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

02-03-2016 , 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I used Krantz' analogy. Blame him.

Under this analogy, your position is that elephants do not exist. You already used the "maybe aliens did it" which amounts to the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
To elaborate on this analogy you chose:

I agree that an elephant in the neighborhood makes it possible an elephant walked through the door.

However, a reasonable person would also expect to see some evidence such as a broken door or a trashed foyer before they could reasonably believe that an elephant walking through the door isn't an absurd proposition.
Can you show me where I state my position is that elephants do not exist?
02-03-2016 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Yes.

They found them on their "brief" 2-3hr search of the trailer on Nov 5, when they were simply looking for 'possible info on a missing person'
Doesn't the fact they were there lead you to believe BD's story was fabricated?
02-03-2016 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
However, a reasonable person would also expect to see some evidence such as a broken door or a trashed foyer before they could reasonably believe that an elephant walking through the door isn't an absurd proposition.
Exactly.

Or as pertains to our conundrum, some evidence of an actual crime scene, unquestionable test results and forensics, solid, reputable scientists doing satisfactory work and a group of LEOs with no conflict of interest doing the investigation.

Unfortunately we have none of that.
02-03-2016 , 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Another great rebuttal from lostinsauce. Oski is convinced.
Glad to see you are reading my posts again.
02-03-2016 , 05:42 PM
Lostinsauce, are you saying that Culhane and the crimelab are corrupt and all the evidence from there should be invalidated?
02-03-2016 , 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Glad to see you are reading my posts again.
I usually quickly skim through, so I read the shorter ones.
02-03-2016 , 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
No one's 100% convinced he did it.

There's always some bizarre conspiracy that could have happened.

We still cannot prove aliens didn't have a hand in this also.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
It's in response to this:


How do you prove there wasn't framing?

How do you prove aliens didn't come down from the sky and kill Teresa?

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I did not say it proved it's impossible that the blood was from the vial (as it's impossible to prove that, just like it's impossible to prove aliens didn't plant the evidence). What I said is the tests showed no evidence that the blood was planted from the vial.




http://imgur.com/a/65CKe Check again. Cuts are on the right hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'm not going to argue with people who automatically assume anyone who accused Steven Avery is either lying or was coerced, just like I wouldn't argue with someone who believes in Ancient Aliens, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. (as there's no room for logical discussion).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Can you show me where I state my position is that elephants do not exist?
You indicate you do not believe aliens exist (see the second-to-last post; unless you differentiate between "Aliens" and "Ancient Aliens"). As applied to this case, you are basically saying it is possible to argue that aliens did it, but because they have not been proven to exist, this relies on not only accepting aliens exist beyond a theoretical possibility, and that one of those aliens committed the crime.

Under the elephant analogy, the elephant is the possibility that SA was framed by planted evidence. You do not acknowledge there was anything beyond a hypothetical possibility (and that is being generous to you) that this could have happened where the evidence suggests that this scenario has moved well beyond a mere hypothetical into reasonable possibility territory (i.e. the elephant not only exists, but it has been spotted in the neighborhood).
02-03-2016 , 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I usually quickly skim through, so I read the shorter ones.
Same
02-03-2016 , 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Again, I asked you to provide something to back up your claim and you admit you don't have anything.

Your are arguing from your "feelings." It is not my problem that you generally fail at whatever goal you have while posting in threads. I understand you "feel" bad that others do not share your problem.

Maybe these types of discussions are not for you. Maybe you should start a poll in OOT about what you should have for lunch.
Ya you clearly don't understand.

You are right in saying: I have stated multiple times I have no opinion on his guilt/innocence. (Or whatever the exact quote is, on phone so not looking it up).

That is a factual statement, you have repeatedly stated you have no opinion on SAs guilt.

The hilarious part is that any rational person knows that you do have an opinion and it's incredibly obvious.

That's what humans who watch something do. They form an opinion based off their gut reaction. Obviously you can think the fairness of the trial and whatnot is the most important part, a lot of people say that, but a lot of people also don't lie and say they have no opinion. Everyone does.

Stop going around acting like you are posting from a complete middle ground. That's not how the human brain works.

If a gun was stuck to your head asking what are your thoughts on SAs guilt, you are not responding I don't know. But I think you have lied to yourself and to keep it up you are going to tell me you would. This is where more laughter will come.

Understand?


