Why Do Innocent People Get Railroaded

People in power get away with these things (or attempt to) becuase they're insiders. You've got the planters, who are trained in evidence identification and collection, identifying and collecting their own planted evidence.

The Teresa Halbach murder case has garnered this amazing amount of attention because every single piece of evidence is legitimately suspicious and questionable for multiple reasons, including the way each piece fits into the big picture. Looking at each bit of evidence individually you can say, "yes, it's odd....but....". Then when you step back and view the entire mess as a whole, there is just no way that a reasonable (and honest) person can't see that something is seriously wrong here.

Then we've got the BD horror show piled on top adding more suspicion. When more questionable evidence comes as a result of the glaringly obvious coercion and manipulation of a vulnerable teen, the big picture becomes clearer.

Yes, we don't really know whether evidence was planted or not. But when the planters are part of the system, and the truth-seekers have to rely on that system to correct the crimes of the system itself, it becomes much more than just an "uphill battle". The system is immediately in fight mode for its own self-protection. The system relies on the fact that most people will automatically revert to the stance that "well, they're the good guys and the good guys don't commit crimes....it's all good, I can get back to telling my fb friends what I had for lunch."

My apologies for getting so wordy here! But it aggravates me when observers are unwilling, or unable, to look at the big picture and trust it enough to say, "something is seriously wrong here and we need to get to the bottom of this, no matter how damaging it is to the system and/or the public perception of that system."

[ _idunnowhy_, reddit, May 28, 2017]

By William L. Anderson September 8, 2010

Four years ago, a friend who was from England and I were discussing the placement of police surveillance cameras in commercial areas and elsewhere. While I told her I was wary of how the authorities would use those cameras, she replied, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

Indeed, most Americans still believe that very thing. If they aren't breaking the law and if they are trying to be good, law-abiding citizens, then they won't have any problems.

The other night, I spoke at length to a woman in North Carolina whose brother was falsely accused of child molestation, yet who won acquittal, but only after an expensive trial and a huge personal cost to himself and his family.

She told me what I have heard many times, and I will put it into the following points:

• Her brother believed in the "fairness of the system" and that if he was innocent, the authorities, who were as truth-seeking as he, would never charge him with crimes he did not commit;

• Because he trusted "the system," he gladly spoke with police without an attorney present because, as everyone knows, the police only want to get at the truth;

• Judges actually care about doing justice;

• Good church-going Christians never would knowingly lie or mangle the truth in order to try to convict someone who clearly was innocent;

• The police use highly-qualified and honest experts in helping them get at the truth (just like they do on CSI).

However, he soon found out that the people he trusted were not trustworthy.

For example, he took a lie detector test administered by an agent of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI). The administrator told him he flunked everything, including his own name and age, but would not let him see the results. (Given the recent scandal that has hit the SBI crime lab, I am not surprised that an SBI agent would try to cook the books on a polygraph, just as Georgia authorities are not to be trusted, either.)

What this man discovered -- the hard way -- was that police and prosecutors throughout the United States no longer care about who did what, or even if crimes have been committed.

The SBI scandal in North Carolina, along with the FBI crime lab scandal of a decade ago, along with many other "forensic" scandals, demonstrate that in the world of prosecutors and police, at best we are dealing with depraved indifference and at worst outright criminal behavior.

So, why child molestation?

First, as I have pointed out many times before, there is money in it from the federal government.

Second, prosecutors and police can pose as heroes, for in American society, there is no lower form of life than a child molester, and the court systems are so rigged against anyone being charged with such a crime that it is all-too-easy for cops and prosecutors to play to the crowd.

Third, this is a crime that needs no evidence. All that is needed is an accusation, and the law requires that ANY accusation of this sort be investigated as though the charges were true. Since the vast majority of such cases have no physical evidence, all that is needed is for someone to make an accusation. We have seen from the Tonya Craft case that no matter how ridiculous the accusations and no matter how preposterous they might be, there always will be people who will stand in line to believe anything.

Fourth, because all that is needed is some bullying behavior by police and prosecutors and dishonest "forensic" interviewing by people like the Suzi Thornes of that business, it is quite easy to bring charges. Furthermore, the simple accusation practically puts someone in prison, and the public generally will believe anything the cops say.

