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

02-03-2016 , 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
I think you must be brain-damaged.

I am not trying to convince you of SA's guilt. Lol. I think it's intellectually disingenuous to be in here debating like you are without doing any of your own research. You watched a doc and are reading 2p2 and that's it?? WTF. How are you not more curious? How can you spend so much time itt but nowhere else on the interwebs looking into this stuff.

You are coming off as an Avery shill. So convinced of his innocence. That's how you come off. I read that you say you aren't convinced of his innocence, but everything you said seems to be on the "innocent" side. This thread has essentially turned into sides. Pick a side, everyone. And you seem to be on the NG side. You seem to be looking at everything from the innocence lens.

Also, as I've stated before. When I'm talking about guilty or not-guilty, I am not talking legally or from a juror-instructed standpoint. I'm talking about my PERSPECTIVE. I've already stated that I would shrug and vote NG if forced based on what I know (or, at least, what I think I know and how I perceive it).
Stop. You are about to made me upset. I might demand an apology.

I have stated over and again I have no opinion on whether SA is a killer. I am very open to finding out why others are so convinced. I would think with all the resources available to a group think that you could produce something compelling - but there us nothing.

The blood is compelling in a vacuum, but that was already in the doc. I want to know the mysteries beyond the doc.

Come on, don't be a doc. blocker.

And I know you would vote NG. I can read. What I also read is your statement about how a number of your friends changed their opinions once they did some research.

I simply asked what was it that caused them to change their mind. I asked about 2 weeks ago.

You have yet to give me even one fact. You wrote it; nobody forced you to write that. I simply asked.

If you have nothing then fine.
02-03-2016 , 01:05 AM
In Oski's mind, the scientists investigating the murder were all biased and so he won't read their testimony.

He instead gets all his information from lostinsauce.
02-03-2016 , 01:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
You watched a doc and are in here giving opinions on it leaning towards NG

THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE DOCUMENTARY
I know. What can I say? I'm ****ing great at watching television.
02-03-2016 , 01:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer

I have stated over and again I have no opinion on whether SA is a killer.
Lolololololol

Now the question becomes whether you believe what you are saying or simply want others to.

There's not a single rational person who is reading this thread that believes this sentence.

As the Lord of tarding up threads, i say that oski is the worst thing to happen itt. Even i am miserable reading his posts.

Also he should probably be temp'ed for his insults.
02-03-2016 , 01:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Would you like to have a rational discussion about the facts presented and what you disagree with or would you rather act like a 10 year old some more?
Given the options (and assuming said discussion would be with you) I'll take the latter.


All day, every day.
02-03-2016 , 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Look, I don't want to make this all about the cat. But the way it was presented in the doc was a lot more innocent and "boys will be boys" than what actually happened. He doused the cat in gasoline and intentionally set it on fire to kill it because he thought it was a funny/fun thing to do. Not because he was curious what would happen or something.
Agreed. That is a fair point against the doc.

But, the consensus seems to have already accepted that. Yet, they have not lost the bigger point - that the process was tainted.
02-03-2016 , 01:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Lolololololol

Now the question becomes whether you believe what you are saying or simply want others to.

There's not a single rational person who is reading this thread that believes this sentence.

As the Lord of tarding up threads, i say that oski is the worst thing to happen itt. Even i am miserable reading his posts.

Also he should probably be temp'ed for his insults.
Oski didn't even have to read about the hole in the vial being normal. He already knew just from watching the documentary, that's how smart he is.
02-03-2016 , 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Ok, so there's no evidence that the blood was planted?
What if I granted you arguendo, that no evidence exists proving the blood was planted?

What does that change about the message of the documentary? The doc. shows that the planting is still possible especially given the unfairness of the FBI test (and also that said test may be scientifically unsound).

See, I already told you I accept the docs. message that the trials were unfair. As to the vlood, the defense was not given a fair opportunity to test and the expert got to appear in the middle of trial (when usually they would be available for deposition previously). It was a gank job.

So, you seem to be here to tell everyone that the doc. was a fraud. Aside from the fact nobody really asked you to do this, you are still here with your "message." So, you basically burdened yourself with pursuading us why the doc. is bunk.

Instead you fouled yourself up and are now asking us to prove why the document is correct. How would we know? You are the one saying it is wrong - so get on with it and tell us what we are missing.