If you are intentionally being disingenuous about your thoughts on the case I don't see how anyone should take your opinion all that seriously. But you are right, you have been very careful to never reveal your opinion on his guilt from what I have seen
02-03-2016 , 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
You indicate you do not believe aliens exist (see the second-to-last post; unless you differentiate between "Aliens" and "Ancient Aliens"). As applied to this case, you are basically saying it is possible to argue that aliens did it, but because they have not been proven to exist, this relies on not only accepting aliens exist beyond a theoretical possibility, and that one of those aliens committed the crime.

Under the elephant analogy, the elephant is the possibility that SA was framed by planted evidence. You do not acknowledge there was anything beyond a hypothetical possibility (and that is being generous to you) that this could have happened where the evidence suggests that this scenario has moved well beyond a mere hypothetical into reasonable possibility territory (i.e. the elephant not only exists, but it has been spotted in the neighborhood).
Lol wat? You've lost me now. Please don't try to explain either lol.
02-03-2016 , 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Again, is it the English you are having trouble with?

You proposed a proposition where a conviction would be sought on one fact. As I correctly pointed out, you need more than that. You have to actually establish there was a murder (in the case of a murder case). Here, you do have the body, but if you don't mention it, you don't have enough.

Your proposal is to have one and only one exhibit: Blood stain on car.

That is not enough.

Stop being ******ed and get with the program.
Then I guess where we are in disagreement is that his blood in her car isn't enough for you to conclude he played some role in her death. In WI you only have to be generally aware and participate in some way to be charged with 1st degree homicide so even if he was lets say the driver to dump the body.. he is still guilty of murder.

Of course there is other evidence but as you failed to realize my point was that the evidence you guys call question to is not important when we have his blood in her car.
02-03-2016 , 06:14 PM
Also, oski

there are several murder trials conducted without the body being found. That should not be required to conclude someone committed murder beyond reasonable doubt.
02-03-2016 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
But you are right, you have been very careful to never reveal your opinion on his guilt from what I have seen
So, like I said, put up or shut up. You clearly have nothing to back up your "feeling."

You should find someone else to troll, because you are going to get nowhere with this (not that you seem to mind).
02-03-2016 , 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I asked the question correctly the first time and you ignored it. Subsequent statements have been in shorthand because I was on my phone.

The question remains, what changed the percentages? You claimed you spoke with a number of your friends and were confident that the confidence level in their opinion moved substantially (towards SA doing it). As stated by you, this was a result of doing outside research.

Again, I simply ask what outside research caused this shift? If you don't know, then you don't know. I guess it did not occur to you to ask during these conversations. I guess we will take your word for it.
Are you trolling me?

The post you quoted answered your question. And I've answered it before, too.
02-03-2016 , 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Then I guess where we are in disagreement is that his blood in her car isn't enough for you to conclude he played some role in her death. In WI you only have to be generally aware and participate in some way to be charged with 1st degree homicide so even if he was lets say the driver to dump the body.. he is still guilty of murder.

Of course there is other evidence but as you failed to realize my point was that the evidence you guys call question to is not important when we have his blood in her car.
Listen. I don't have much time to spend on your ignorance.

You don't run a murder trial in a vacuum. You don't offer just one exhibit that does not prove each element of the crime.

You cannot wrap your infertile bean around that concept, so I will just leave it at that.

It is not my problem you cannot articulate your points properly. Either learn how to write better, or stop writing (at the very least, don't try to keep making argument based on post hoc additions to your initial premise).

Done. You are an idiot - accept it and move on with my full and complete blessing.
02-03-2016 , 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Lostinsauce, are you saying that Culhane and the crimelab are corrupt and all the evidence from there should be invalidated?
I would say that the crime lab's evidence processing shows signs of (at best) complete incompetence or (at worst) corruption, if not both. When you have a detective on video coercing a confession then calling in and ordering which results are needed to fit the confession, something is wrong. Again, DNA on hood latch is a great example, and its not the only one.
02-03-2016 , 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
So, like I said, put up or shut up. You clearly have nothing to back up your "feeling."

You should find someone else to troll, because you are going to get nowhere with this (not that you seem to mind).
Common sense.
02-03-2016 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Listen. I don't have much time to spend on your ignorance.

You don't run a murder trial in a vacuum. You don't offer just one exhibit that does not prove each element of the crime.

You cannot wrap your infertile bean around that concept, so I will just leave it at that.