For example, when Tonya Craft was arrested two years ago, WTVC, Channel 9, immediately ran stories that claimed that the children were victims of Ms. Craft, and in this one, it is clear that the reporter believes that Ms. Craft is guilty and makes no bones about demonstrating her prejudices. It is hard for anyone -- and especially someone falsely accused -- to stand up to that kind of an assault.

Fifth, police and prosecutors have a decided advantage because they are not having to spend their own money. On the other side, however, people falsely accused must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves, and if they don't have that money available, they likely are going to prison.

Those are the cold and hard facts about "justice" in this country today. Furthermore, police and prosecutors have legal immunity, and they are protected by their friends in the courts and in the government agencies overseeing them.

This means that even when they lie in court and instruct witnesses to lie, that nothing ever happens to them. In Tonya's trial, for example, it was clear that both Joal Henke and Sandra Lamb were lying, and they had absolute proof that Lamb was testifying falsely. However, "judge" Outhouse made sure that jurors would not see the hard proof (her daughter's on-line acting resume) regarding Lamb by forbidding the corroborating material to be entered into evidence.

Keep in mind that Deal, Arnt, Gregor (and "judge" Outhouse, for that matter) felt free to forge a document in the middle of the trial and claim that the defense was lying about its previous existence. That was because they knew that since "judge" Outhouse had their backs and the Georgia authorities would not investigate, they could do whatever they wanted.

All too often, people will plead to something because if they fight the charges at a trial and lose, they are going to prison perhaps for the rest of their lives. The incentive is to plead out, serve some time, and then deal with the aftermath.

Furthermore, as we saw in the Tonya Craft trial, police and prosecutors will lie, fabricate material "evidence," and get away with it, especially since judges in trials involving people charged with child molestation are hostile to defendants and are likely to work hand-in-glove with the prosecution, as we saw with "judge" Brian Outhouse in the Craft trial. In other words, the legal system is absolutely stacked against innocent defendants, and especially against innocent defendants charged with child molestation.

Like that man in North Carolina, most Americans have been brought up with the notion that the system is "fair," and that the players really care about right and wrong, guilt and innocence. However, when they get a taste of what it really is like, then they come to realize that everything they have been taught about the courts and about American justice in general is a very big lie. 

Comments from Reddit About Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey's Cases:

“All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence.” —Dean Strang

[–]kjb86

There’s no wiggle room in these rules.

Wisconsin Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(2)(a) prohibits lawyers from making public statements that the lawyer “knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

Rule 3.6(2)(b) is more specific, prohibiting attorneys in a criminal case, from publicizing “the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence of the contents of any confession, admission or statement by the defendant or suspect.”

The Comments to Rule 3.8 which concern “the special responsibilities of a prosecutor” state that “a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused.”

[–]SBRH33 

It starts and ends with the March 1st press conference.

It was inexcusable and down right criminal.

Why even bother with a trial after that....

".......murder is hot right now!"

[–]kjb86

The press conference alone, although not 'illegal', was extremely unethical.

[–]Canuck64

With the amount of pretrial publicized - such as the media releases of untested unproven prejudicial information/evidence during the investigation, at the preliminary hearing and motion hearings as well as the release of an unproven "confession" - it would be impossible for anybody to have received a fair trial. But I understand that in the US the right for the media to increase it's ratings outweighs a person's constitutional right to due process.

[–]batgirlpow

It cemented the fact that Steven nor Branden could ever have a fair trail. This was before jury selection, meaning everyone in their town now thinks what he said was fact. (Even though not a shread of evidence was found)

[–]KochisGodnow

It is a Fact the press conference ended all legitimacy of the court. This is not an opinion it is what all the attorneys except the state attorneys have told us.

[–]robtheastronaut 

Sweaty boy Kratz graphic explanation of the "murder" on live TV tainted ANY potential juror from being on the case.

