Ken Kratz in closing arguments at Steven Avery's 2007 trial for the murder of Teresa Halbach:
"But also the issue of official or police misconduct should be something that angers you, just as its angers me."It's so blatantly obvious officials have always resented their integrity being questioned. [Source]
(F.A.Q., Frequently Asked Questions)
By Dr Les Sachs
Here is the complete internet FAQ, or Frequently Asked Questions with Answers, on American judicial and legal corruption - the most hidden and ugly secret about life inside the modern United States.
Information for the many victims of USA legal injustice, and for anyone seeking to understand America's terrifying legal system, and how America really works.
Why American lawyers and judges are destroying families, sending innocent people to prison, and why average working people cannot get justice in American courts.
This FAQ is especially important, because America's major news media are afraid to talk about wrongdoing by lawyers and judges. Here is the truth that the U.S. media knows, but hides from the public.
First a list of just the questions, and then each question in turn with its answer.
This FAQ may be re-published, even in full, without charge by anyone, anywhere, with acknowledgement of author and source.
Questions:
1. I've been a victim of wrongdoing by a judge or lawyer - where do I start in getting help?
2. I thought America was a "free country" with the "greatest legal system in the world" - so why is my situation such a difficult problem?
3. What about the grievance procedures for dishonest and criminal judges?
4. What about the local Bar or Bar association - Aren't they supposed to go after crooked lawyers and judges?
5. Why is it so hard to find a lawyer to fight legal or judicial corruption, why are all the lawyers afraid to help me?
6. Aren't there lawyers who specialize in "legal malpractice" or misconduct by lawyers?
7. I read about crazy lawsuits for trivial reasons where people win money - so why can't I find a lawyer to fight serious issues of legal corruption?
8. I had a lawyer in my original legal case, but he acted weak, timid and stupid in the courtroom, he didn't try to strongly defend me - Why was that?
9. What about prosecutors and police - won't the prosecutors or the FBI go after crooked lawyers and judges?
10. Is it true that once I become a victim of judicial and legal corruption, I basically become an "outlaw" to the whole legal system in America?
11. Is it just a question of money - could I fix things if I had some money?
12. Why doesn't someone fight this whole big crooked system - What is keeping all of this going?
13. But with the judges so out of control in America, aren't there rich people and political groups that have even more power than the judges?
14. How is the power of the big corporations in America, connected to the abuse of power by judges and lawyers?
15. What kind of a deal is in place between America's judges and lawyers, on the one hand, and the corporations and multi-millionaires?
16. I couldn't get help from my political representative, about my battle with a crooked judge or crooked lawyer - Why won't the politicians help me?
17. So the current state of legal corruption, is really supported by both political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans together?
18. Is the problem of judicial and legal corruption, the same as the problem of "political activist judges", or is that a different issue?
19. There are so many organizations out there - isn't there an organization that will help me fight wrongdoing by a judge or lawyers?
20. I've got great evidence, and an important story, of judicial or legal corruption. How do I get the news media to cover my case?
21. What about investigative reporters - won't they be interested in my story of legal or judicial corruption?
22. What about the alternative or radical or foreign news media - won't they be interested in my story of legal or judicial corruption?
23. What about the professors at the law schools - aren't they studying and writing about legal corruption?
24. There's all these rich business executives getting convicted now, like Martha Stewart - Doesn't that prove that the system is really working?
25. What about being my own lawyer in court, and filing lawsuits against legal corruption on my own?
26. What things should I keep in mind in dealing with lawyers?
27. What is the history of how judges and lawyers got so much power in America?
28. Is the problem of legal and judicial corruption really different or better in other countries, or is it just the same as in America?
29. So what can I do to fight my personal battle against judicial and legal corruption - or is it just hopeless?
30. What is the best thing happening to fight judicial and legal corruption in America?
For answers to the above questions, go to this link:
http://www.dr-les-sachs.be/faq.html
Culture and bias within Law Enforcement. (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 1 day ago * by sleuthing_hobbyist
https://www.justice.gov/crs/file/836431/download
Thin Blue Line. Blue Wall of Silence. etc. These are terms that also refer to a culture that prioritizes an organization above the people it is supposed to serve.
Llack of police living in the neighbourhoods they work impacts on their attitudes.
