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

01-30-2016 , 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Yes, they are all corrupt and everyone in WI should receive a new trial immediately.
Probably. We don't have most people in prison per capita of any country in the world because of how fair our criminal justice system is.
01-30-2016 , 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Ah so you are saying Lenk planted the blood from the vial because he wasn't aware that they could test it for EDTA, or have any way of ever proving it was planted? OK you convinced me, he's a dirty cop.
Read big Jerome's fantastic cross examination of Sherry Culhane please.

They didn't even need the blood from the vial. Turns out PoorSkillz "NO EDTA!" foundation is crumbling IMO. They had plenty of swabs available to plenty of people for months on top of documented requests to put people in whatever places they deemed necessary through DNA analysis, contaminated or not.

I've already stated it once but the stuff she admits to freely in this cross is completely damning and indicative of the procedural deviations and protocol violations that I would expect to see in a frame job. 90% of her testimony was NOT in the documentary and it is extremely relevant (unless you believe that BD's confession was what really happened).
01-30-2016 , 07:50 PM
So do I have this right? Fraley would be willing to bet Avery's eternal freedom on his guilt, but not his own personal life roll? Says all you need to know about fraleys character.
01-30-2016 , 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vajennasguy Making a Murderer
So do I have this right? Fraley would be willing to bet Avery's eternal freedom on his guilt, but not his own personal life roll? Says all you need to know about fraleys character.
I would bet as much on SA being guilty as I would bet on anything else I believe beyond a reasonable doubt.. That is, no doubt that is reasonable to have.. Not no doubt at all.
01-30-2016 , 08:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vajennasguy Making a Murderer
So do I have this right? Fraley would be willing to bet Avery's eternal freedom on his guilt, but not his own personal life roll? Says all you need to know about fraleys character.

Thoroughly agree.
It's almost as if he believes there's a reasonable doubt he would lose that money's..
Kinda strange when every other of his posts completely contradicts this thought.
01-30-2016 , 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marke. Making a Murderer
Thoroughly agree.
It's almost as if he believes there's a reasonable doubt he would lose that money's..
Kinda strange when every other of his posts completely contradicts this thought.
JFC, reasonable doubt does not equal 0 doubt. Quit using these terms you don't understand.
01-30-2016 , 08:11 PM
How much of your yearly salary would you bet tomorrow that you will not get in a car accident? Is your answer anything but all your salary? Is it reasonable to believe you are going to get in a car accident?
01-30-2016 , 08:14 PM
You're the one who doesn't understand reasonable doubt. Everyone else knows it's not zero and doesn't include unreasonable doubts. You are confusing it with probably.
01-30-2016 , 08:15 PM
Fraley man, it is ok to be a nit, alright.

****ing cool out ya'll.
01-30-2016 , 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet Making a Murderer
You're the one who doesn't understand reasonable doubt.
You and others keep using the term reasonable doubt as if it means, there is no possible chance it is wrong. That is not what it means. It just means there is no common sense or reasonable conclusion other than what is being presented based on the evidence. It does not mean there is NO other conclusion or reason possible.
01-30-2016 , 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
JFC, reasonable doubt does not equal 0 doubt. Quit using these terms you don't understand.

I'm not sure you know what it means.
I believe you said you would risk "10% of a years salary" on his guilt.
The fact you would be willing to risk so very little kinda does prove you have a reasonable doubt of his guilt even if you choose not to admit it.

Il also reiterate what the other poster said about what this shows about your character. You place more importance on 10% of one year of your salary than you do another persons entire life and freedom. You're all class mate.
01-30-2016 , 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marke. Making a Murderer
I'm not sure you know it means.
I believe you said you would risk "10% of a years salary" on his guilt.
The fact you would be willing to risk so very little kinda does prove you have a reasonable doubt of his guilt even if you choose not to admit it.

Il also reiterate what the other poster said about what this shows about your character. You place more importance on 10% of one year of your salary than you do another persons entire life and freedom. You're all class mate.
I would not bet any more than 10% of my yearly salary on anything I am not entirely certain of. Believing something beyond a reasonable doubt is not believing something with total certainty.

