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

01-27-2016 , 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Honestly I think the entire deleted voicemail thing is a red herring. Even back then there would clearly have been ways to find out who deleted the messages, and from what number or computer.

All the defense had was one Cingular engineer stating that her mailbox shouldn't have been full given the amount of messages. It wasn't a very in-depth investigation into the matter, I suspect because the defense knew it wouldn't lead them anywhere useful. The only point was to hopefully plant some seeds of doubt in the jury's mind.
Again that is as far as they could take it. The judge hamstrung them with the third party liability issue.

It wasn't a red herring. People reported getting voice mail box full then it was not full. The boyfriend/roommate admitted to hacking into the phone., the phone was no longer full later on because 1) it was taking messages again and 2) the Cingular engineer said it was no longer full.

I think for whatever reason someone did delete messages and the most likely suspects are the ones who admitted to hacking into her phone in open court.
01-27-2016 , 09:42 AM
Nails it. Manitowoc Officers being there(never mind finding key evidence that by all accounts wasn't there prior) = reasonable doubt to any sane, thinking person. Oh, and if you think it's all just a coincidence then I don't know what to tell you.
01-27-2016 , 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Thoughts on reasonable doubt:

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. Yeah, it's the jury's duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, but the jury should not search for doubt, the jury should search for the truth.

Can we all agree on that?
No. You still don't understand reasonable doubt. The jury needs to decide if the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty. Where you got this idea the jury is on a truth seeking mission is beyond me. That is not a part of the process at all. A judge has never instructed to seek the truth on their own. They are supposed to base their decisions on the facts presented in the case. I served on a jury and while every last juror believed the guy was likely guilty the DA failed to meet the burden of proof and we found him not guilty. The burden lies totally on the prosecution to proof their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury then takes that information then takes the defenses case and decides if the prosecution met their burden. That is probably the biggest issue in this case. There is no way the prosecutor met that burden which leads me to believe some very unkosher happenings took place in jury deliberations.

You can easily believe someone is guilty but still not think the prosecution met their burden. A jury's job is to weigh the controlled evidence (what is allowed by a judge and presented by both sides) and then determine if the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Truth is not part of the issue. Rarely is the truth ever known fully.
01-27-2016 , 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kioshk Making a Murderer
Interesting new interview with Errol Morris about Making a Murderer: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/c..._murderer.html
Is the movie he made good ?
01-27-2016 , 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Right my point is, in this case, there was an overwhelming amount of physical evidence. If a person is working from the premise that the police are conspiring to frame Avery, no amount of evidence is likely to convince them otherwise.
The problem is if the police used standard operations and best procedures almost none of these questions would exist. However since they failed to do pretty much anything within the guidelines of acceptable investigating all we are left with is it was a set-up and/or gross negligence. In either case which so much of the investigation managed so absurdly that alone is enough to raise reasonable doubt on the whole case.

It is not like they made one oversight. They made mistakes or did things improperly almost consistently from start to finish. How anyone can think anyone deserves to be convicted when law enforcement screws up the investigation from the very beginning to the very end is beyond me.

People who don't see that as an overwhelming issue towards reasonable doubt doesn't understand reasonable doubt. There are reasons almost all police departments have strict rules on how they handle crime scenes, evidence, investigations and conflicts of interest. Two counties, two prosecutors and the State of Wisconsin failed to meet these minimum standards over and over and over again. Unfortunately being a tiny jurisdiction with no real oversight they were ripe to just do whatever they wanted without repercussions. They didn't follow their own policies because they never did because they did not have to because who was going to call them on it? The creepy prosecutor or the single horrible judge who appears to be the only one who can try cases in that part of the state.

The prosecution loses the second that mantiwoc inserts and dominates the investigation. Especially after they publically announced that would not happen., there still has not been a reasonable explanation by anyone as to why calumet county or the state authorities could not handled the entire investigation. The reason why it didn't happen is because they have been doing whatever they wanted forever with no consequence.
01-27-2016 , 10:15 AM
^ Very well said.
01-27-2016 , 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
No. You still don't understand reasonable doubt. The jury needs to decide if the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty. Where you got this idea the jury is on a truth seeking mission is beyond me. That is not a part of the process at all. A judge has never instructed to seek the truth on their own. They are supposed to base their decisions on the facts presented in the case. I served on a jury and while every last juror believed the guy was likely guilty the DA failed to meet the burden of proof and we found him not guilty. The burden lies totally on the prosecution to proof their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury then takes that information then takes the defenses case and decides if the prosecution met their burden. That is probably the biggest issue in this case. There is no way the prosecutor met that burden which leads me to believe some very unkosher happenings took place in jury deliberations.