It is not my problem you cannot articulate your points properly. Either learn how to write better, or stop writing (at the very least, don't try to keep making argument based on post hoc additions to your initial premise).

Done. You are an idiot - accept it and move on with my full and complete blessing.
Way to miss the point.. Completely.
02-03-2016 , 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I would say that the crime lab's evidence processing shows signs of (at best) complete incompetence or (at worst) corruption, if not both. When you have a detective on video coercing a confession then calling in and ordering which results are needed to fit the confession, something is wrong. Again, DNA on hood latch is a great example, and its not the only one.
If Culhane was corrupt, why would she report that the bullet's negative control was contaminated?

Why would she not also "find" DNA on more items, like the key or items in the bedroom?

I think if it shows anything, reporting the contamination on the bullet's negative control shows that she wasn't corrupt and she was willing to report any mistake. Now what exactly shows that she was corrupt? And since the only error seems to be with the bullet's negative control, what exactly shows "complete incompetence" to dismiss all the evidence?
02-03-2016 , 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Are you trolling me?

The post you quoted answered your question. And I've answered it before, too.
No. I am not trolling you. I did not realize the following was your answer (and perhaps, I should have):

Quote:
people realize that there is a lot of shady/awful things about SA that were never mentioned in the doc or were downplayed. That's the heart of what I'm saying. The background of it.

There are other "circumstantial" type items that were either downplayed or not mentioned such as the DNA under the hood, the items of TH's found in or near the burn pile, SA's phone calls to TH, etc etc.
Thank you.

I will point out that these items have already been offered and discussed many times in this thread by others. I believe the consensus here (and I may be mistaken) is that these extra items are not really that compelling.

1. Character evidence. That is not relevant to proving a crime. In this case, especially, the character of SA is not probative especially in light of the fact there are a number of other people in the area that have similar bad acts to their credit.

2. DNA under the hood. That seems to ask more questions than answered. How does SA's DNA get on the latch when there are no fingerprints? If he was wearing gloves, then how was the DNA transferred? Also some have pointed out this evidence was not "discovered" for nearly 6 months which seems odd.

3. Personal items of TH. I don't understand how this matters. We already have her bones in SA's firepit. How does finding remnants of the phone, etc. add to this?

4. Phone calls. I have never understood why this is compelling to people. If SA was disguising himself, he did a poor job of that since he arranged to have TH come to the property (even if it was under his sister's name - it was his sister's car btw). Also, (IIRC) TH called SA at about 1:30 to confirm she would be able to make it for the appointment. Why would she call SA if he made the reservation under his sister's name? Obviously, he contacted her and asked her to confirm (or does that not seem plausible)?

This is why I say that despite my opinion that it is futile to argue the "real truth" of the matter one way or another (absent some stone-cold evidence) people saying they are convinced SA is guilty (and I am not saying you are one of them) based on "all these other things we were not shown in the documentary," are drastically overplaying their hand. None of this stuff is compelling except for the DNA on the hood - and it is only compelling based on the possibility that evidence is bona fide. As of now, there seem to be too many issues surrounding the provenance of that evidence.

Is there anything else?
02-03-2016 , 06:39 PM
I did a Google search for just Mantiwoc I think and a local paper's story about the town's police force came up. It commented on how they are fine and upstanding and NOT the county sheriff who screwed up the Avery case. It was pretty amusing. It even noted how the town police department had a social media presence while the county did not and the town police were getting a lot of misdirected grief.
02-03-2016 , 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
I did a Google search for just Mantiwoc I think and a local paper's story about the town's police force came up. It commented on how they are fine and upstanding and NOT the county sheriff who screwed up the Avery case. It was pretty amusing. It even noted how the town police department had a social media presence while the county did not and the town police were getting a lot of misdirected grief.
No social media presence? Reasonsble doubt.
02-03-2016 , 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Also, oski

there are several murder trials conducted without the body being found. That should not be required to conclude someone committed murder beyond reasonable doubt.
It used to be virtually impossible and it is still extremely difficult to convict someone of murder without a body or remnant of a body.
02-03-2016 , 06:49 PM
Police planting evidence. Reasonable doubt.
02-03-2016 , 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet Making a Murderer
Police planting evidence. Reasonable doubt.
Oh cool, so if I want to kill someone all I have to do is get a policeman to plant evidence and I can walk scott-free? Good to know.

      
m