Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

01-26-2016 , 04:14 AM
Some links found in Zellner Twitter feed that i found interesting

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...ical/78630248/

This one is really good in this thread context

http://www.upworthy.com/the-real-rea...ther-he-did-it

That's one of the biggest mistake here. People arguing wether avery is the murderer or not and people misinterpreting the documentary's narrative
01-26-2016 , 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
I think she is correcting one very big mistake Steven's lawyers made. They refused to go to the media and didn't handle kratz terrible media usage.
The case was lost outside of court imo.
Agreed. I should have said "Kratzing the case" not Kratzing herself.
01-26-2016 , 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Not really, they didn't bring up the most important stuff.



1. His involvement in the Avery lawsuit was only to testify to telling colborn to file a report after being notified of the phone call in 2003.. 8 years after it happened.



2. His expertise was needed at the location because others were generally not advised to collect evidence.



3. His moving evidence and files had nothing to do with him moving blood



I think from the states prospective those are the most important things and casts a lot of shade on him having any motive to plant evidence.

I'll assume you're referring to the documentary leaving these things out? I think you're making these points out to be way bigger then they are.

1. He was involved and deposed in the Avery lawsuit.

2. You keep saying "needed". I don't think it means what you think it means.

3. Technically he didn't move evidence files at all, another officer under his charge did. Was he aware that the files moved contained hair/fingernail samples? Yes. Was he aware that there remained an exhibit in the county evidence room. Yes. Did he personally have access to that room? Yes. Was he in fact in charge of the evidence procedures on behalf of the county at that time. Yes.
01-26-2016 , 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Im confused. Which confession is the one that fraleyight thinks is the true confession and which is the one that revots33 thinks is legit.
I was referring to the session where they re-interviewed Dassey on 5/13. I stated the date a couple of times. I quoted his exact words where he explained quite clearly and in detail what happened.
01-26-2016 , 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borg23 Making a Murderer
It actually might be the dumbest post in the history of 2p2.
Lol yep summarizing the actual evidence is dumb. Especially when you want to believe a TV show's storyline over actual facts.
01-26-2016 , 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
This one is really good in this thread context

http://www.upworthy.com/the-real-rea...ther-he-did-it

That's one of the biggest mistake here. People arguing wether avery is the murderer or not and people misinterpreting the documentary's narrative
Nails it.
01-26-2016 , 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokeraz Making a Murderer
This may be the highlight of how ridiculous the verdict was. How they found him not guilty on the mutilating a corpse and guilty of the murder is perplexing.
I am not sure of what legal instructions the jury was given regarding that count. Is it possible burning a dead body does not legally count as mutilation? I saw a legal definition and it seemed to refer more to cutting up a body etc., not disposing of it by burning.
01-26-2016 , 08:52 AM
BD was convicted of mutilating the corpse.
01-26-2016 , 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Some links found in Zellner Twitter feed that i found interesting

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...ical/78630248/
This perfectly illustrates what a joke SAs trial was. Kratz should be disbarred.
01-26-2016 , 09:44 AM
Ok, I finished reading Lenk's testimony.

Again, I thought it was fairly well portrayed in the documentary. I don't think they really left out anything crucial.

Fraley, did I miss the smoking gun you seems to think was in Lenk's testimony?
01-26-2016 , 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichGangi Making a Murderer
This perfectly illustrates what a joke SAs trial was. Kratz should be disbarred.
That judge seems to deserve a ton of blame aswell.
01-26-2016 , 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
I was referring to the session where they re-interviewed Dassey on 5/13. I stated the date a couple of times. I quoted his exact words where he explained quite clearly and in detail what happened.
Oh come on man. How are you going to use the very last interview he does after 3 pieces of absolute sh*t, Fassbender, Wiegert and O'Kelly have completely and utterly destroyed this kids soul and life. He clearly had nothing to do with anything. All he cared about was trying to get his girlfriend back, watching WWF, playstation and getting his assignments in before 6th period.

O'Kelly just got done the day before instructing Brendan on exactly what to write and draw. Then O'Kelly gets on the phone and straight up lies to the detectives and says "Brendan wants to meet you with after his breakfast tomorrow....". And we all know this is the interview that got Len Cachinsky tossed because it was unethical and probably violated his rights to allow that interview to occur.

And if this isn't bad enough, this interview from 5/13 is when Weigert and Fassbender INSTRUCT Brendan to call his mom before they do and tell her the details that O'Kelly just coerced him to write because she deserves to know:





Read that last line from Fassbender and let it really sink in. These MFs are rotten to the core.

You can honestly cite this interview and everything that has led up to it, as the basis of your certainty of Brendan Dassey's guilt?

