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

02-03-2016 , 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Her opinion does not even rely on what you describe as "haphazard" excavation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
All we agreed on is that the prosecutions expert didn't consider all the facts before giving her opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
No. I'm pretty sure she did...

.
02-03-2016 , 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
So, like I said, you're not going to acknowledge that you were applying 2 different standards to evidence. Gotcha.
You are boring with your small details about stuff that look like it's been planted or not handled properly or not tested properly, you have to look at the big picture he is probably guilty and that s what matter.
02-03-2016 , 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjørn Making a Murderer
I'm kinda ashamed that I'm still checking in on this thread (I still never revisited the show following not being able to take the bogus anymore 4-5 eps in) but in the context of some of the ridiculousness posted here mainly from reddit (HIVE MIND INDEED thank you CCuster_911) that is indeed pretty funny.

I have only posted about the tv series itself and I'd want to reject doing anything else, just like this show should have been rejected (that it hasn't other than admirably by HBO and instead has been welcomed lustily or bloodthirsty like this is I guess what still have me rustled and unable to ignore) and all this could have been avoided, but from reading the thread I think the overall points here that someone linked to http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/...ry?id=36429891 on a rational level (morally I'd still wish to reject this piece) holds up just fine versus the reddit, the brother, the old serial killer, http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...l#post49265895, the fuzzy handicapping, the rival car dealership was that what the latest, the police the FBI, the CIA THE JFK 911 & we didn't start the fire.

I can't say that I really hope that there are many silent people lurking - we should do something better - but if they do I hope they at least recognize some of this:

Then this whole shill paranoia some pages back which really did seem real but nonetheless laughable. It would be tempting to create some narrative between that very paranoia and those very same people's theories. Instead I will just note that the backslapping each other's posts and the personal attacks is predominantly done by one side and for what little it's worth in my lurking eyes it doesn't reflect well on them.

I should say that my problem isn't with guilt or not guilt, it is with this tabloid documentary and the tabloidism and immorality it has spewed and if I'm in opposition to anyone here it's people who loved the tv series and now act accordingly.
Thanks. Great post.

I'm also ashamed I'm still here.

I will probably be going into another 2p2 hibernation soon as Astroturf.org is getting late on their payments and I have more Wisconsin criminals that I need to prosecute.
02-03-2016 , 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Battle of experts are really quite stupid and commonplace in trials.

They are both bias and taking the side of one expert as the undisputed truth is not the correct approach.
Reading their testimonies is a good start though if you want to comment on them...
02-03-2016 , 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Battle of experts are really quite stupid and commonplace in trials.

They are both bias and taking the side of one expert as the undisputed truth is not the correct approach.
Battle of expert are one thing, accepting huge breach of protocole is another, When you listen to that true crime podcast that FBI guy argue that most of those evidences should have been thrown away easily if avery lawyers were any good, he is not the only one to say that.

Both those lawyers were pretty on point on an ethical level, were they efficient enought in court or was the judge super hard to deal with.
02-03-2016 , 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
.
You can both consider all information and also have your opinion not depend on certain information.

Note: I'm not saying the excavation was definitely haphazard either. Just that to the degree it might have been, it doesn't matter for Eisenberg's opinion.

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 02-03-2016 at 01:04 PM.
02-03-2016 , 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Me, revots, fraley, and others are on the side of sworn testimony, scientific analysis, hard evidence, etc. We're on the side of the full story the transcripts tell.

The other side is mainly strawmans and speculation, relying on quotes from Steven's lawyers and the documentary and cherry-picking comments from the testimony.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.
Lol none of you even know what Reasonsble doubt is. I would say you guys are all on the side of blind ignorance as it relates to the Criminal Justice System in the United States.
02-03-2016 , 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Lol none of you even know what Reasonsble doubt is.
"Reasonsble doubt"
02-03-2016 , 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
I was referring to the fact your stance is obvious.

But keep playing the pretentious high road person in the middle. Working out well for you.
Figured as much.

Full of it as always.
02-03-2016 , 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
The logic and deductive reasoning on both sides is horrible but only one side is being harassed because those that are harassing agree with the ither. That's my point.


