the bed, etc.

The best evidence is still a credible victim who says "There's no doubt in my mind that that is the guy who did it."


There have been more people wrongly convicted on eye witness testimony than will ever be convicted because the DNA evidence was wrong.

i'm still looking for the details of the 1st case. like Brooks posted, not guilty doesn't mean innocent, and a rape/murder this grizzly doesn't seem like a 1st time offense.

Here's a link to the Crime Library's website concerning this case and Avery's previous incarceration:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/steven_avery_halbach/1.html

(Keep in mind that the Crime Library has been known to make some rather serious errors in their reporting.)

People need to remember DNA evidence is STILL circumstantial evidence, just like fingerprints. The best evidence is still a credible victim who says "There's no doubt in my mind that that is the guy who did it."

It's hard to believe that anyone would trust what some person says over scientific DNA evidence.

People can be wrong, and more importantly, people can lie. DNA doesn't lie.

This is a good case for illustrating why second-guessing verdicts is a risky business. Even DNA tests need to be approached with a certain amount of skepticism.

Making a statement like that leads me to conclude that you think that because he raped someone AFTER he got out of prison, he must havebeen --in spite of the DNA evidence proving otherwise-- guilty of the first rape he was charged with.

To me, it does not follow. The fact that he raped someone in 2006 does NOT automatically mean he was guilty of the rape charge from 18 years prior to that.

What seems *risky* here to me is to cast aside the DNA evidence in favor of far more questionable means of proving something in court.

[QUOTE=Leper

People need to remember DNA evidence is STILL circumstantial evidence, just like fingerprints. The best evidence is still a credible victim who says "There's no doubt in my mind that that is the guy who did it."[/QUOTE]


I'm confused, Leper..isn't DNA evidence physical evidence, rather than circumstantial?

I'm confused, Leper..isn't DNA evidence physical evidence, rather than circumstantial?

It's physical as well as circumstantial. It's circumstantial because it only shows that the person was present at the place where the DNA was discovered, not that the person necessarily committed the crime.

Here, we're talking about the absence of DNA evidence, which is sketchier evidence than the presence of DNA.

Also, here's a more reliable website (contains DoJ memo about the case) about the first conviction:

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/2003/nr012203_DCI.asp

Nevertheless, it DOES look like they got the wrong guy in the first conviction, although I can see why....

To summarize, here was the evidence in the first trial: Victim ID'd defendant from a photo array, and again in a live lineup. Defendant claimed to be mixing cement on the day of the first assault, but testing revealed no cement dust on his clothing. Defendant said that he was accused of assaulting a "girl" before he was told anything about the victim.

On the defense side, they had 16 alibi witnesses and a receipt showing that the defendant was buying something an hour and 15 minutes before the crime at a location which was about an hour away, and the defendant had his family with him at that time.

The new evidence showed that pubic hair on the victim was a DNA match to a different man, another sex offender in the area.

Good link, Leper--thanks.

Interesting to note what a neighbor reported about Avery's family. (from Crime Library)

"Odd" was how they were described.

Good choice of words, I'd say.

It's hard to believe that anyone would trust what some person says over scientific DNA evidence.

People can be wrong, and more importantly, people can lie. DNA doesn't lie.
I agree, for the most part, that is. For example, take an alleged rape where your babysitter comes into your home, finds a used (non spermicidally lubricated) condom, and then proceeds to stuff your gunk in her cooch. She then calls the police and claims you raped her. The DNA evidence against you is concrete, but you're innocent. It's circumstantial.

I agree, for the most part, that is. For example, take an alleged rape where your babysitter comes into your home, finds a used (non spermicidally lubricated) condom, and then proceeds to stuff your gunk in her cooch. She then calls the police and claims you raped her. The DNA evidence against you is concrete, but you're innocent. It's circumstantial.I see your point, but you don't really leave used condoms laying around, do you?? :eek:

There are two kinds of evidence. Circumstantial, and direct. Direct evidence is evidence that shows a person commited the crime in question, and circumstantial which shows the person may have committed the crime.

I see your point, but you don't really leave used condoms laying around, do you?? :eek:
typically they go in a trash can...but after seeing the movie "The Crush" i decided to see if they're flushable. (they are)

typically they go in a trash can...but after seeing the movie "The Crush" i decided to see if they're flushable. (they are)

Most things are flushable. The question is whether you'll need to call the plumber in three years.

That would be quite fun to watch the guy named Steve from Al's Plumbing (a one man operation) opening the pipes to find some rubbery items stuck within the pipes. His face would be priceless.

That would be quite fun to watch the guy named Steve from Al's Plumbing (a one man operation) opening the pipes to find some rubbery items stuck within the pipes. His face would be priceless.

I'd be willing to bet it would be very difficult to surprise a plumber of any experience with what he might retrieve from a clogged pipe. Children have been flushing odd things since the invention of the flush toilet.

My brother had to call the plumber after flushing "flushable" baby wipes for many months.

The kids, over the years, flushed spoons, socks, toys, soap, and shoes.

There for a while, we were on a first name basis with the friendly neighborhood plumber.

I see your point, but you don't really leave used condoms laying around, do you?? :eek:
Lol. Sure - they're expensive, so I try to get more than one use out of 'em. ;)

Lol. Sure - they're expensive, so I try to get more than one use out of 'em.

I can't even begin to describe the visual on this!!! LOL!

The kids, over the years, flushed spoons, socks, toys, soap, and shoes.

There for a while, we were on a first name basis with the friendly neighborhood plumber.

When we were children, my brother tried to figue out how the toilet upstairs and downstairs were connected. He experimented with flushing his underwear down the upstairs toilet and running downstairs to see if the underwear would appear there.