Thus far, you've provided ZERO. You cannot even provide a legitimate narrative of the crime thay fits the evidence.

Sisyphus indeed.
02-03-2016 , 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
There is no smoking gun.

Every single piece of evidence can be interpreted in two ways. If I list 3 things that point towards guilt, they will be argued relentlessly by the other side with way more time or intensity than I intend to put into it.
Fair enough. So, your best points cannot withstand scrutiny.

That still doesn't change the fact I was asking about what evidence convinced your friends.

I guess we'll have to take your word for it.
02-03-2016 , 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Lol anyone defending Lostinthesaus who set a fair line at -15000 for innocent. The hubris. The delusion.
PoorSkillz's line of at least -9900 guilty is just as, if not more, delusional.
02-03-2016 , 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
In Oski's mind, the scientists investigating the murder were all biased and so he won't read their testimony.

He instead gets all his information from lostinsauce.
Well that is patently untrue. I watched the documentary, I've read this thread and the sources provided (for the most part - time permitting).

I don't have any opinion on the scientists other than I would expect them to testify just like any other expert witness (let me give you a hint - they are non-nuetral; only neutral experts are appointed by the court).

I can guarantee that for each expert you quote, the defense offered an expert to state the opposite conclusion.

I don't put any weight in either of them as I have not read their testimony. Yet, the documentary leads us to believe the dna test on the bullet, the blood test from the FBI, and the prosecution's fire expert were unsound.

I have not seen you offer anything compelling to dispel that notion. Indeed Your "defense" of the dna test is laughable (actually, quite embarassing).
02-03-2016 , 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Lolololololol

Now the question becomes whether you believe what you are saying or simply want others to.

There's not a single rational person who is reading this thread that believes this sentence.

As the Lord of tarding up threads, i say that oski is the worst thing to happen itt. Even i am miserable reading his posts.

Also he should probably be temp'ed for his insults.
I challenge you to provide a single instance where I state or imply that I hold the opinion SA did not kill TH. Understand, that my belief that the state did not meet their burden is not me saying I believe SA did not kill her.

So, put up or shut up.
02-03-2016 , 01:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Oski didn't even have to read about the hole in the vial being normal. He already knew just from watching the documentary, that's how smart he is.
Well,I guess I paid more attention than you did.
02-03-2016 , 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
What if I granted you arguendo, that no evidence exists proving the blood was planted?

What does that change about the message of the documentary? The doc. shows that the planting is still possible especially given the unfairness of the FBI test (and also that said test may be scientifically unsound).

The message of the documentary was "that the planting is still possible"? Please explain the unfairness of the FBI test.

See, I already told you I accept the docs. message that the trials were unfair. As to the vlood, the defense was not given a fair opportunity to test and the expert got to appear in the middle of trial (when usually they would be available for deposition previously). It was a gank job.

The defense had months to test the blood and the resources to do so (despite what they claim) but chose not to and then attempted to block the prosecution from testing it. Again, read the transcripts.

So, you seem to be here to tell everyone that the doc. was a fraud. Aside from the fact nobody really asked you to do this, you are still here with your "message."

Nobody really asked you to be born, but you're still here.

So, you basically burdened yourself with pursuading us why the doc. is bunk.

persuading*

Instead you fouled yourself up and are now asking us to prove why the document is correct. How would we know? You are the one saying it is wrong - so get on with it and tell us what we are missing.

You think the show accurately portrayed the hole in the vial being normal, so there's no point trying with you.

Thus far, you've provided ZERO. You cannot even provide a legitimate narrative of the crime thay fits the evidence.

Sisyphus indeed.
Learn to spell.
02-03-2016 , 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Making a Murderer
PoorSkillz's line of at least -9900 guilty is just as, if not more, delusional.
When you consider all the evidence pointing to him being the murderer, and nothing beyond speculation pointing to a frame-job, I disagree.
02-03-2016 , 02:05 AM
Oski,

If it is evident that SA's blood was in TH car and it came from SA and not a vial and that could be proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt would you concede that he should be convicted of murder?
02-03-2016 , 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Learn to spell.
on my phone (the last 20 or so posts have been from my phone).

So, sorry, mistakes have been and will be made.

Of course you ignore the question. Typical.