You can easily believe someone is guilty but still not think the prosecution met their burden. A jury's job is to weigh the controlled evidence (what is allowed by a judge and presented by both sides) and then determine if the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Truth is not part of the issue. Rarely is the truth ever known fully.
What amaze me is that avery could be the murderer and law enforcement did such a poor job that the reverse situation could have and could still happend
01-27-2016 , 10:16 AM
But..... Lenk is an evidence tech.
01-27-2016 , 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capone0 Making a Murderer
No tape makes it easier to tamper with, but we don't know if it was ever tampered with after that point but it does allow the cops to have access to it without anyone knowing it. With that being said, the reason it wasn't sealed/seal was broken was not b/c it was tampered with but b/c the civil case investigators didn't seal it up correctly. While one of the cops could have done something, the fact that the seal was broken doesn't implicate anyone in planting SA blood.
So just systematic incompetence by law enforcement in the county and the state.

Not sure why people don't think the police being grossly negligent in their jobs is somehow a better scenario. In either case it taints everything with the investigation and is enough reasonable doubt on its own.

I don't think anyone can point to a single competent moment of work by the police or prosecutors. Literally none. That is mind blowing.
01-27-2016 , 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Isn't it possible avery deleted her voicemails if he had access to her phone? If he called her again after she arrived and he had her tied up wouldn't he remove any evidence that he contacted her if that was what he was thinking? Why assume her ex deleted vms?
I'm guessing that fails to fit any timeline involving the phone being burned, the phone being full, the brother/ex boyfriend listening to messages and then the voicemail no longer being full. Plus those bozos didn't even say what the voicemails they listened to where, if Avery had left a message would they have not mentioned it?
01-27-2016 , 10:27 AM
It's not like that county failed at catching a rapist before and let the real rapist commit more rape because of their incompétence and lack of ethic. If that stuff had happend before they d for sure try to raise their standard especially when it involve someone that was wrongfully convicted because of them before.
Who could imagine they wouldn't learn from their mistakes
01-27-2016 , 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
This is simple. Do you think they used every piece of interview he did? If not, then they edited(you seem to think edited means manipulated footage, I could show interview clips of almost anybody with enough source material and make them seem a certain way). Then the question becomes why did they choose to include the things they did and not include the things they didnt.

I mean, or you can ask yourself why his viewpoint mattered at all. What value does he add? Do we think he killed Teresa? Do we think he was part of the frame job? So what is the point of his inclusion?

You have to realize they had days of footage, and they condensed it to 10 hours, so not like they had a shortage of stuff to fill his place(or they can take away all of his clips and have 9 hours and 55 minutes).


Every scene was a conscious choice by the filmmakers, and in fact judging by what can only be assumed days and days of footage to choose from, there is strong purpose to every scene they included. Why was her brother a repeating character?









And in case it needs repeating. I think theres a 60% chance avery is innocent, and a 99% chance the cops did some sketchy police work intentionally, and about 90% chance they planted evidence to aid the conviction.


And no peg, there isnt any "basis" for these numbers.
I think the brothers inclusion was simple. It shows the way that the family of the victims feel towards somebody when the police say "we found the guy" without sufficient evidence towards that statement. We see the same thing in Paradise Lost, where rhe victims families talk about hoping the WM3 go to prison, otherwise the families would murder the suspects themselves.

It's basically a microcosm of how the community at large reacts to the case once the police say "we have our guy" before a trial takes place. It shows how poisoning the well can affect the trial.
01-27-2016 , 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
No. You still don't understand reasonable doubt. The jury needs to decide if the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is guilty. Where you got this idea the jury is on a truth seeking mission is beyond me. That is not a part of the process at all. A judge has never instructed to seek the truth on their own. They are supposed to base their decisions on the facts presented in the case. I served on a jury and while every last juror believed the guy was likely guilty the DA failed to meet the burden of proof and we found him not guilty. The burden lies totally on the prosecution to proof their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury then takes that information then takes the defenses case and decides if the prosecution met their burden. That is probably the biggest issue in this case. There is no way the prosecutor met that burden which leads me to believe some very unkosher happenings took place in jury deliberations.

You can easily believe someone is guilty but still not think the prosecution met their burden. A jury's job is to weigh the controlled evidence (what is allowed by a judge and presented by both sides) and then determine if the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Truth is not part of the issue. Rarely is the truth ever known fully.
Let me expand on what I said a bit.

Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It's a doubt for which a reason can be given, based on fair and rational consideration of evidence or lack of evidence. It means doubt that would cause a reasonable person to pause or hesitate when deciding if someone is guilty.

However, a reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. If it's based merely on sympathy or fear to return a guilty verdict then it's not reasonable doubt. Yeah, it's the jury's duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, but the jury should not search for doubt, the jury should search for the truth.


Do you still disagree? If so, why?
01-27-2016 , 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
But..... Lenk is an evidence tech.
Yeah, LOL at this rationale. He HAD to be there, no one else knew how to collect evidence. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
01-27-2016 , 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by borg23 Making a Murderer
I'm not sure but if I was locked up and given that option I'd say I shot Lincoln if it got me out.
I think 99.99% would.

Why didn't he?