[–]schhhuckmyshhhock

As an Irish person and knowing our rules about the presumption of innocence, I don't believe he got a fair trial, OK it's 2 different countries but believe it or not, our constitution is based on the American constitution, it's been ratified here and there, but the presumption of innocence is there and the media adheres to that, they will say somebody was arrested and might name the person, but the details of the crime won't be in the public domain unless its leaked by somebody in the know and the newspapers and news outlets can't have a comment section on the website's, so was his trial fair? When people like Nancy Grace can comment and kk can narrate a horror story, then no I don't believe he got a fair trial, whatever the evidence gathered, if the state can say to the media that apparently this and that happened before a trial takes place, then there's no proper fair trial, its conviction by media.

[–]S_Hollmes

1) I find it interesting that so many testimonies from witnesses in court are in stark difference to the respective accounts given just after the disappearance of TH. There should be some weight to immediate recollection vs. statements more than a year later. 2) excel spreadsheets for phone records - no originals 3) Using BD 'confession' to find bullet, but not using that confession to convict SA. 4) BD and SA convicted for the same crime, but with very different explanation of specifics in each trial. Just for starters.

[–]SilkyBeesKnees 

Yep, pretty sure perjury is breaking the law.

[–]Hubert_J_Cumberdale 

This is absolutely a case of top-down corruption. At first, I was willing to believe that maybe a couple of low level LEOs (AC, JL, etc.) orchestrated the whole thing on their own - and it didn't get out because so few people were involved.

But in looking at the entire picture - from the actual murder to tampering with the jury... This came from the top and I believe numerous people were deeply involved. The code of silence is stronger than I ever imagined. I don't think anyone on Team Blue stepped forward to work with Zellner. If she has an informant, I would be stunned if it was anyone from MTSO.

[–]SBRH33 

I have one name to offer. And her name is Peggy.

She has over seen quite a few "indefensible" cases in Wisconsin. And when those cases were proven bogus her office .... found ZERO wrongdoing by authorities.... this includes Avery's 85 case and quite interestingly the Laurie Bembenek case..... one that eerily parallels the 2005-07 Steve Avery case.

[–]SBRH33 

Yea.... Wisconsin Atty Generals office is as corrupt as they can be. Shimmel is just towing the line.

[–]SBRH33 

Can someone tally the sustained objections by the prosecution granted by Willis?

How many objections did the Defense make... that were "sustained" by Willis.......?

[–]SBRH33 

......."Even if the Key was planted" .......KK.

There is just no words that can be used in describing Kratz's shenanigans.

And Willis just sits there yawning.... waiting to sustain the next prosecutorial objection.

What a Kangaroo court that was......

[–]SBRH33

The Jury is also suspect in this. How did they sleepwalk through some of the testimony and not be able to call BS on most of it. Amazing.

We have one LE (JL) who purgers himself twice. Blatantly.

Another.... (AC) who lacked any serious kind of poker face, ....perjured himself over the key, the bookcase and the RAV Plates.

Investigators manipulating witnesses and statements. (JD) (DR) (MW) (WB) (TF)

Witnesses who were coached to perjure.... BoD, ST. DP and JOZ..... and especially RH.

A witness who places himself at the scene of the crime at a critical moment. Makes a completely false statement about seeing a fire at Avery's. (JR) ........way before cremains are found in the pit.

Key, critical players allowed onto a walled off crime scene numerous times just prior to all of the physical evidence being discovered.... inside and on/ around Steve's immediate property. (SB) (RH) (JR) ............RAV Plates, RAV Key and Cremains.

N[–]Hubert_J_Cumberdale 

I have no doubt that some or all of the jurors were given a pep talk on "doing the right thing" <nudge nudge> when visited by members of the MTSO during the trial and deliberations.

I don't think they would have found Avery not guilty if JL or AC admitted to planting evidence on the stand. They had a plan and it was going to end one way and one way only.ot so credible testimony from crime lab employees (SC) (WN)

An FBI chemist who failed miserably at the EDTA test.... He tested 3 swabs out of 6.... therefore they all must be negative for EDTA..... WTH? .....Thats science for ya....

[–]Meymey123

The jury: at least 10 were afraid or were pressured, and there was one very hostile juror who had familial ties to the Manitowoc Sheriffs department. And one juror was excused under really shady circumstances.

[–]SBRH33 

    I don't think they would have found Avery not guilty if JL or AC admitted to planting evidence on the stand

Well that would have been a constitutional violation.... outright.