Law - enforcement nut hugger. That is all you are. You cry and whine about how the document is unfair to your heros, but run away when challenged to back it up.
02-03-2016 , 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Oski,

If it is evident that SA's blood was in TH car and it came from SA and not a vial and that could be proved to you beyond a reasonable doubt would you concede that he should be convicted of murder?
just like everyone else in this thread has stated, If the blood was not planted, SA is likely the killer or at least invovled.

The prosecution would still have to present a case, but it would be around a very strong piece of evidence.

Consistent with what most here are saying, we are not at the "is he guilty or not guilty" question yet. We are on the was the trial fair (and therefore he should get another trial) question.

Despite some posters efforts to enlarge the scope of the immediate matter, it will prove to be fruitless as a procedurally sound trial is still required.
02-03-2016 , 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
When you consider all the evidence pointing to him being the murderer, and nothing beyond speculation pointing to a frame-job, I disagree.
And yet when YOU try to convince us SA and BD are murderers based on those sham trials, we just laugh at you.
02-03-2016 , 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyRavishing Making a Murderer
That's a low blow Simply didn't you get poorskillz Memo, ffs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer

Of course you ignore the question. Typical.

Law - enforcement nut hugger. That is all you are. You cry and whine about how the document is unfair to your hero's, but run away when challenged to back it up.
But the Blood its the god dam blood I tell Y'all.

I don't know whats worse, setting people up for murder(even 16y olds) or suing the dad of a 18y old that you killed by accident Or doing such a pisspoor job of investigating a murder that millions of ppl around the world are discussing it.(The Fk up of the investigation)

Imo If you are investigating a murder scene & A. You DO NOT take photo's of where the body was found you should be sacked on the spot 2. If you do not take Tire Prints of how the vehicle got to where it was found you should be sacked on the spot.
As for the NON search of the garage when its a potential crime scene then I'd say the punishment should be to go get the food for the boys.(I guess thats why lenk was there when they found the bullet).

A cluster**** indeed.
02-03-2016 , 03:05 AM
Anyone want to talk about Sherry(Burp!!! excuse me) Culhane?

http://www.law.virginia.edu/pdf/facu...ence/avery.pdf
This sherry is some piece, a few thing she say's are deplorable.

Last edited by smacc25; 02-03-2016 at 03:18 AM.
02-03-2016 , 03:06 AM
Some holes in his story...but this is the best theory I've heard in a while.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3zl9ym/does_anyone_else_find_it_strange_that_the/czlxpez