Ya you are probably right in that Fraley and skillz are throwing as much **** as they can hoping some sticks, but to their credit, they are on the hard side of the arguments. Not only are they against the masses but they also have to "prove" their stance more. The innocent group can never really be wrong.
Kind of how the prosecutors snd police felt. Until at some point in all their careers they said eff it nobody is paying attention let's take some short cuts and make some stuff up to make it easier. Proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is an extremely high bar. Mix that with little oversite and systematic incompetence/corruption who knows how many people have been screwed in Wisconsin.

It would be nice if any of the Mantiwoc Three in this thread presented anything that moved the needle at all while they are throwing stuff at the wall but it has all been trivial nonsense.
02-03-2016 , 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Kind of how the prosecutors snd police felt. Until at some point in all their careers they said eff it nobody is paying attention let's take some short cuts and make some stuff up to make it easier. Proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is an extremely high bar. Mix that with little oversite and systematic incompetence/corruption who knows how many people have been screwed in Wisconsin.

It would be nice if any of the Mantiwoc Three in this thread presented anything that moved the needle at all while they are throwing stuff at the wall but it has all been trivial nonsense.
A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.
02-03-2016 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Figured as much.

Full of it as always.
Full of what? You make no sense.

There is 0% chance you don't think SA is innocent, your written stance of not being proven guilty is fine but it's incredibly obvious where you stand. But the problem is you are singing the tune that you are being impartial but you are not.

But if you took a stance itt your glass throne would be weakened and that's how you get your jollys off.
02-03-2016 , 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
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
As a civil lawyer you are apparently unfamiliar with criminal trials because a lot of criminal trials are tried on circumstantial evidence.. Especially murder trials.. And it isn't exactly uncommon that a murder trial occurs without the body ever being found.

I think it is almost unreasonable and impossible to expect every murderer to have as much evidence as you are suggesting. If that were the case, we would have very few murderers in prison and a lot walking the streets free.
02-03-2016 , 02:09 PM
If Fraley, Skillz and all would just come out and say "look guys, the investigation was questionable in some instances, and the MC had a conflict of interest, but despite all that, I think the evidence as a hole still stands, and I (we) still believe they are guilty anyways, based on the evidence" I would at least respect their decision.

Instead they're basically like "the police can and would not do wrong, therefore obviously SA is guilty" which is absurd.
02-03-2016 , 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
If Fraley, Skillz and all would just come out and say "look guys, the investigation was questionable in some instances, and the MC had a conflict of interest, but despite all that, I think the evidence as a hole still stands, and I (we) still believe they are guilty anyways, based on the evidence" I would at least respect their decision.

Instead they're basically like "the police can and would not do wrong, therefore obviously SA is guilty" which is absurd.
First of all that is not what anyone here has said. We never said "the police can't do no wrong" Second, you're saying if we just come out and agree with you, you will respect our decision.. Wtf? Some of us do not actually think the investigation was unfair to the point where this man needs a new trial. And I actually think arguing that is stupid.
02-03-2016 , 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
If Fraley, Skillz and all would just come out and say "look guys, the investigation was questionable in some instances, and the MC had a conflict of interest, but despite all that, I think the evidence as a hole still stands, and I (we) still believe they are guilty anyways, based on the evidence" I would at least respect their decision.

Instead they're basically like "the police can and would not do wrong, therefore obviously SA is guilty" which is absurd.
Lol I've actually stated the bolded many times. For example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I acknowledge there's a conflict of interest with Manitowoc being involved. This alone does not preclude a man from being found guilty.

The conflict of interest was a huge point of the trial. How big the conflict of interest actually was, and whether it had any effect on the investigation, is highly debatable. The jury deliberated on this and weighing the evidence found Steven guilty.

I happen to agree with the jury's decision based on what I feel is the overwhelming evidence pointing to Steven doing the crime and the complete lack of evidence that Steven was framed (including a reliable EDTA test showing with a reasonable degree of certainty - though not proving, since that is impossible - that the blood tested was not from the vial).
and

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
The evidence was discussed and given a big asterisk by the defense. Some of it was reasonably suspicious, such as the key. A lot of it was just completely baseless accusations by the defense (because it was their only option really). The jury ultimately decides whether those asterisks are warranted.
So maybe you should "respect my decision"...
02-03-2016 , 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
First of all that is not what anyone here has said. We never said "the police can't do no wrong" Second, you're saying if we just come out and agree with you, you will respect our decision.. Wtf? Some of us do not actually think the investigation was unfair to the point where this man needs a new trial. And I actually think arguing that is stupid.

