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

01-26-2016 , 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Wherever it is, I hope you stay there.
But then who will call out your bull****?
01-26-2016 , 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Lol yep summarizing the actual evidence is dumb. Especially when you want to believe a TV show's storyline over actual facts.
You compared this case to 9/11 truthers which is beyond idiotic. even if avery is guilty that's such a terrible ****ing comparison.this police department already locked avery up for 18 years, was being sued for 36 million for it, clearly planted evidence and had no business even being involved in this case.There are plenty of logical reasons to think they framed him. But yea same as 9/11 truther lmao.
01-26-2016 , 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiRee446 Making a Murderer
Yep you're definitely right, he *67'd her. If that isn't a smoking gun I don't know what is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
01-26-2016 , 01:24 PM
Can someone please point out for me the parts of the documentary that were deceptive?
01-26-2016 , 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
It wasn't just his property, and what makes you think she had any reason to fear he would actually do anything to her?
If she felt harassed she wouldn't have gone to the property to begin with. And to your point of it was a big property blah blah blah if you're being harassed you also don't go to take a picture of that person's sister's car either where you know SA will likely be. You just let someone else take the pictures and avoid the whole situation.
01-26-2016 , 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
But then who will call out your bull****?
And what bull**** is that?

By the way, you remember that time you wrote that you weren't going to post in this thread anymore?

Do you remember when everyone was happy that you weren't going to post in this thread anymore?

Do you remember when nobody asked you to come back and start posting again?

Do you remember when people were disappointed that you came back to continue posting?
01-26-2016 , 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Can someone please point out for me the parts of the documentary that were deceptive?
Yes. They clearly misrepresented Avery's yard as being overrun with rusting cars.
01-26-2016 , 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Can someone please point out for me the parts of the documentary that were deceptive?
I got a good one that comes to the top of my head. The scenes in the Okelly interview where he is telling BD to draw pictures of specific things. all the doc shows is him saying

"draw a picture of her being tied up"

"Draw a picture of the knife"

etc..

It does not show that in that very same interview he confesses all those things to him before he tells him to draw those things. It just makes it look like he brought branden in a room and fooled him into drawing those things.

There are several other things as well. The stuff with the blood vial? Making it appear that the hole on top of the vial is a big deal when that is common, there is actually a technical name for that hole (name escapes me) that is the hole made when the blood is taken.

The downplaying of SA's criminal history and the stuff he has done in the past.

I understand the real story wouldn't be as interesting as the story the doc told so I understand why they used their artistic license to tell the story in the way they did, but it still misleads people to an unnecessary conclusion.
01-26-2016 , 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borg23 Making a Murderer
If she felt harassed she wouldn't have gone to the property to begin with. And to your point of it was a big property blah blah blah if you're being harassed you also don't go to take a picture of that person's sister's car either where you know SA will likely be. You just let someone else take the pictures and avoid the whole situation.
This is true.

Also, the so-called "evidence" of harassment was inadmissible hearsay and contrary to how it has been (mis)represented, T.H. did not make the comment to her boss, but to her co-worker and the apparent context of the comment had nothing to do with T.H. thinking S.A. was harassing her.

Again, if T.H. reported fear or harassment from S.A. to her boss, I very much doubt she would be sent (alone) to the property. Also, if you recall the Dassey brother's testimony he stated T.H. was walking with S.A. to his trailer.

If T.H. had apprehensions about S.A. she would not be doing that. (I don't believe Bobby's testimony btw, but it shows how inconsistent the prosecution's theory really was).
01-26-2016 , 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
And what bull**** is that?

By the way, you remember that time you wrote that you weren't going to post in this thread anymore?

Do you remember when everyone was happy that you weren't going to post in this thread anymore?

Do you remember when nobody asked you to come back and start posting again?