I know there is a lot of buzz about Colburn and what this person said and what time line is and so forth, but I have a problem with the entire RAV4 they found. There are many issues with it... 1. 1999 RAV4 was the only year that Toyota made two colors that are very close, one is dark green and the other is green blue. Teresa's vehicle was dark green yet the Crime Lab shows photo it is the greenish blue. 2. A broken blinker light with a replacement blinker that is laying in RAV4 in the cargo hold, yet Teresa's vehicle had no damage and according to the John the propane dealer who saw it drive away, states it looked shiny new with no damage. 3. The RAV4 they have found has been towed, which bent the frame. 4. The latest pic of Teresa holding her keys in front of her vehicle, notice the missing paint on the top of the passenger door? Well, the crime lab photo of the RAV4 they say is hers, is not missing paint in those places. 5. In yet another crime lab photo of the RAV4, it shows sever rust and damage to the passenger side where the two doors meet and we know this was not on Teresa's vehicle. 6. Her real keys are missing, and now we have a valet key? Is it because the real key would not start the duplicate RAV4? 7. Its known as a Salvage Yard Scam to switch VIN on two vehicles to sell a stole vehicle. Was a switch made on the Vehicles in order to hide the real murder scene and that explains where all the blood is? 8. The battery cable was disconnected, it is standard to disconnect the negative battery cable to tow a vehicle. Why tow it if you can drive it, unless you can't because its so damaged that it would draw unwanted traffic police attention. 9. The blood in the back of the RAV4, there should have been much more unless her heart came to rest prior to being placed there. It would suggest this was post mortem. 10. Her license plate was not attached to her vehicle and found crumpled up in the trunk of another vehicle. Is this because to transfer the plates on to the duplicate, would have made fresh metal scratches and drawn even more suspicion?
So now let me ask you this, Who would have a means to.... 1. Incinerate a body at 1700 degrees to produce just bones 2. Tow a vehicle with out showing records of such 3. Crush Teresa's real RAV4 to hide the actual murder scene 4. Have access to planting Steven's blood 5. Have the know how and ability to switch VIN's so easily 6. Locate a replacement RAV4 on quick notice 7. Have the inside knowledge of how to stage a crime scene 8. Have a questionable past issue with the truth 9. Have not one but three motives
I want you to look at the list. 1. We know that Mark Fassbender investigated Avery's incinerator, it was not used for months. 2. Why would Steven tow the vehicle? 3. If Steven did it why not crush the vehicle with her body in it and bury it somewhere 4. Steven admitted early on and has always stated that he leaded his palms onto Teresa's vehicle and that's why they may find his palm prints on her RAV4, yet no prints, NONE, not even the girl that drove this car for 2 years are found? 5. The switching of VIN numbers is called "SALVAGE Yard Scam" 6. A car dealer would, especially one that had been in the business of Auto Sales his entire life. 7. Someone in Law Enforcement 8. Someone that had lied for 18 years, keeping an innocent man in prison and allowing a rapist to roam freely. 9. First motive, Rival Business. Second, Revenge. Third, $36,000,000.00
Who would have an incinerator, a tow truck, a crusher, replacement vehicle with no prints and no real evidence to link the real murderer, VIN switching knowledge, access to your own pick of vehicles and contacts in the Auto business, High rank individual beyond questioning, Manitowoc County Sheriff.
Guess what, he is the President of Cleveland Auto Sales and Salvage. He was a deputy in 1985, he was the undersheriff in 2005 and is now the Sheriff of Manitowoc County Police Department.
He and he alone fits all that would be needed to fulfill the requirements for this type of accident and he is the one saying all over, that Netflix is taking things out of context and out of order, and says that's how its done to keep every one confused. He is saying this in my opinion because He himself is the one that did this and so he knows how it works.
Just saying, don't get distracted. Focus on what a killer would need to accomplish the tasks. That is how you find the real killer.
Know as a Salvage Yard VIN Scam http://www.vinetching.com/vin-switching.html
Also http://cleveland-auto-sales-salvage....-sales-salvage
Friday, February 16, 2007 An anonymous letter and 970 items of evidence Buting said he found a letter last fall in the Calumet County file on the case, and said it was found in the Green Bay post office after Halbach disappeared. The letter allegedly said "body burned in smelter, 3 a.m. Friday," and Buting took that to mean an old smelter near an old Avery salvage building. He said police did nothing with the letter, and did not send it to the crime lab for analysis until he asked. "Is that because a body being burned in a smelter doesn't fit your theory?" Buting asked. Fassbender said the smelter had been examined by arson investigators and "it hadn't been used for a while." "It would not make sense to burn the bones in the smelter and take the bones and place them in your own backyard, would it?" Buting asked.
(No one ever check the Sheriff's Incinerator at his Salvage Yard but this seems to be very much what the letter could be referring to.)
02-03-2016 , 03:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
just like everyone else in this thread has stated, If the blood was not planted, SA is likely the killer or at least invovled.

The prosecution would still have to present a case, but it would be around a very strong piece of evidence.

Consistent with what most here are saying, we are not at the "is he guilty or not guilty" question yet. We are on the was the trial fair (and therefore he should get another trial) question.

Despite some posters efforts to enlarge the scope of the immediate matter, it will prove to be fruitless as a procedurally sound trial is still required.
So you agree if the blood was not planted then the other evidence is irrelevant, because that evidence alone should be able to convince you and hopefully a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? Ignoring your issues with the trial for the moment. Do you agree?
02-03-2016 , 03:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So you agree if the blood was not planted then the other evidence is irrelevant, because that evidence alone should be able to convince you and hopefully a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? Ignoring your issues with the trial for the moment. Do you agree?
nope. all the evidence is relevant.

Are you proposing a trial with one exibit? To prove a murder you still need a corpus.

Just a blood stain isn't going to cut it counsellor.

Is it the English? Are you having trouble with the English? How are you unable to understand my straightforward statement on your hypothetical?

There is a reason we have a trial system. Everything you are looking at now is through the lens of a trial thay appears to have been severely compromised.

Let's see if SA is going to get a fair trail before we consider if he's really guilty

Last edited by Oski; 02-03-2016 at 04:01 AM.

      
m