I guess the problem is that your think the investigation being fair and impartial is an opinion.
02-03-2016 , 02:46 PM
Fact: victim's bones found in his yard
Fact: victim's car found on his property
Fact: suspect's blood found in the car
Fact: suspect's DNA found on the car
Fact: victim's key found in suspect's home
Fact: Bullet with DNA matching victim found in suspect's garage

Speculation: Police or someone else planted the bones
Speculation: Police or someone else parked the victim's car on suspect's property
Speculation: Police or someone else planted the key
Speculation: Police or someone else planted the bullet
Speculation: Police or someone else planted the DNA
Speculation: Police or someone else planted the blood

Luckily the jurors decided to focus on facts.

In terms of a fair legal system... if we have juries that start making their decision based on random unfounded speculation, the entire system falls apart. Of course any speculation can be considered "possible". That is why we have the concept of "reasonable doubt".
02-03-2016 , 03:08 PM
And like 7 of the jurors voted not guilty in the first vote and one juror says she felt afraid that if the cops framed Avery they could go after her just as easily and described jurors trading votes and hoping contradictory verdicts would lead to a new trial.
02-03-2016 , 03:14 PM
Of course, how could he have possibly been framed? It would have been so much easier....

02-03-2016 , 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
In terms of a fair legal system... if we have juries that start making their decision based on random unfounded speculation, the entire system falls apart. Of course any speculation can be considered "possible". That is why we have the concept of "reasonable doubt".
I think its pretty reasonable to believe some ****ery was afoot.

The problem is reconciling that with the entirety of the evidence. I don't know how you do that.

We didn't reach this level, but lets say the key was proven to be planted prior to the case going to trial. How would the case proceed if presumably the rest of the evidence is solid?
02-03-2016 , 03:49 PM
All evidence discovered/handeled by the person(s) who planted the key would basically be questionable.
02-03-2016 , 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Fact: victim's bones found in his yard
Fact: victim's car found on his property
Fact: suspect's blood found in the car
Fact: suspect's DNA found on the car
Fact: victim's key found in suspect's home
Fact: Bullet with DNA matching victim found in suspect's garage

Speculation: Police or someone else planted the bones
Speculation: Police or someone else parked the victim's car on suspect's property
Speculation: Police or someone else planted the key
Speculation: Police or someone else planted the bullet
Speculation: Police or someone else planted the DNA
Speculation: Police or someone else planted the blood

Luckily the jurors decided to focus on facts.

In terms of a fair legal system... if we have juries that start making their decision based on random unfounded speculation, the entire system falls apart. Of course any speculation can be considered "possible". That is why we have the concept of "reasonable doubt".

Fact- SA was previously wrongly convicted of a crime and served 18 years for a crime he didn't commit

Fact- This same police department handled that case with blinders and pinned it on Avery

Fact- MC had a clear conflict of interest in this case

Fact- The DNA analyst that handled the evidence in this case had a conflict of interest


Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
All evidence discovered/handeled by the person(s) who planted the key would basically be questionable.

I think that's the argument most people are making ITT.

The key is very suspect, for a lot of reasons. If you determine that the key is suspect/planted, it makes the next piece of evidence, say the bullet much more likely to have been also planted.
02-03-2016 , 04:12 PM
I dont want to buy into this theory at all...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Making a Murderer
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.
but this is dark green?



If this theory has any legs, I'm confused how it was not discussed earlier.
02-03-2016 , 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
This doesn't mean what you think it means.

No one is talking about aliens committing a murder here. Just like no one is suggesting you did it.

We're all (or the reasonable ones ITT) suggesting SA did not get a fair trial. Also, were saying that TH's murder did not get a fair or accurate investigation.
Instead of "aliens" I like Kranz' statement that "well, an elephant can walk through the back door, too. That doesn't mean it is likely."

In a vacuum, that statement is correct. However based on the bigger picture, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that it is unlikely an elephant would walk into someone's house, but at least we can conclude one was spotted in the neighborhood.

Some people take it as far as stating it is clear elephants do not exist; others believe the elephant walked through the door. Most are simply acknowledging that whether an elephant walked through the door, is no longer an absurd proposition on these fact, but perhaps a reasonable possibility - and that is all.

      
m