Do you remember when people were disappointed that you came back to continue posting?
that was me who said I would quit posting and people did ask me to come back.
01-26-2016 , 01:38 PM
The filmmakers could have shown more damning evidence against SA that was supposedly not shown in the series.
01-26-2016 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Can someone please point out for me the parts of the documentary that were deceptive?
Here's a start: http://stevenaverycase.com/what-maki...idnt-tell-you/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
And what bull**** is that?

By the way, you remember that time you wrote that you weren't going to post in this thread anymore?

Do you remember when everyone was happy that you weren't going to post in this thread anymore?

Do you remember when nobody asked you to come back and start posting again?

Do you remember when people were disappointed that you came back to continue posting?
You don't speak for everyone. I've rejoined the discussion in support of people like fraley, angerpush, revots, etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
And what bull**** is that?
Based on the facts I've presented you, can you provide an explanation for why Lenk would be sued?

Are there facts I've omitted that lead you to believe Lenk would be sued, and if so, what are they?

Or is your claim that "based on Lenk's answers there was a strong indication he would be added to the lawsuit" bull****?
01-26-2016 , 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
.

There are several other things as well. The stuff with the blood vial? Making it appear that the hole on top of the vial is a big deal when that is common, there is actually a technical name for that hole (name escapes me)

.
For you, it's called a "glory hole."

Anyhow, the film was not deceptive on that point at all.

1. The film was shot at the time the box was opened and it captured Strang's reaction as he believed that in addition to the fact the package had obviously been accessed that the hole was a big deal.

2. Then they clearly show Strang's and Jerome's problem with that evidence is that regardless of access, they have to establish the blood in the car was the same as in the vial.

3. So, you are merely introducing a red-herring. I doubt the defense argued that the hole meant anything, and therefore, the prosecution did not argue that the hole was common. Anyway, the issue with the hole is completely meaningless.
01-26-2016 , 01:41 PM
Does TH know SA's address--I assume she did since she went over 10 times to take shots of cars? IF she was clearly annoyed by the guy and wanted nothing to do with him, why did she drive to his house/area where he lived? Was she that desperate for money that she would? Even if SA *67 the number, it makes no sense that she would go to his home even if he was faking his identity.
01-26-2016 , 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
that was me who said I would quit posting and people did ask me to come back.
Yes, I recall that.

However, poorskillz made the same "promise." Looks like both of you are not so good at keeping those.
01-26-2016 , 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
that was me who said I would quit posting and people did ask me to come back.
I'm glad you're back too. You've clearly read beyond the case and are willing to discuss the case rationally, despite what many here will claim.
01-26-2016 , 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I got a good one that comes to the top of my head. The scenes in the Okelly interview where he is telling BD to draw pictures of specific things. all the doc shows is him saying

"draw a picture of her being tied up"

"Draw a picture of the knife"

etc..

It does not show that in that very same interview he confesses all those things to him before he tells him to draw those things. It just makes it look like he brought branden in a room and fooled him into drawing those things.

There are several other things as well. The stuff with the blood vial? Making it appear that the hole on top of the vial is a big deal when that is common, there is actually a technical name for that hole (name escapes me) that is the hole made when the blood is taken.

The downplaying of SA's criminal history and the stuff he has done in the past.

I understand the real story wouldn't be as interesting as the story the doc told so I understand why they used their artistic license to tell the story in the way they did, but it still misleads people to an unnecessary conclusion.
My recollection of that interview from the doc went as follows;

BD writes his account of that day/night. He basically said "nothing happened". Okelly the asks him some leading questions, and tells him he's working with him and is there to help him, but can only help him if he tells the truth, in that he helped kill TH. It then shows him asking him some more leading questions.

After he has his "truth" version of events in writing, he has BD make a drawing.

I haven't ready any transcripts of that interview (I'm assuming there are some), but I will.

Regarding the blood vile;

I've read reports that the hole is supposed to be there/is common. I've also seen it said that there are certain types of viles that do not have that hole. I haven't independently researched this at all, but I'm willing to just take you word for it if you're saying this is the type of vile that has a hole there by design or w/e.

