Making a Murderer - Page 53 - OOTV -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums 2+2 Communities Other Other Topics OOTV

Making a Murderer

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 53 of 542

First

3 33 43 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 63 73 103 153 253

Last

Page 53 of 542

First

3 33 43 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 63 73 103 153 253

Last

01-12-2016 , 08:07 AM

#1301

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Some evidence photos: http://imgur.com/a/ELxbZ

Quote

01-12-2016 , 08:08 AM

#1302

housenuts

1st Quartiled the 500

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 49,688

Do they not do jury selection in the US? I don't understand how the defence lets jurors related to sheriffs or other questionable jurors to be selected. not that manitowoc is a large area so unfortunately the pool of jurors to select is small, but some people should be quickly dismissed.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 08:24 AM

#1303

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by housenuts

Yes, they do.

Also, the defense chose to have the jury from Manitowoc.

Also: "Strang testified that Avery was informed of his options under Lehman, including the right to have the court declare a mistrial. See Lehman, 108 Wis. 2d at 313. Defense counsel advised that Avery not move for mistrial because the case would go to trial again and, for financial reasons, neither defense counsel would be able to represent him. Counsel testified that, all things considered, their case had gone in as well as they could have hoped, and it was in Avery’s best interest for that jury to continue to deliberate on the evidence presented. In light of the facts surrounding Avery’s decision to forego a mistrial, there is no indication that he was deprived of a fair trial or reliable outcome as a result. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687."
http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/D...ml&seqNo=70129

Quote

01-12-2016 , 08:53 AM

#1304

dalerobk2

veteran

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,570

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostinthesaus

Yeah, I'm totally with you on this. It's hard to believe the amount of corruption that would have to be known about and tolerated to pull this off. But it's way harder for me to believe that there are these many inconsistencies, this incredible back story and this amount of coinciding questionable evidence...and it turns out he killed her in a fit of rage or sexual desire or pure psychosis after all. The shear fact that he was wrongly imprisoned by the very same people for doing almost the very same thing he is being accused of now...it's almost comical.

But consider this: Strang and Buting are the heros of this documentary, but the real heros here are the documentary makers. If they did not make this documentary and release it to the public, I am nearly 100% positive we would hear absolutely nothing about this case ever, and both would surely rot away in jail for the rest of their lives. Those scumbags were like 99.9% to get away with this, but the documentarians hung in there and masterfully documented an incredible story. And now it seems they may have at least a chance of getting out.

I think that those who are showing doubt about his innocence don't FULLY understand that he was totally exonerated for the first crime. TOTALLY. And not only was he fully exonerated, but they caught the actual person that did it. Its unquestionable. That means that SA was never, ever even near that crime and had absolutely nothing to do with it. There is no "here is what you didn't see about the first time they falsely accused and imprisoned him blah blah blah".

So that leaves his only other somewhat serious crime the incident with his cousin, the sheriff's deputies WAG whos testimony in front of camera combined with Steve's explanation leaves no doubt in my mind that her being a woman should have no bearing on the weight of the crime.

So after all of the totally improbable coincidences surrounding the case and being wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years for nearly the exact crimes he was accused of this time, it turns out he REALLY IS A RAGING PSYCHOPATHIC RAPING MURDERER who kills women he phone orders to the house and then burns their bodies in his front yard with his nephew watching? Do you realize how lucky the County and it's employees would have to be for this to be true? Do you realize what a horrible theory it is to think that the cops know or think he did it and are just making sure he ends up in jail? NO! WTF are you saying? How can they KNOW he did it? That's just ******ed.

Not a f---ing chance he's guilty of anything here, except for maybe "being an Avery."

The guy had a long history of violence that included threatening to kill two women before this murder. He also poured gasoline over the family cat and threw it in a fire. Him murdering a woman does not seem inconsistent with his personality in the least. Even if you think he should have been found not guilty, certainly you can't possibly argue that he doesn't fit the profile of someone who may very well be inclined to murder.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 08:55 AM

#1305

dalerobk2

veteran

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,570

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunDownHouse.

Can people stop bringing up OJ? He titled a book he wrote, "I Did It." SA has been unequivocal about his innocence.

The reason the comparison comes up is because the physical evidence against both is so overwhelming that the only way they could be found not guilty is if you believe they were framed by the police (the argument made by both defenses).

Quote

01-12-2016 , 08:59 AM

#1306

eddymitchel

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,761

Threatening people is not consistent with actually doing it. While I wouldn't rule out Avery beeing guilty. It's a stretch to think he is a murderer because he killed a cat 30 years ago and acted like a moron most of his life

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:04 AM

#1307

capone0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 43,152

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalerobk2

The reason the comparison comes up is because the physical evidence against both is so overwhelming that the only way they could be found not guilty is if you believe they were framed by the police (the argument made by both defenses).

If it was so overwhelming, it would be so cut and dry no one would be arguing. It's not like there a video of him doing it. There is evidence of which many of it is potentially tainted--it could be all, it could be none. The problem becomes SA is either a huge idiot for how he left the evidence or the smartest person ever. Like why be Dexter-like in cleaning in one area (his house) and so careless in others when it comes to the car/firepit/etc. Likewise in his house, the bullet and key magically appearing when the rest of the house is utterly clean MAKES no sense.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:05 AM

#1308

BustoPro

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,668

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalerobk2

Completely wrong again, for a couple of dozen reasons that I won't even bother listing.

