By Abigail Bailey
While I published as a comment under another thread here on Salisbury News, I wanted to republish it to clarify why a pardon would not be feasible for Avery and Dassey’s cases.
Repost (Edited):
The long short of it is, Ken Katz (the special prosecutor for Calumet County) publicized the investigation during its infancy. He ruled out any other 'potentials' before other suspects could even be interviewed or checked out. He participated in extreme posturing by stating before a newscast, "If you are under the age of 16, please do not watch this broadcast..." (This tactic wasn't even done during the Simpson/Brown-Simpson case and that investigation/trial was highly publicized due to Simpson's celebrated status in American culture.) By doing this, Katz and investigators eradicated any presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which is Avery and Dassey’s Constitution Right.
Second, Manitowoc County should not have been involved in any way in the investigation because Avery was suing them for $36M in a wrongful prosecution suit. This is a conflict of interest and should never be allowed in any criminal investigation. Period. The public was assured they were not involved, yet the documentary clearly shows this to be false. The thin blue line was ever-present here and there were 36-million reasons along with saving face to make sure Avery was convicted of a violent crime.
Third, regardless of the cat incident as a teenager - which is disturbing but not a sole indicator of future violence - Steven Avery was wrongfully prosecuted by the same Manitowoc Sheriff department - almost to the point of being framed (i.e. coping his mug shot and passing it off as the victim's description of her attacker.)
The documentary, while it left some evidence out, did bring to light what it wanted to about the case. It should inspire new trials for both Avery and Dassey due to the mishandling by Katz, the investigators (Fassbender/Wiegert), Dassey first attorney (Len Kachinsky) and the Manitowoc County Sheriff's office (Lenk/Colburn/Peterson).
Additionally, what the documentarians also provided to viewers that anyone can be falsely accused and convicted of a crime - the judicial system is far from flawless, especially when it fails to uphold laws against crimes like perjury under oath or failure follow protocols for investigating crime scenes.
A pardon is inappropriate because if these two committed the crime then they should be incarcerated. A pardon would exonerate them completely from any punishment and negate a need for the new trials they deserve given the above.
Furthermore, given this is a state matter; it is up to Scott Walker to intervene not the POTUS. It's bad enough he weighs in on every shooting; we don't need to encourage his deity complex with our judicial process.
7 comments:
Abigail Bailey
Where do you live?
What is your interest in the case?
Why should I be interested in the case?
The interest in this case for you is the fact that this could happen to you given circumstances. Any miscarriage of justice should interest anyone as it puts your own life and liberty in peril. My location is unimportant as this is a countrywide issue.
I am amazed that people seem to demonize when issues are brought to light. For example the police cases of late in Salisbury. Demonizing the attorney who had the courage to go against the grain and take on such an incendiary issue is quite unsettling because often, citizens do not put themselves in that same situation - that is, until it happens to them.
Avery's plight could very easily happen to you as well as Dassey situation could happen to your child. If you watch the documentary, you will understand - or at least, have an appreciation for its importance.
wrong...if these two committed the crime then they should be executed.
Furthermore, 11:03am, as Socrates said, "The Law is reason free from passion." When authorities publicize investigations and gin up public outcry to the extent Katz did, reason is removed and public passion becomes paramount.
This goes against our Justice System. Furthermore, it leaves communities to deal with the reality that the real perpetrator still walks amongst them and will most likely reoffend.
And that, my friend, should be a scary thought.
11:30AM
And you know this, how?
Totally agree, AB. I welcome your input!
11:30 must be a cop or a cop lover. Innocent until proven guilty (not planted guilt.) Beyond a reasonable doubt. Honor Your Oath! It is the job of our law system to find the truth.
When this crime occurred, I thought they were guilty based on the media and thought just as 11:30 does. However, I was not there. Those cops are dirty, the investigators are dirty, the prosecutor is dirty. The judges are dirty or, at least, incompetent. Tampering with blood evidence, coercing statements by the investigators (all 3), failed defense representation for Dassey, and on and on. I will never set foot in Wisconsin.
Post a Comment