Making a Murderer - Page 95 - OOTV -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

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

Making a Murderer

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 95 of 542

First

45 75 85 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 105 115 145 195 295

Last

Page 95 of 542

First

45 75 85 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 105 115 145 195 295

Last

01-21-2016 , 06:39 PM

#2351

smacc25

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 2,969

Needs A Photoshop

http://i.imgur.com/xrBPqpx.png

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:43 PM

#2352

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

says who?

Neither of those are entirely true. It is possible he arrived before they started the sign in protocol.

yes, lenk was involved in the case.. SO what? Why do you think this was not allowed?

Yup, I'm with lost, it really seems like you haven't watched this. I watched it three weeks ago and know the answers to these questions.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:43 PM

#2353

smacc25

veteran

Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 2,969

Maybe someone could add this to post 2351?

http://i.imgur.com/SnSrx3D.png

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:45 PM

#2354

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Yup, I'm with lost, it really seems like you haven't watched this. I watched it three weeks ago and know the answers to these questions.

I know what the doc implied... Do you understand that this doc was intentionally misleading? Or do you not accept that.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:47 PM

#2355

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

I know what the doc implied... Do you understand that this doc was intentionally misleading? Or do you not accept that.

I think the documentary presented the information they had, and the prosecution declined to speak with the filmmakers. I do not think it was intentionally misleading but was more one sided than it would have been had the prosecution opted to tell their side.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:47 PM

#2356

lostinthesaus

old hand

Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,520

I don't have time for trolls today so I'll just do you a solid and point you to the parts that you missed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

says who?

Making a murderer Season 1, ep. 2. You find it.

Quote:

Neither of those are entirely true. It is possible he arrived before they started the sign in protocol.

Then why did he lie about it? Making a murderer Season 1, ep. 7. You find it.

Strang reads back his under oath testimony given months earlier:

Lenk offers no explanation.

As Boss Strang states, this is literally the difference between night and day.

He is lying.

Quote:

Yes, lenk was involved in the case.. SO what? Why do you think this was not allowed?

Because of the conflict of interest.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:48 PM

#2357

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

I know what the doc implied... Do you understand that this doc was intentionally misleading? Or do you not accept that.

Also, I can replace the word doc with the word cops in your question and ask you the same thing about information presented at trial.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:49 PM

#2358

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

So when they cut up brendans confession for example and make it look like he was asked to draw pictures he didn't confess to doing 15 mins earlier that is not misleading?

When they imply the hole in the top of the blood vial is some sort of slam dunk evidence when all blood vials have this hole, that is not misleading?

When they imply manitwoc county was ordered not to participate in the investigation by interviewing people who say "they shouldn't have helped" then cutting to the DA telling the media manitwoc is only there to assist and is not directly involved. that is not misleading?

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:49 PM

#2359

Dubey

old hand

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,844

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Lol.. So we will always have this suspicion I guess. You can always say "the police could have did this" or "they could have did that" usually, if something like this happens some witness comes clean out of guilt. People don't keep secrets very well.. look at watergate.

I'd agree with you, except for these things:

1. The MCSD had motive for framing SA
2. Lenk was present when every single piece of damning evidence was found
3. the broken seal on the evidence container that Lenk had signed for

It's not just blind accusations, there are legitimate reasons to believe evidence may have been planted other than "don't trust cops"

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:50 PM

#2360

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostinthesaus

Because of the conflict of interest.

Who ordered lenk not to participate? Tell me more, you will get there.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:51 PM

#2361

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,384

Answer: NO one did.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:52 PM

#2362

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Are you kidding? You mean the pictures that Brendan drew for the private investigator hired by his defense attorney who was in turn working with the prosecution? That's a gotcha piece of bias to you?

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:54 PM

#2363

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Are you kidding? You mean the pictures that Brendan drew for the private investigator hired by his defense attorney who was in turn working with the prosecution? That's a gotcha piece of bias to you?

Also the pictures that show a woman shackled to the bed, who the kid says was stabbed in the neck, and yet no blood evidence was found on the bed, mattress, or room that he claims the shackling took place in? Those pictures?

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:55 PM

#2364

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Who ordered lenk not to participate? Tell me more, you will get there.

You just said two posts up. The DA. The person responsible for prosecuting the case.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:59 PM

#2365

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Are you kidding? You mean the pictures that Brendan drew for the private investigator hired by his defense attorney who was in turn working with the prosecution? That's a gotcha piece of bias to you?

No, I am saying that the doc selectively showed the parts of the video where the guy was telling him what to draw. They didn't show that he had just told that guy all that stuff just before that and the guy was only asking him to draw these things so his confession was clearer. The doc implies he just asked brenden to draw those things out of thin air.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 06:59 PM

#2366

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Didn't say she was stabbed in the neck. Said he "cut her neck" and "cut her hair"

Quote

01-21-2016 , 07:01 PM

#2367

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

No, it doesnt. We had already seen his "confession" earlier in the doc and that the private eye was tasked to get him to draw those out. It's clearly shown. Anyone who has seen it would know.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 07:02 PM

#2368

Andro

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 7,139

This thread really went down the dumpster ever since fraley started trolling the **** out of it. A shame because the start of the thread was very interesting.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 07:04 PM

#2369

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

No, it doesnt. We had already seen his "confession" earlier in the doc and that the private eye was tasked to get him to draw those out. It's clearly shown. Anyone who has seen it would know.

LOL WOW. watch it again. It shows parts of his confession. Only the parts after he confessed and they tried to get more details by the way. Then shows the very end of the guy asking him to draw pictures.. It doesn't show that he had just confessed in that very room to that very guy all the pictures the guy asks him to draw.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 07:04 PM

#2370

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Didn't say she was stabbed in the neck. Said he "cut her neck" and "cut her hair"

They asked how far in the knife went when he cut her neck and he shows a considerable length with his fingers. This would produce a massive amount of blood regardless of what part of the neck he cut her in and it would pool around her head if she was lying down when it occured

Quote

01-21-2016 , 07:05 PM

#2371

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,384

You guys should just change the title to "steven avery is not guilty" if you do not want people of my opinion here.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 07:05 PM

#2372

fraleyight

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 13,384

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

I think you are remembering incorrectly.

Quote

01-21-2016 , 07:06 PM

#2373

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by fraleyight

Of course they didnt. Why on earth would they show the same confession a second time? It's essentially the same footage just said to a different person. Do you have any idea how to filmmake bro? What you are suggesting is redundancy and is not needed when you have a certain length of time yoy can make an episode.