Do you know ANYTHING about EITHER case, or do you just like to make stuff up?

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:13 AM

#1309

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by eddymitchel

He also allegedly sexually assaulted his teenage relative, allegedly roughed up Jodi, and allegedly told his nephew Bryan that he could kill someone and get away with it (all 2003-2005).

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:17 AM

#1310

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by capone0

Likewise in his house, the bullet and key magically appearing when the rest of the house is utterly clean MAKES no sense.

Bullet found in garage

Not utterly clean

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:20 AM

#1311

capone0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 43,152

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoorSkillz

Bullet found in garage

Not utterly clean

Clean of any Dna evidence or any evidence that she was murdered there other than the bullet. What'd he do, kill her somewhere else and just throw the bullet in the garage for kicks? Like its either there was a blood bath in that garage or she was killed elsewhere. How the bullet got there in the latter case doesn't make any sense.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:22 AM

#1312

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by capone0

Likewise in his house, the bullet and key magically appearing when the rest of the house is utterly clean MAKES no sense.

Key found in the trailer within first 3.5 hours of general search of trailer ("6th search" or whatever is misleading, because even if they go in just to take a specific item it's considered a "search").

Key said to have fallen out of bookcase when shaken.

Reasonable doubt about key?
Sure.

Anything close to proof the key was planted?
No.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:24 AM

#1313

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by capone0

Clean of any Dna evidence or any evidence that she was murdered there other than the bullet. What'd he do, kill her somewhere else and just throw the bullet in the garage for kicks? Like its either there was a blood bath in that garage or she was killed elsewhere. How the bullet got there in the latter case doesn't make any sense.

Doesn't alway work that way, Mr. CSI.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:25 AM

#1314

capone0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 43,152

So she was shot 7 times in the head and no blood? Isn't that the story we were told by the prosecutors.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:27 AM

#1315

capone0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 43,152

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoorSkillz

Reasonable doubt about key?
Sure.

Anything close to proof the key was planted?
No.

I have doubts when the bumble**** sheriffs who have no real reason to be investigating find all of the most incriminating evidence and the key is magically clean of all TH Dna but magically has SA. Did she never touch her key?

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:29 AM

#1316

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by capone0

So she was shot 7 times in the head and no blood? Isn't that the story we were told by the prosecutors.

You don't have to believe the prosecution's exact story to convict someone of murder.

She was, without a doubt, shot at least two times in the head according to the forensic anthropologist Eisenberg.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:31 AM

#1317

capone0

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 43,152

So only believe them when it's convenient for your narrative.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:34 AM

#1318

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by capone0

Haha bumble****!

The lack of DNA's mainly where the reasonable doubt comes in.

It'd be nice to know how it's addressed in the courtroom though. The jurors knew, but we don't know from the show.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:34 AM

#1319

EfromPegTown

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,063

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoorSkillz

Reasonable doubt about key?
Sure.

Anything close to proof the key was planted?
No.

So, if you agree there's reasonable doubt about the key, doesn't that mean by definition that it's reasonable that it was planted? Otherwise there would be no doubt about the key.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:35 AM

#1320

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by capone0

So only believe them when it's convenient for your narrative.

Nope, I take into account all of the evidence, expert opinions, and credible witnesses. Do you?

Quote

01-12-2016 , 09:38 AM

#1321

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by EfromPegTown

So, if you agree there's reasonable doubt about the key, doesn't that mean by definition that it's reasonable that it was planted? Otherwise there would be no doubt about the key.

Nope.

You can think Avery is guilty, but think there is reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean you think he's innocent.

You can think the key was legitimately found there, but think there is reasonable doubt that it was. That doesn't mean you think it's planted.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 10:11 AM

#1322

EfromPegTown

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,063

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoorSkillz

Nope.

You can think Avery is guilty, but think there is reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean you think he's innocent.

You can think the key was legitimately found there, but think there is reasonable doubt that it was. That doesn't mean you think it's planted.

WAT?

Either the key was found legitimately or it wasn't. If you think there's a possibility that it wasn't legitimately (or to quote you, a "reasonable doubt" that it wasn't). If it wasn't that has to means it's also "reasonable" to think it's planted. Unless you also believe in aliens, in which case, I guess it could also be aliens.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 10:34 AM

#1323

W0X0F

sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 5,829

Quote:

Originally Posted by R*R

And that abominably incompetent Len Kachinksky is so much Jerry Lundegaard (Fargo).

I thought I was the only one to notice this!

This lawyer was beyond incompetent. To allow his client to be questioned alone by the police seems like malpractice to me.

I feel bad for Brendan. Dumb kid with dumb parents (he thinks it's a "bombfire", and both he and his mother don't know the meaning of the word "inconsistent"), completely unequipped to handle this situation on his own. A good lawyer would have gotten him a walk, not a doubt in my mind.

If I was on the Avery jury, I would have been a Not Guilty vote due to reasonable doubt.

Quote

01-12-2016 , 10:53 AM

#1324

PoorSkillz

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,447

Quote:

Originally Posted by EfromPegTown

Ok sorry, I think I misunderstood the first time.

I thought what you meant was:

If there's reasonable doubt about the key being legitimate, then we should believe it's not legitimate. That is untrue.

What I think you mean now (correct me if I'm wrong) is:

If there's reasonable doubt about the key being legitimate, then someone believing the key to be planted isn't necessarily wrong. Sure, I agree with that.