The guy "seems" off the charts blunt and honest. He readily admits that he confronted his cousin with a gun because he was so upset about her accusing him of having sex in public. He admits to the cat. He moves right back to where he lives. He dresses exactly like he did before. He doesn't even act upset after being released for a false crime.

He seems by far the most believable character in the whole documentary. He never once denied doing anything bad. When he feels like hurting someone, he writes that out knowing full well that will be public record.

I didn't believe one cop, investigator prosecutor, or victim or victim family member.

He genuinely seemed like he created Steve Avery bill solely to help others. He never seemed comfortable in front of the camera and certainly didn't dress to impress anyone.

I believe a lawyer was probably pushing him to sue more than himself. He seemed perfectly fine going back to that Avery yard and resuming life just like it was before.

He never even seemed genuinely upset with the police who put him in the first time. People want to kill one another if someone cuts them off in traffic, yet his entire life was ruined and he seemed truly happy and content.
01-27-2016 , 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Let me expand on what I said a bit.

Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It's a doubt for which a reason can be given, based on fair and rational consideration of evidence or lack of evidence. It means doubt that would cause a reasonable person to pause or hesitate when deciding if someone is guilty.

However, a reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. If it's based merely on sympathy or fear to return a guilty verdict then it's not reasonable doubt. Yeah, it's the jury's duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, but the jury should not search for doubt, the jury should search for the truth.


Do you still disagree? If so, why?

01-27-2016 , 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Let me expand on what I said a bit.

Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It's a doubt for which a reason can be given, based on fair and rational consideration of evidence or lack of evidence. It means doubt that would cause a reasonable person to pause or hesitate when deciding if someone is guilty.

However, a reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. If it's based merely on sympathy or fear to return a guilty verdict then it's not reasonable doubt. Yeah, it's the jury's duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, but the jury should not search for doubt, the jury should search for the truth.


Do you still disagree? If so, why?

You're not getting it. The jury is not on a truth seeking mission.

Their entire role in the process is to consider all evidence/testimony provided at trial, and determine whether or not the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

No truth seeking.
01-27-2016 , 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
I think 99.99% would.

Why didn't he?

The guy "seems" off the charts blunt and honest. He readily admits that he confronted his cousin with a gun because he was so upset about her accusing him of having sex in public. He admits to the cat. He moves right back to where he lives. He dresses exactly like he did before. He doesn't even act upset after being released for a false crime.

He seems by far the most believable character in the whole documentary. He never once denied doing anything bad. When he feels like hurting someone, he writes that out knowing full well that will be public record.

I didn't believe one cop, investigator prosecutor, or victim or victim family member.

He genuinely seemed like he created Steve Avery bill solely to help others. He never seemed comfortable in front of the camera and certainly didn't dress to impress anyone.

I believe a lawyer was probably pushing him to sue more than himself. He seemed perfectly fine going back to that Avery yard and resuming life just like it was before.

He never even seemed genuinely upset with the police who put him in the first time. People want to kill one another if someone cuts them off in traffic, yet his entire life was ruined and he seemed truly happy and content.

He also entered a guilty plea at trial for one of the gun charges, because, you know, he was guilty.
01-27-2016 , 11:18 AM
Isn't this an instance where the FBI should have completely taken over the investigation?
01-27-2016 , 11:23 AM
Or, maybe just a different county? Oh, they said they were going to do that
01-27-2016 , 11:23 AM
Police found a flash memory card in the rav4 & it was TH's work memory card not her personal 1, she always carried 2 memory cards, always, so how did she have time to switch them if she was fighting off SA?
Yup the photos TH took at the averys were on her work flash memory card. Strange?

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007Mar07.pdf
01-27-2016 , 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx702 Making a Murderer
Isn't this an instance where the FBI should have completely taken over the investigation?
If a crime is committed that is a violation of local, state, and federal laws, does the FBI “take over” the investigation?

No. State and local law enforcement agencies are not subordinate to the FBI, and the FBI does not supervise or take over their investigations. Instead, the investigative resources of the FBI and state and local agencies are often pooled in a common effort to investigate and solve the cases. In fact, many task forces composed of FBI agents and state and local officers have been formed to locate fugitives and to address serious threats like terrorism and street violence.
01-27-2016 , 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Is the movie he made good ?
The Thin Blue Line? It's great, literally one of the greatest documentaries ever made. Saved the guy's life and got him out of prison both.
01-27-2016 , 12:16 PM
ok, fair enough.. Someone deleted vms.. Who cares. Could have been on accident, could have been something someone didn't want others to see like an embarrassing vm.. Like others have said, its really a red herring.


By the way, I have yet to really see a motive for Lenk to plant evidence. He again, was only deposed as a witness to telling colborn to fill out a report after being informed of a 1995 phone call in 2003.
01-27-2016 , 12:17 PM
Has anyone read the detective transcript during Brandens Trial? He brought up something interesting..

They intentionally tried to mislead branden to wrong answers to see if he corrected him.

IE:

Detective: Did you see her tattoo on her stomach?

Branden: No

TH didn't have a tattoo on her stomach..

      
m