Last edited by lostinthesaus; 01-26-2016 at 10:40 AM.
01-26-2016 , 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I'll assume you're referring to the documentary leaving these things out? I think you're making these points out to be way bigger then they are.

1. He was involved and deposed in the Avery lawsuit.

2. You keep saying "needed". I don't think it means what you think it means.

3. Technically he didn't move evidence files at all, another officer under his charge did. Was he aware that the files moved contained hair/fingernail samples? Yes. Was he aware that there remained an exhibit in the county evidence room. Yes. Did he personally have access to that room? Yes. Was he in fact in charge of the evidence procedures on behalf of the county at that time. Yes.
You don't think it is important that the reason why he was needed was to collect evidence because other officers there couldn't? You don't think it is relevant that he had nothing to do with the 1985 conviction and nothing to do with the 1995 phone call? You don't think this is important when the doc tried to tell a narrative where he had this huge motive because he may have been a defendant when there is no reason to think he would be one?
01-26-2016 , 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Oh come on man. How are you going to use the very last interview he does after 3 pieces of absolute sh*t, Fassbender, Wiegert and O'Kelly have completely and utterly destroyed this kids soul and life. He clearly had nothing to do with anything. All he cared about was trying to get his girlfriend back, watching WWF, playstation and getting his assignments in before 6th period.

O'Kelly just got done the day before instructing Brendan on exactly what to write and draw. Then O'Kelly gets on the phone and straight up lies to the detectives and says "Brendan wants to meet you with after his breakfast tomorrow....". And we all know this is the interview that got Len Cachinsky tossed because it was unethical and probably violated his rights to allow that interview to occur.

And if this isn't bad enough, this interview from 5/13 is when Weigert and Fassbender INSTRUCT Brendan to call his mom before they do and tell her the details that O'Kelly just coerced him to write because she deserves to know:





You can honestly cite this interview and everything that has led up to it, as the basis of your certainty of Brendan Dassey's guilt?
Are you reading the whole interview before choosing these snippets? I am pretty sure everything you quoted took place after the snippet quoted by the person you are responding to?.
01-26-2016 , 10:42 AM
Can you guys tell me why branden kept lying from november up until may? Why would he lie about having a bonfire in november for example then when police found out he was at the fire recant his story and claim that he was there but didn't see anything? Why did he keep lying?
01-26-2016 , 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
You don't think it is important that the reason why he was needed was to collect evidence because other officers there couldn't? You don't think it is relevant that he had nothing to do with the 1985 conviction and nothing to do with the 1995 phone call? You don't think this is important when the doc tried to tell a narrative where he had this huge motive because he may have been a defendant when there is no reason to think he would be one?
I don't think the documentary tried to tell any narrative other than the fact that he had the opportunity.

You keep saying needed like it's the truth. The truth is, there were hundreds of officers there, and Lenk was only one of the evidence techs. He also volunteered to search SA's trailer (his words, which he acknowledged on cross-examination).

I think it would be foolish to conclude anything about who else would/could have been added to the civil lawsuit, as they weren't finished deposing people.

Again, you want to play this weird motive game. What motive did SA have for killing TH? If you're only motive is that he felt like raping (allegedly) and killing someone that day it's pretty thin. But if we're going to allow that to be SA's motive, we have to allow for Lenk's motive to frame him to be nothing more than petty vengeance over the lawsuit against the department he works for.
01-26-2016 , 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Can you guys tell me why branden kept lying from november up until may? Why would he lie about having a bonfire in november for example then when police found out he was at the fire recant his story and claim that he was there but didn't see anything? Why did he keep lying?
Yes, because the people interviewing him used very obvious techniques to get him to change his story to fit their narrative of how and why Steven Avery is guilty. I honestly can't believe you are still trying to use his confession as the basis of your "BD is 100% Guilty" theory. It's the biggest farce of this whole deal because there are hours of video documenting exactly what was done to him and then absolutely zero physical evidence to back up anything he "confessed to".

Last edited by lostinthesaus; 01-26-2016 at 11:00 AM.
01-26-2016 , 10:51 AM
Wonder if BD is getting enough to eat in prison.
01-26-2016 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Can you guys tell me why branden kept lying from november up until may? Why would he lie about having a bonfire in november for example then when police found out he was at the fire recant his story and claim that he was there but didn't see anything? Why did he keep lying?
Well this is what Grandpa Avery told Brendan in June 2006 when he knew the call was being recorded:

Quote:
"They come down on you. I don't give a **** what they do. You're going to have to be man enough right now and you stick to your Goddamn guns."

"Yeah."

