http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-the-ridiculous-brendan-dassey-decision-15050465/
Thoughts on this? The writer appears to agree with me on Duffin citing Villalpando, which I discussed on the board before.
Be interesting to see if Duffin is upheld.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
The writer so closely mirrors your opinion it could be you !
There's a significant amount of 'spin' in that article that simply isn't accurate. In relation to villalpando the writer is saying look "this case is soo similar and yet the court finds that he is guilty so duffin is wrong!".
In reality duffin is citing the legal wording in villalpando as a precedent for the level of questioning that could overbear a persons will. The outcome of villalpando has no relevance to dassey.
In villalpando the police make false promises of leniency in a similar way to dassey, however the court rules his will is not over borne and therefore constitutional rights are intact. Villalpando is acutely aware of the consequences of his statements demonstrated by the fact he is actively negotiating leniency with the police.
Duffin ruled the way questions were asked with the lack of representation combined with the repeated false promises of leniency have resulted in dasseys will being over borne. Demonstrated by the fact dassey has no comprehension for the reason he cannot return to school after confessing to murder. A striking contrast when compared to the savy way villalpando is attempting to make deals with police.
Inorite? Minus the right wing bit but yeah I can see the comparison.
In reality duffin is citing the legal wording in villalpando as a precedent for the level of questioning that could overbear a persons will. The outcome of villalpando has no relevance to dassey.
In villalpando the police make false promises of leniency in a similar way to dassey, however the court rules his will is not over borne and therefore constitutional rights are intact. Villalpando is acutely aware of the consequences of his statements demonstrated by the fact he is actively negotiating leniency with the police.
Duffin ruled the way questions were asked with the lack of representation combined with the repeated false promises of leniency have resulted in dasseys will being over borne. Demonstrated by the fact dassey has no comprehension for the reason he cannot return to school after confessing to murder. A striking contrast when compared to the savy way villalpando is attempting to make deals with police.
If the court ruled that no false promises of leniency were made to Vilalpando, which btw is what the court did actually rule, then Duffin isn't justified in citing his drug dealing ass's case as an apt analogue re Dassey.irrelevant. Again, its not the ruling that duffin is citing. Duffin is citing 7th circut precedent for involuntary confessions. Villalpando did not meet the threshold outlined in that wording, he is actively negotiating the terms of leniency with the police. Will not over borne by promises made.
what pray tell were these false promises of leniency? Fassbender explicitly states that no promises can be made.how many times have we done this dance? Dassey is told he's not in trouble along with the consistent promises they will go to bat for him, if he tells the 'truth' they can help him in conjunction with the fact they keep repeating "we already know what happened".
irrelevant. Again, its not the ruling that duffin is citing. Duffin is citing 7th circut precedent for involuntary confessions. Villalpando did not meet the threshold outlined in that wording, he is actively negotiating the terms of leniency with the police. Will not over borne by promises made.
Maybe you show me where dassey is actively negotiating the terms of leniency in exchange for his confession? If that occured, it would be a relevant analogue.
how many times have we done this dance?
Dassey is told he's not in trouble along with the consistent promises they will go to bat for him, if he tells the 'truth' they can help him in conjunction with the fact they keep repeating "we already know what happened".
You say they told him "we can't promise you anything" which they did say - but saying that doesn't negate the fact they did promise him leniency over and over again.
If i say "corpus, i'm not going to back hand you" and then i slap you across the face with the back of my hand. Does the fact i told you i wouldn't slap you negate the other fact that i did slap you across the face immediately after i said i wouldn't?
Of course not. It's just common sense. Isn't it?
It's actually quite relevant as Duffin is claiming that no reasonable court would rule that Dassey's confession was voluntaryif you read the context of duffins citation it is in relation to the definition for a threshold for involuntary confession. Isn't it?
Maybe you show me where Fassbender is actively making an explicit specific false promise of leniencywhat are you trying to pull here? Remember, we have done this before. I have cited from source for you - you have also read duffins ruling. So you are fully aware of every instance that assistance was promised in exchange for providing the right version of events.
Now can you provide these examples of explicit promises made or not?again, are you actually denying dassey was told 'we know what happened' and 'you're not in trouble' or 'we will go to bat for you' ? It doesn't exist if i don't quote from source for you?
But they didn't do thisso why are you bringing up the fact they had told dassey 'we can’t promise you anything' if not to defend the promises of assistance that were offered to dassey in exchange for 'truthful' confessions? share
if you read the context of duffins citation it is in relation to the definition for a threshold for involuntary confession. Isn't it?
what are you trying to pull here? Remember, we have done this before. I have cited from source for you - you have also read duffins ruling. So you are fully aware of every instance that assistance was promised in exchange for providing the right version of events.
You can say 'show me show me' all you want. But why? We both know they're there.
so why are you bringing up the fact they had told dassey 'we can’t promise you anything' if not to defend the promises of assistance that were offered to dassey in exchange for 'truthful' confessions?
Is villalpando actively attempting to negotiate terms of leniency with police?
Is brendan actively attempting to negotiate terms of leniency with the police?
the cops never tell him to tell them what they want to hear but to tell them the truth and be honest.never? Like never when they press dassey to tell them what happened to her head and he repeatedly fails to give the answer they are so desperately trying to get at that they finally say "ok i'm just going to come out and say it. Who shot her in the head?"
your examples don't hold water and only you and Duffin seem to be able to infer these false promises of leniencyyup just me and the federal magistrate's opinion - doesn't stack up against you and joe blogs. Clearly.
Did the court rule in favour if Vilalpando? No.
Is Duffin therefore justified in citing Vilalpando to make a case for Dassey? No.
Never said there weren't problems with the interview. Please cite where he says "ok i'm just going to come out and say it. Who shot her twice in the left side of tthe head with a .22?"
Dassey knows these things anyway and not one of you have ever given a credible explanation for his detailed knowledge on things the cops never mention.
Please cite an explicit false promise of leniency rather than the subjective vague open ended open to interpretation examples you've given so far. Otherwise you can't justify Duffin.
I'm not interested in your argument to Duffin's authority, especially as you seem unwilling or unable to provide these explicit false promises of leniency in order to justify him.
Yeah we will. I personally have hope he'll be overturned. How are you re confidence he'll be upheld? You never answred how Dassey could withstand cross examination either bte. Tsdk tsk.
Don't think I'm unaware you're running away btw.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Did the court rule in favour if Vilalpando? No.ok. You're not following. At all.
Is Duffin therefore justified in citing Vilalpando to make a case for Dassey? No.
Never said there weren't problems with the interviewdon't get lost on that back track, its a long one!
No it's really you who isn't getting it or how citations are meant to be aptly comparable analogues, and tell that to the rest of your reddit mates who you're undoubtedly running to for info.
I'm not, I said from the start there were problems with the interview but not to the point where it actually compromised the investigation or confession.
Yes I'm aware of that but none of the appellate cases Duffin cites are relevant regarding minors being coerced as again the Fed court ruled none of them were coerced. You seem to think all of this is irrelevant and we'll see if Duffin passes the Pepsi challenge or not, won't we?
Duffin was incredibly thorough in his summation and ruling. It is unlikely the state will be able to successfully over turn the ruling. Imo.