The family Avery, because of experience with LE (be it right or wrong) will taint their viewpoint to the extent of being uncooperative to LE and members will take necessary action against them (ie liying and false statements) so as to avoid (in their own minds) any further interactions with them so as to avoid any 'injustices' happening to them.
This post wasn't about innocence/guilt, but rather about culture and how bias doesn't exist in a vacuum, but can perpetuate within an organization - especially if it's not held accountable for it's bias.
[–]sleuthing_hobbyist[S] 5 points 1 day ago
The individual LE employees who may no longer work there will have over the years imparted their views on the Avery family to other younger colleagues who may well follow the party line or indeed believe the knowledge to be correct.
exactly. Thats how culture works. LE is also a dangerous place for bias, because they have power.
Sure, leaders in schools, companies, and other organizations have power within an organization and some that extends into the community, however LE has power that extends into society in a much broader scope. Corruption usually runs very deep if it exists at all in the culture of a given organization. When the top LE guy in 1985 is seen doing something someone like MG deemed as criminal, how deep might have that type of corruption run in that department?
It's a fair question to ask.
Usually in situations where someone gets caught, it's after they have been doing it for a while. They get comfortable and they don't see it as risky as it was the first time they did it. There's no doubt in my mind, that if these individuals were actually guilty of criminal bias, they felt comfortable doing so and believed they'd get away with it. They would actually have still been right about that, if DNA technology hadn't advanced to the point of proving Avery innocent. Even GA telling others he did it, wasn't enough.
[–]DavidusUK 3 points 1 day ago
Perception from the man high up in LE starts to permeate throughout LE due to tainted opinions and the possibility of spreading malicious falsities against Avery.
This bias can and often does impact future impartiality in cases where there are appeals, exonarations, and subsequent criminal cases being brought against convicted criminals (whether rightly or wrongly) can easily lead to a bias in LE's investigation, more so where in instances that the LE are of a small community have a more personal knowledge of the suspected offender.
The saddest bit about Avery's case in 2005 was that to begin with, LE were not only aware of a potential 'conflict of interest' but went out to publicly placate all concerned that measures would be taken to either prevent this from happening or to minimise such conflicts.....which sadly failed.
CONTINUED...
[–]Rossj83 7 points 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is responsibile for the culture at MTSO, it would be Tom Kocourek, sheriff from 1979 to 2001(approximately).
Peterson was Tom's right hand man, Steven's arresting officer and next sheriff. Rob Hermann took over and he was called the "hatchet man"(responsibile for the hiring and firing) back about 1998 when Ricky H was killed. The Younger Hermann is now number 3 in MTSO. Bushman, also high ranking at one point, pops up in all these cases.
MTSO appears a closely knit group.
I always remember Kusche saying "Tom, tact in your department is the ability to smile in someone's face while stabbing them in the back" after being demoted from the chief deputy position.
If any locals are reading they may be able to tell us if any other senior officers were demoted.
[–]sleuthing_hobbyist[S] 5 points 1 day ago
Correct. This kind of thing happens in any organization. The problem is at it's worst when the higher ups are the ones with the bias.
You can have cultural corruption in an organization at lower levels, but it's not nearly as dangerous as when it's coming from the top. Because thats when the leaders can pick/choose the individuals that fit their system and promote/demote to support that system. It happens in all organizations with ideology that doesn't even have to be criminal in nature. Most leaders search for those that have the same ideology or will conform to their ideology.
[–]OpenMind4U 5 points 1 day ago
THIS!!!!!!
My 'triangle' for long time: Kocourek ----> Peterson ----> Hermann (or should I call it 'circle'?:)....now, add Pagel from other side with his 'buddies' and you'll get unique 'cultural and bias' poison tree.
[–]JacksnakeJames 3 points 1 day ago
I think the 3 of them could have pulled this off, and as cultural bias can go, others 'fell in line' with their trusted, and more experienced superiors. Of course, 'the boss' knows what to do, he didn't become 'the boss' for no reason!
[–]OpenMind4U 2 points 1 day ago
he didn't become 'the boss' for no reason!
Exactly...especially Kocourek and Hermann...two 'pillars'...with powers, opportunities and means...the ones who had pretty shady 'connections' and too much to lose.
CONTINUED...