Remiker did have a hand in violating Dassey's sequestered Jury. The "pizza-man" had 3.5 hours of unfettered, undocumented access to a deliberating jury.

Pagel had access to a the Jury in Avery's trial and influenced other key behind the doors moments.

[–]Nexious

The odds were stacked against them from the Manitowoc jury pool. In Avery's case we heard of potential vote trading and jurors referencing charges and narratives that were not part of Avery's trial such as the rape allegations.

Remiker and Prange violated department rules and were subsequently reprimanded for interfering with a sequestered jury in Dassey's case, by allowing unauthorized person(s) into the secured jury area without logging them. One known unauthorized visitor was Prange's husband who stayed in there for 3.5 hours late one evening, treating them to pizza and drinks without having been logged as going into the secured area.

A member of the state interacted with jury members during the trial, which is against the rules. Was his presence intimidating? Did it influence the jurors' decision? Possibly.

[–]7-pairs-of-panties

Agree...Don't forget about Calumet Sheriff JP having dinner and drinks w/ sequestered jurors. That is NOT allowed, and may intimidate some jurors. We also don't know what kind of conversations he may have had w/ these people when they were not to have contact w/ outside sources. I think KK would have been up in arms and it would have made the news if Strang and Buting had dinner and drinks w/ sequestered jurors.....

[–]lrbinfrisco 

Well there was illegal contact with the deliberating jury by LE in both trials. Willis dismissed a juror illegally and appointed another illegally. The whole EDT test was an illegal cluster muck. Willis' interpretation of Denny was clearly biased against the defense. About everything LK did as BD's lawyer broke the law. JL and AC's heavy involvement in the investigation was a clear ethical violation of conflict of interest. SC's self approved deviation from standard protocol on the magic bullet would be found nowhere in any book on ethics. Willis allowing SC's magic bullet test into evidence was clearly unfair and violated a host of case law. KK's press conferences, especially the March 2nd, 2006 one. BD's interrogations and coerced confession. KK's lie by omission to public that the FBI had conclusively identified bones as being TH.

[–]LaxSagacity 

The prosecutor convicted two people of the same murder with different versions of events.

[–]JJacks61 

I have no idea if there is a rule or whatever, but Sheriff JP showing up for dinner and drinks dury jury deliberations is a red flag.

It is my understanding that only court bailiffs are allowed to interact with jurors. Short of someone getting shot, Pagel had no business being there. Unless he was delivering a not so subtle message.

[–]sss5551212

I will need help with drilling down on the specific rules, but another reason often trotted out for why SA did not get a fair trial was the jury selection. At least one jury member was inappropriate due to being related to LE and/or court employee.

Also the fact that LE was in contact with/tampering with the jury during the trial. That's not supposed to happen.

Oh one more - not sure if this counts as part of the trial, but it was very unfair and surely broke some rules. The same LE associated with SA's civil suit subsequently being involved in investigating him, and then handling evidence and testifying against him in a new criminal matter. They should have been NO WHERE NEAR him or the investigation if things were to be fair and objective.

[–]dark-dare

Their Constitutional Rights were violated. Period.

That is why they will be exonerated. Duffin just said BD's, 5th and 14th amendments were violated.

[–]roblopes 

    Denny rule inappropriately used by the court and exploited by the prosecution to remove as much "reasonable doubt" as possible from the trial, limiting the defense to show 3rd party.

    Jury was tainted and had an LE spouse as an insider in the jury deliberations room serving food and hanging out when he wasn't allowed too. There was a finding of wrong doing by the court, but that was just a slap on the wrist. This should have been a mis-trial.

    Excused Juror for "Emergency" reasons later discovered it was not life threatening and the juror was heavily on the not guilty side (see #2).

    One of the jurors was a relative of LE. Not sure how that one slipped/allowed to happen.

    Willis was biased and favored the prosecutions on almost every objection raised by the prosecutions.

[–]ConvictedForMurder

A relative of one of the investigating officers on the jury does not violate any established laws or rules in jury selection. Ken "Sweatin to the Oldies" Kratz's press conference was not in violation of any laws, even as improprieties as it was.

[–]Rayxor 

Well, heck! It seems you just didnt look.