For example, if you asked me to bet my entire yearly salary on who won the superbowl last year.. Sure, no problem. If you asked me to bet 10% of my entire salary on if there was going to be a td in this years superbowl.. No I wouldn't but I am over 85% sure there will be a td thrown in this years superbowl. Reasonable doubt is often quantified around 85-95% (note there is no definitive way to quantify reasonable doubt but that is a close estimation)

And I know what reasonable doubt means, I am afraid it is you who does not. I already explained it two posts ago. tell me where I am wrong?
01-30-2016 , 08:52 PM
Quote:
Ostensibly, this burden requires that a trier of fact (judge, jury, arbiter) is fully satisfied and entirely convinced to a moral certainty that the evidence presented proves the guilt of the defendant. There is essentially no room for wavering or uncertainty; the trier of fact believes the evidence to be precise, indubitable, and leaves one with an inescapable conclusion of certainty. Whereas, in a civil trial, a party may prevail with as little as 51 percent probability (a preponderance), those legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent.
http://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-...sonable-doubt/
01-30-2016 , 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I would not bet any more than 10% of my yearly salary on anything I am not entirely certain of. Believing something beyond a reasonable doubt is not believing something with total certainty.



For example, if you asked me to bet my entire yearly salary on who won the superbowl last year.. Sure, no problem. If you asked me to bet 10% of my entire salary on if there was going to be a td in this years superbowl.. No I wouldn't but I am over 85% sure there will be a td thrown in this years superbowl. Reasonable doubt is often quantified around 85-95% (note there is no definitive way to quantify reasonable doubt but that is a close estimation)



And I know what reasonable doubt means, I am afraid it is you who does not. I already explained it two posts ago. tell me where I am wrong?

I have to admit the explanation given above does hold true so I'm in no way going to argue with you about that.

I do still strongly disagree with a lot of your thought processes regarding this particular topic though, and I feel we won't be changing each other's minds anytime soon so maybe we should just call it a day for now.
01-30-2016 , 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Read big Jerome's fantastic cross examination of Sherry Culhane please.

They didn't even need the blood from the vial. Turns out PoorSkillz "NO EDTA!" foundation is crumbling IMO. They had plenty of swabs available to plenty of people for months on top of documented requests to put people in whatever places they deemed necessary through DNA analysis, contaminated or not.

I've already stated it once but the stuff she admits to freely in this cross is completely damning and indicative of the procedural deviations and protocol violations that I would expect to see in a frame job. 90% of her testimony was NOT in the documentary and it is extremely relevant (unless you believe that BD's confession was what really happened).

LOL I just read the entire cross... there's nothing there.

You are reaching. You want to believe so badly that someone stole Avery's blood/DNA and planted it, that you are seeing boogeymen everywhere.

Are you a DNA crime lab tech? Do you know how these labs generally operate? Do you know how sensitive these tests are, or how often contamination can happen? Do you know that their rates of contamination were any better or worse than other state's DNA labs?

The big smoking gun of the contamination of the control sample for the bullet test is nothing. The bullet had her DNA on it. That was not in dispute. She could not re-do the test because she needed the entire sample to do the test, so she requested a deviation, which was approved. The contamination of the control was in her notes and she was not trying to hide anything or cover it up. It had no bearing on the test of the bullet.

I mean if you're sure there was a vast conspiracy reaching all the way to the state crime lab and the FBI then sure, everything Buting ever brings up in the trial is the potential smoking gun. Which is why I say you would be Buting's dream jury member.
01-30-2016 , 09:12 PM
Nope the very first source from the search from a us court site too I might add. Not skeptical juror lolz.
01-30-2016 , 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana Making a Murderer
Nope the very first source from the search from a us court site too I might add. Not skeptical juror lolz.
Skeptical juror provided several sources in their conclusion and oxford isn't good enough for you?
01-30-2016 , 09:17 PM
I never said it wasn't. I'm not accusing someone of cherry picking. I literally googled reasonable doubt percentage and clicked the first link after seeing it was a us legal site.
01-30-2016 , 09:20 PM
I mean I can literally find several jury instructions that disagree with that definition. But it gets the overall point across which I am sure is its only goal considering that is just a legal resource for layman.
01-30-2016 , 09:22 PM
Harvard says no less than 95%

Afaict the skeptical juror claims judges set a point around 90% but don't cite anything and then estimates what other people claim it to mean.
01-30-2016 , 09:23 PM
http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/338

Quote:
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.
01-30-2016 , 09:23 PM
85-95 is the common threshold. There is no real way to quantify it though. Because what is "reasonable" is not objective.
01-30-2016 , 09:24 PM
Third link shows no percentage and links to a paper for $11.95.

fourth is a paper I can't access.
01-30-2016 , 09:28 PM
Google "jury instructions reasonable doubt" you can literally see that almost every instruction you find agrees with the way I am using the term.

      
m