[–]BunnyChapparral 6 points 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteI think bias, in one form or another, is at the root of this whole case. From 1985, through 2005 and still today. In 1985 LE had a bias against SA that blinded them to alternative suspects. Bias led that jury to believe one eyewitness, PB, over 16 alibi witnesses of SA's family.
In 2005, F&W had a confirmation bias regarding SA's guilt so strong that it led them to believe in BD's confession regardless of the lack of physical evidence. Again the jury had a bias that innocent people don't confess and law and order professionals do not prosecute innocent people. And there are countless other examples of bias at work throughout the investigation and trials.
And today between the MaM subreddits. Our cultural bias naturally leans us in the direction we are most comfortable with, likely because of our backgrounds and prior experiences. Each of us view the evidence through our own tunnel vision.
Right or wrong, this is my tunnel vision. The confession makes no sense and has zero physical evidence to support it. If TH was murdered by SA, it didn't happen as described in the confession. This leads me to believe that BD is completely innocent. I am also the mother of a 16yo boy (bias). I am a fence sitter on SA because there is physical evidence of some sort to support his involvement. If SA did murder TH, he didn't do it in the trailer or the garage. This leaves me with so many uncertainties that I have reasonable doubt. Now, here is my bias....I do not come from a law and order background and I have had two personal experiences with police detectives (I was the victim not the perp, lol) where they were unethical. My bias, as a result of my experiences and culture, allows me to believe that LE could band together and plant evidence. In particular, I can support it if most of them actually believe he is guilty. I think bias is at the root of the entire tragedy.
[–]MMonroe54 5 points 1 day ago*
The problem is those we elect and hire to represent us, who are the system.
The system, as designed, is near perfect. What is broken is the handling, administering, and, sometimes, peopling of the system. Changes in technology, in standards, in political influence, and in the goals of a society are what has endangered justice.
For instance, the advertising game has entered courtrooms. Voir dire now includes jury "experts", people who tell attorneys on both sides how to pick a jury. Prosecutors "perform" as much or more than they present their case. The wealthy get a better bite at the apple. Jurors lie, either to get on a jury or get out of serving. Television has brought the courtroom into our living room, both in actual trials and through series such as Law and Order; we have all become legal "experts".....proving the adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
It's about "winning" and maybe because it's adversarial in nature, that was inevitable. But a criminal trial is a serious and formidable and sobering event, where people's lives are at stake, and should be so regarded. I've said it ad nauseam but it bears repeating: defendants are innocent until a judge or jury rules otherwise. That must not -- should not -- be forgotten. Prosecutors should not do what KK did in this case, use the media as his second chair. But he's not alone in this; prosecutors, without a gag order, do it every day. People called for jury duty should be more willing to serve; defendants deserve intelligent, unbiased, thoughtful, rational men and women as "their peers".
Everybody needs to do better in order to protect the system, which in and of itself, is, as I said, near perfect.
CONTINUED...
[–]JLWhitaker 2 points 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteEverybody needs to do better in order to protect the system, which in and of itself, is, as I said, near perfect.
Naw. That sort of thinking changes nothing to improve it. How personnel are chosen for the justice system needs improving. The crime lab component needs improving. The voir dire process needs improving. The accountability for law enforcement who perjure themselves need improving, let alone for those who plant evidence. The lying by prosecutors with full immunity from prosecution themselves needs improving. The allowance for interrogators to lie to suspects needs improving. The bail system needs improving so poor people don't by default get stuck in jail for years until their case is heard, thereby punishing entire families. The plea bargain system needs improvement.
This system is far far far from perfect.
[–]JLWhitaker 1 point 15 hours ago
Fair enough, but the system is all those things. That's what systems are. They are designed by humans, not just acted within by humans. The checks and balances are missing in the system right now to restrain those human nature tendencies. That's what laws are supposed to do.
The system is far from perfect because it is created by humans who are imperfect. It must be changed. Perfection doesn't require change by definition. You can't improve on perfection.
permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply
[–]MMonroe54 1 point 10 hours ago
The system is far from perfect because it is created by humans who are imperfect. It must be changed
If it is imperfect because it was created by humans who are imperfect, then how is changing it going to help? It's still going to be done by imperfect humans.
I also said "near perfect" ...with the idea that almost nothing is perfect. My position is that the system, as written, designed, dreamed up, is as near perfect as any system of justice can be. It is the implementation of it that can be and often is unjust. Changing .....whatever....won't help that. You'll have the same problem (when there is a problem) -- which are the people who implement it.