That doesn't explain the ripped evidence tape at all.

I don't think the doc downplayed SA's criminal past at all. I think they made an effort to show a fair amount of the evidence that was brought up at trail. I think they did that. SA's criminal past wasn't brought up at trail.
01-26-2016 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capone0 Making a Murderer
Does TH know SA's address--I assume she did since she went over 10 times to take shots of cars? IF she was clearly annoyed by the guy and wanted nothing to do with him, why did she drive to his house/area where he lived? Was she that desperate for money that she would? Even if SA *67 the number, it makes no sense that she would go to his home even if he was faking his identity.
The name of the street is "Avery". To suggest in any way that TH didn't know where she was going that day, or that she was somehow tricked into going there is completely absurd.

She'd been there a bunch of times before, she knew full well where she was going.
01-26-2016 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I got a good one that comes to the top of my head. The scenes in the Okelly interview where he is telling BD to draw pictures of specific things. all the doc shows is him saying

"draw a picture of her being tied up"

"Draw a picture of the knife"

etc..

It does not show that in that very same interview he confesses all those things to him before he tells him to draw those things. It just makes it look like he brought branden in a room and fooled him into drawing those things.
Jfc I alresdy addressed this and you completely ignored it. Stop posting terribly.
01-26-2016 , 01:52 PM
2 things they did miss is the first 6 years of his incarceration were for his incident with his cousin (the 18 year stay in prison). The vial, they opened the vial/tape package during the previous investigation of the rape case in 20023. I guess the question becomes would it be easier to access the blood without the tape being properly attached.
01-26-2016 , 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
For you, it's called a "glory hole."

Anyhow, the film was not deceptive on that point at all.

1. The film was shot at the time the box was opened and it captured Strang's reaction as he believed that in addition to the fact the package had obviously been accessed that the hole was a big deal.

2. Then they clearly show Strang's and Jerome's problem with that evidence is that regardless of access, they have to establish the blood in the car was the same as in the vial.

3. So, you are merely introducing a red-herring. I doubt the defense argued that the hole meant anything, and therefore, the prosecution did not argue that the hole was common. Anyway, the issue with the hole is completely meaningless.
Yeah, not deceptive at all :

Quote:
Originally Posted by younguns87 Making a Murderer
The hole in the blood sample from 1985 is pretty incredible along with that cop knowing it was 99 Toyota prior to being told, finding the key in plain sight after searching the house for 5 days etc etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewsavman Making a Murderer
- A vial of SA's blood was held in a container that was tampered with.
- Said vial had a punctured lid consistent with a syringe and LabCorp unambiguously states all vials are sealed when leaving the lab
Quote:
Originally Posted by domer2 Making a Murderer
The planting of the blood is the most logical explanation given the lack of fingerprints and the vial of blood that was penetrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemeliminator Making a Murderer
Admittedly I've only read the last few pages of this thread, but is this idiocy seriously the only response to the fact that Stephen Avery's blood sample a) had the seal broken and b) has a small hole in the blood vial consistent with a hypodermic needle?

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 01-26-2016 at 01:57 PM. Reason: Added an eye roll emoji because your comment was so dumb
01-26-2016 , 01:58 PM
So I only just got round to watching this series, and as my friends suggested it quickly became compulsive viewing. I came to this thread with a few thoughts and questions, but it's all been pretty thoroughly covered already so all I'll say is the TV series gave a terrifying portrayal of the way certain cases may be handled in the US system.

The press conferences from the prosecutor and the police are just wtf; it absolutely blows my mind that such prejudicial statements can be made before and during a trial. There's no way we saw enough in the TV series to draw any absolute conclusions as to the guilt of either accused, but I've already seen plenty of grounds for a mistrial and I'd argue that neither could possibly receive a fair trial in that county given what had already been broadcast before they even walked into the courtroom.