Kratz violated Wisconsin Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, rather blatantly law.cornell.edu

"A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."

[–]ConvictedForMurder

Prosecution in possession of possible exculpatory evidence that is not disclosed to the defense, knowingly putting a perjurer on the stand, and a defense lawyer not providing effective assistance of counsel are some examples of an unfair trial in the eyes of the law.

[–]7-pairs-of-panties

I think it's a Brady violation that the state didn't hand over the FULL unedited version of the flyover on Nov 4th. You can look at the video and fully know it was edited. The call logs also seem edited. Listen to the DR and MW morning of Nov 5th phone call.

It is also a violation to alter phone records. This was clearly done. Was the home land lines turned over? KK seems to know whom erased the voicemails on TH phone, yet he withheld and Willis doesn't make him say. Clearly the fax machine was off in time so only the land line records can accurately tell us what time the fax was made.

[–]JBamers

SA didn't get a fair trial, due to all the things that have been mentioned - the biased Judge, the Denny ruling, the press conference, the fact that one of the jurors was related to LE, Kratz being allowed to blatently lie and elicit false testimony from Bobby Dassey, Culhane fucking up the sample and using it all up so the defense could not retest, Le Beau getting away with guessing as to what was present in samples he did not test, Kratz getting away with telling two different stories about the same crime, etc.

[–]dvb05

Len Kachinsky the "state appointed attorney" and his private investigating piece of shit colleague Michael O'Kelley worked in unison with state prosecutors Ken Kratz as well as detectives to help convict SA, using BD and his coerced confessions in the process.

This is not just bad protocol or concerning, it's a violation to the point of criminal behaviour.

LK finally got booted out but it was another factor in how BD was allowed to be used as a pawn against SA when this was his witness until MW, TF and similar morally bankrupt snakes manipulated him.

All of it was to nail SA, every move on the chess board was played for that end result.

[–]thed0ngs0ng

There was a great point made before that SA's trailer wasn't actually on the Avery Salvage yard. Remiker didn't have permission to be on the ASY when he confirmed the RAV4 as TH's which was used as a basis to get the search warrant so yeah this all should have been thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree. I suspect with BD's confession being thrown out, the bullet fragment should also be thrown out as it was the result of a coerced and uncorroborated confession.

[–]tbenn585 

A contaminated test should have been inconclusive. And on top of that the deviation request that SC filed wasn't even signed by her supervisor. The dna test on the bullet should never have been allowed into evidence.

[–]sjj342

B&S actually had some pretty good motions and arguments about how most of the ASY search - basically everything found 11/6-11/12 - violated the 4th amendment. The one warrant one search rule protects LE from accusations of planting just as much as it protects rights of the accused.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Defendants-Brief-in-Support-of-Motion-to-Suppress-Evidence.pdf

[–]7-pairs-of-panties 

And what defines a "fair" investigation?

PS was working as an agent of the state. She met w/ JP at TH home right before "finding" the car. She is related to JP they have "met" before. She had his personal cell phone, RH did not give it to her. "The boss has something he want's us to do." This was planned or DR and JJ would never have been on the site as early as they were there. The Rav 4 search is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

No one was looking for a live woman. No one asked if there was any sign of TH. EVERY CAR ON THAT LOT WAS SEARCHED FOR CLUES, EXCEPT FOR THE CAR OF THE MISSING GIRL!!!

[–]seekingtruthforgood 

For me, my interest in this case has nothing to do with the procedures followed in the trial. It's about the procedures used to bring an innocent man to trial - it's about what happened before there was a trial.

Whether the judge, jurors, defense counsel or prosecuting attorney acted in good faith is NOT the issue. The issue is that the case against Avery was clearly fabricated.

The real evidence, not that freak show put on for the jurors and public, suggests that Avery is not directly or indirectly responsible for her murder. She and Avery were not in the locations presented by the state, during the timeline presented by the state. The forensic evidence (and lack thereof) points to another location, at a different time, during a window of time for which Avery was elsewhere.

So, rather than debating the process/procedures that followed during a trial, it seems more productive to debate the circumstances fabricated by LE which brought Avery to trial to begin with - he should have never been charged or prosecuted by the State - the crimes and injustice committed against Avery started long before the trial.