I think we've circled this mulberry bush enough, so I'm getting off here, I think. ;-)
[–]Thesnakesate 2 points 1 day ago
So, if a bias existed in 1985, can it perpetuate till 2005? Even if the same individuals are no longer employed at the department? Yes, because of rank, those lower have moved up and with them, the same additude as their leader TK. They had they're choice in how they would perform their jobs, but in their Dept. it was follow the leader to get promoted obviously. Others and newbies, probably just did their jobs as they were supposed to without getting involved into the politics of the Dept. Some just want a career to support they're lives, other's want more power and control, even for personal gain, hence TK, KP, RH culture!
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/62te3g/culture_and_bias_within_law_enforcement/
Making a Murderer — What can we be sure of?
ReplyDeleteJanuary 19, 2016
Making a MurdererMaking a Murderer tells the real-life story of Steven Avery, a man who was imprisoned for 18 years for a crime he didn’t commit, only then to be accused of another more serious crime upon release – by a county sheriff’s department who were in the process of being sued by Mr Avery (for $36 million) for the previous wrongful conviction. Whether viewers found him guilty or not of the second conviction, they united in the acceptance that there was nothing ‘fair’ and ‘just’ about his trial.
The show has gripped audiences all over the world, with its apparent tale of injustice, accusations of corrupt officials, and the devastating impact the case has had on the local community. People were outraged at the seemingly unjust conviction. Jarett Wiselman wrote in Buzzfeed that “there is a fundamental inequity at work in countless branches of [the US] legal system.”
This was followed by the inevitable backlash, as online sleuths dug deeper into the case, finding evidence the documentary omitted, while figures from around the case were sought and interviewed by a hungry press hunting for a new angle.
It would be impossible to produce a documentary that satisfied everyone. As Bronwen Dickey wrote in Slate (The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer), when editing 700 hours of material into a 10 hour narrative, the viewer only sees 1.4% of the footage, so the task of making it truly representative is always going to be a challenge. The show may not have got across every aspect of a complicated trial, but does it matter? Regardless of what the show included or did not include, it clearly showed the importance of a fair trial in criminal proceedings.
We’ve written about the different aspects of the right to a fair trial, but this case showed beyond doubt the importance of access to a lawyer, which was highlighted in more than one episode.
The show illustrated the problems Mr Avery had in finding a lawyer without money, with the observation in episode 3 that ‘poor people always lose’. Questions were also raised around the lawyer of Brendan Dassey, Steven’s 16 year old nephew. Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the series is the interrogation that Brendan underwent without either a responsible adult or a lawyer. Fair Trials has worked extensively in the EU surrounding the protection of vulnerable suspects.
CONTINUED...
The show also highlighted the presumption of innocence — and we saw how this can be impacted upon by any number of things. The press coverage of the case was extensive, and from the documentary it certainly wasn’t balanced. The filmmakers also showed a number of occasions when Steven Avery was paraded before the press, wearing handcuffs and prison clothes, which brought into question whether he was really being treated as innocent until proven guilty. How can a jury maintain a fair presumption of innocence when the press and prosecutors have already publicly denounced the suspect as guilty?
ReplyDeleteA fundamental element of the Right to a Fair Trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proved guilty following a fair trial. This certainly could not be said to be the case here.
The Right to a Fair Trial means that people can be sure that processes will be fair and certain. It prevents governments from abusing their powers. A Fair Trial is the best means of separating the guilty from the innocent and protecting against injustice. Without this right, the rule of law and public faith in the justice system collapse. The Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones of a just society.
Whether Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey were guilty or not, they deserved a fair trial. Fair Trial rights start not upon first stepping into court, but when they first accused. We might not have seen the complete story through the course of the show, but we saw enough to see that their defence rights were not protected, and that leaves both sides of the argument unsatisfied.
For those that think them not guilty, the abuse of those rights led to their imprisonment. To those who consider them guilty, they’re left with a questionable conviction, which brings much less comfort than should be the case, undermining all involved in the prosecution. Either way, the right to a fair trial was absolutely not adhered to in this case, and raises stark questions about the justice system in the US.
https://www.fairtrials.org/making-a-murderer-the-question-of-a-fair-trial/