Having read / skimmed most of this thread I can add that I'm feeling pretty good about being on the opposite side of the argument to the most egregiously terrible posters. Poorskillz is obviously only here to spam links to his ******ed Avery website, and fraleyight is like a poor man's version of 239 from the Knox thread which this thread has, perhaps inevitably, devolved into a replica of. There's a fun mix of willful ignorance, misguided superiority, misinformation and outright lies in his posting range, and for that reason I've no interest in following this thread any further as I've been down this road before!

Cool TV series though, and I'll be keeping an eye on future developments.
01-26-2016 , 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
You don't speak for everyone. I've rejoined the discussion in support of people like fraley, angerpush, revots, etc.
I don't recall any of them asking for your "help." Indeed, if I was advocating a position, I certainly wouldn't seek help from someone that was widely ridiculed for their work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Based on the facts I've presented you, can you provide an explanation for why Lenk would be sued?

Are there facts I've omitted that lead you to believe Lenk would be sued, and if so, what are they?

Or is your claim that "based on Lenk's answers there was a strong indication he would be added to the lawsuit" bull****?
Again, let me paraphrase what I read:

"based on Lenk's answers in the deposition there was a strong indication he would be added to the lawsuit."

I am not going to offer any opinion based on your so-called "facts." Because they are not "facts." The decision whether or not Lenk would be added to the lawsuit would be based on the attorney's strategy and what was in his head when conducting the case. Those answers (if anywhere else besides in the lawyer's head) would be in the file. I don't have the file and you don't have the file - you you are trying call "bull****" with your own "bull****."

Let me help you through this: This is not my original opinion. It is the opinion of someone else and it was offered only in response to another poster here asking if Lenk had been added to the lawsuit. Yet, that position as I read it was not really noteworthy or controversial. Again, you appear to be the only person I have read on this site that finds it unbelievable that Lenk could have been added to the lawsuit. I find it unbelievable that you would hold such a position given your obvious ignorance of how civil litigation works

However, two things we can take from that:

1. If Lenk was going to be added to the lawsuit, it would not have been until the other depositions were taken. Why do I know that? Well, I explained it already - it has to do with how civil cases are generally handled.

2. I also explained that if a civil conspiracy is pleaded, a participant (no matter how small their actions are in the overall scheme) is just as liable as any other participant. Now, that does not mean that such a conspiracy could be proven (or under the facts known to the attorney, alleged) but I offered that as one way to at least get others (including Lenk) into the case. In this instance, the defense of the case would be prohibitively expensive for Lenk and his insurance (if he had it) would not likely provide him a defense.

Again, your blind defense of Lenk is weird. I ask again, are you related to him? Or are you a law enforcement groupie. There was speculation of who you are earlier in this thread - that unbalanced reporter that slept with some police officers or something. You certainly are not doing much to dispel that speculation.
01-26-2016 , 02:00 PM
This is basically the Knox thread all over again.

Fraley and Skillz ask for citations, so Lost and I post actual transcripts. What are you guys looking for exactly?
01-26-2016 , 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
For you, it's called a "glory hole."

Anyhow, the film was not deceptive on that point at all.

1. The film was shot at the time the box was opened and it captured Strang's reaction as he believed that in addition to the fact the package had obviously been accessed that the hole was a big deal.

2. Then they clearly show Strang's and Jerome's problem with that evidence is that regardless of access, they have to establish the blood in the car was the same as in the vial.

3. So, you are merely introducing a red-herring. I doubt the defense argued that the hole meant anything, and therefore, the prosecution did not argue that the hole was common. Anyway, the issue with the hole is completely meaningless.
Unbelievable, so you are saying the doc showing that scene and just leaving the viewer to wonder if the hole in the tube meant anything isn't misleading? Especially when the defense didn't use it in court? How can you not see that they showed that to put doubt in our minds on where the blood came from?

      
m