"And say nothing happened."

"Yeah."

"This is --they made me say all of this. Tell them that."

"Yeah."

"And stick to your guns. 'Cause this is being monitored. I don't give a ****. But you got to understand one thing. You're a young man."

"Yeah. "

"And you don't want to go to prison for· the rest of your life."

"No."

"Don't go for a plea bargain or this and that."

"Yeah."

"Because you do that, then you're hurting both of you guys."
I wonder what the family influence was like when they knew they weren't being monitored!
01-26-2016 , 10:59 AM
Anyone know off hand how many "evidence technicians" were on the scene? If not, I'll research it.

Would like to know the probabilities of the only 2 "evidence technicians" who had been deposed in the suspects lawsuit against MC being assigned to search the single most important area (to that point) of the "crime scene". Did you know that Lenk and Colborn were assigned to every single search of the trailer? And on top of this, since Fassbender and Weigert, who were the Detectives In-Charge, were not present for those searches, they were not considered completed searches, thus allowing unlimited extensions on the warrant.
01-26-2016 , 10:59 AM
I'm sorry, what are you suggesting that proves?

Other than that the grandpa was trying to look out for his grandson.
01-26-2016 , 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Anyone know off hand how many "evidence technicians" were on the scene? If not, I'll research it.

Would like to know the probabilities of the only 2 "evidence technicians" who had been deposed in the suspects lawsuit against MC being assigned to search the single most important area (to that point) of the "crime scene". Did you know that Lenk and Colborn were assigned to every single search of the trailer? And on top of this, since Fassbender and Weigert, who were the Detectives In-Charge, were not present for those searches, they were not considered completed searches, thus allowing unlimited extensions on the warrant.
First, they volunteered to search the trailer. Lenk admitted that on cross-examination.

Second, I read somewhere on reddit that there were a bunch of very qualified people on scene, including one guy that had a PHD and was a forensics guy or something, but he was assigned to looking in car trucks and to the quarry or something. I'll try and find that post and the link they had.
01-26-2016 , 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Well this is what Grandpa Avery told Brendan in June 2006 when he knew the call was being recorded:



I wonder what the family influence was like when they knew they weren't being monitored!
Seems like a strong man telling another young man to be strong and tell the truth. Do you know what the idiom "stick by (to) your guns" means? Here's a hint:

- to remain firm in one's convictions; to stand up for one's rights.
- to refuse to change your ideas although other people try to make you change them
01-26-2016 , 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
So I'll ask again: Can you explain why you think he'd be added to the lawsuit?

If you personally know of something more damning in Lenk's depostion, can you please explain?

Or are you just blowing smoke?
I made it very clear that my opinion about Lenk being added to the lawsuit was based on another opinion I read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer

3. I believe Lenk was deposed and based on his answers there was a strong indication he would be added to the lawsuit, but I do not think he was. I would actually be surprised if he was at that point because the depositions of the two big players was coming up in a matter of weeks. I am sure they would wait until after hearing from them before Amending the Complaint (for example, they may find additional parties and facts such that additional causes of action or parties would need to be added - as a practical matter, you don't want to do all this ad hoc, its better to do the Amendment all at once).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I don't have access to the attorney files so I have no first-hand answer. I read something about this and the speculation stated Lenk would have likely been added. That he was considered being added was not controversial in mind so I did not make note of the source.

You happen to be the only poster that I recall thinking them being added to the suit was not a possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I stated mainly the facts of his involvement and guessed as to why they would depose him based on that.

The fact is that the only thing Lenk did related to the case was in 2003, when he had Colborn write a statement detailing the 1995 call.

If there was something more damning in Lenk's deposition, you would think it'd be shown in the series, no? Or brought up by the defense, no?
I can't believe you are so passionate about Lenk. I don't get it. Very strange. At the very least, the guy comes off as a creep (regardless of whether you suspect him of planting evidence).

But here you are nuthugging the guy and arguing a relatively trivial point about the civil lawsuit to the death.

This is very unnatural. You are either related to the guy or you are mentally imbalanced.
01-26-2016 , 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Are you reading the whole interview before choosing these snippets? I am pretty sure everything you quoted took place after the snippet quoted by the person you are responding to?.
First of all, he mentioned the phone call to his mom as one of the foundations of his guilty-as-charged verdicts he has passed onto BD. So we are going to work backwards. That's just the beginning....

I'll attack the actual interview later because it's rather long. But I'll give a preview of what's coming at the end. Here's Brendan's "defense" investigator's first 10 sentences he ever says to Brendan. It happens to be the interview that his 5/13 "confession" to Weigert and Fassbender is based on:


      
m