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

02-04-2016 , 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Was my guess aswell and it s consistant with everything else that had been done.
Hah I was just making a joke, but ya wouldn't surprise me.
02-04-2016 , 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Yes. I submit the ten-part documentary, "Making a Murderer" as my lone Exhibit.

And your rebuttal?
I submit reality as my rebuttal. You lose.
02-04-2016 , 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
I have been thinking about that a lot. Since the system is designed to provide what is essential welfare legal representation to people arrested/indicted. I think a good reform would to create a more equitable balance in pay and resources for public defenders.
Good point.

One obstacle to that is politics. The state has greater interest in showing results against crime, etc. so more money is going to be allocated to that side of things.

When I say state, I mean those elected officials that know they score points with voters by "taking a tough stance on crime." That this stance appeals to voters seems to be ingrained, thus tough to overcome.

I have never heard of or seen a public figure run on the platform of "taking a tough stance for criminal defendant's rights."
02-04-2016 , 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
I have been thinking about that a lot. Since the system is designed to provide what is essential welfare legal representation to people arrested/indicted. I think a good reform would to create a more equitable balance in pay and resources for public defenders.
In france it s a little bit more balanced since we dont really have public defender and it s more a matter of getting some help from 20% to 100% of the bill depending on what you can afford.
I guess some lawyers are more expensives than others and not all are available with that help, but that seems still way better than overworked public defender in usa.
02-04-2016 , 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Hah I was just making a joke, .
Have you ever made any funny ones?
02-04-2016 , 03:28 PM
I get the impression this is the first criminal trial poorskillz has been exposed to in any way, shape or form.
02-04-2016 , 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I submit reality as my rebuttal. You lose.

I'll also submit this - a previous post of mine addressing the issue of an "unfair trial":

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Regarding the involvement of MCSD, I agree: in hindsight it's easy to say they shouldn't have been involved at all, mainly for perception's sake. What you have to remember though is at the time there was a missing person investigation spanning hundreds of acres and thousands of cars needing to be searched. It required a lot of manpower, and MCSD was obviously the closest resource. When the investigation was put together, the focus was on finding a missing woman, not on making sure there was no conflict of interest in case Steven murdered someone. Also, no one is saying Lenk was the only evidence tech, but he was qualified, and they needed as many qualified evidence techs as they could use.


The issue I have with this is there isn't actually evidence of police misconduct. 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.


I take issue with this as well. Let's say there was police misconduct. That doesn't make the trial unfair. A new trial isn't going to change whatever happened in the investigation. There's no reason to believe the jury didn't weigh all the evidence against Steven, and all the speculation that said evidence was planted, in a fair manner. Just because they may have came to a different conclusion than you, doesn't mean the trial was unfair.

The only thing I've seen that might be evidence of an unfair trial imo is the allegations by the one juror saying they traded votes or whatever, but we don't really know the story there or if it's even true. I think investigating that is Zellner's best avenue. Regarding the recused juror and his "only 3 guilty on initial vote", he seems a bit unreliable (see Avery's appeal decision). Another juror claims the initial vote was only 3 not guilty. Another juror claims the initial vote didn't happen at all.

The defense chose Manitowoc jury, they chose to allow the sheriff's dad on the jury, they chose not to have a mistrial when the juror was recused. IMO it's because they thought this jury would buy their framing theory.

They also chose not to attempt to test the EDTA despite having ample time to do so (and the issue of the resources not being available to do so was BS imo) and tried to block the prosecution from doing so ("Because I don't trust the FBI at all and I think that they're gonna come up with some dishonest test" lol this is an actual quote).
02-04-2016 , 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Have you ever made any funny ones?
Nah. Not for lack of effort though.

You still seem upset.
02-04-2016 , 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
In france it s a little bit more balanced since we dont really have public defender and it s more a matter of getting some help from 20% to 100% of the bill depending on what you can afford.
I guess some lawyers are more expensives than others and not all are available with that help, but that seems still way better than overworked public defender in usa.
I like systems where the Judge (or body of Judges) get involved with the substance of the case (like in Germany). They also become fact-finders and will examine witnesses. I think it takes some of the sting out of having a purely adversarial trial.
02-04-2016 , 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
I get the impression this is the first criminal trial poorskillz has been exposed to in any way, shape or form.
I get the impression you get involved in a lot of forum discussions on these topics and spout trite platitudes about how corrupt the system is and what reasonable doubt means (and how only you truly understand what it means), all in a condescending tone of intellectual superiority.
02-04-2016 , 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Smacc: Do you know how well the area around the car was photographed prior to its removal?
The RAV4..https://justiceforbradcooper.files.w...rp-images1.jpg
Not very well at all, yep some photo's were took by P.Strum for sure but she's no Crime Tech, so the vehicle had a tarp put over it the it was removed before the actual Crime Lab got there.
Need More? I could provide more photo's if ya want but tbf They don't show much/ there is better photo's obv but they are took in the Crime Lab in WI.

Also, are there photos of where SA says TH's car was during the meeting and photos of the path from there to his trailer or garage?
Well that's the thing I've also asked the Mantiwoco 3 to show proof that these photo's were took & looked everywhere for them myself(yup even reddit does not have them)
BTW if you do come across them I'd also like to see them.

Y'd think the Crime Lab would have also took Prints/Photo's of tire Marks IN/or around the salvage yard but maybe they have not been released to the public & is K.K's secret.
It the Bones I tell YA Its in the Bones...

If the prosecution cannot even provide PHOTO'S of where the Bones were found in the burn pit, how was the jury meant to believe they were there.
IS THAT NOT SPECULATION?



#GoFightaGorilla
02-04-2016 , 03:48 PM
You act like every photo taken of the crime scene is available to the public. That's not even close to the case.

Just look in the documentary and you'll see instances of this:

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 02-04-2016 at 03:55 PM.
02-04-2016 , 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'll also submit this - a previous post of mine addressing the issue of an "unfair trial":
Bravo:

Quote:
The only thing I've seen that might be evidence of an unfair trial imo is the allegations by the one juror saying they traded votes or whatever, but we don't really know the story there or if it's even true. I think investigating that is Zellner's best avenue
So, you augment the message of the documentary by raising an additional possibility that there was an unfair trial.

The other stuff was in the Doc.: excusing the juror and the blood test. As presented at least in the show, the circumstances of that test was unfair - it was dropped in during the trial. I understand you have a different opinion on the defense having an opportunity to perform the test, but I think it is weak. You overlook that the prosecution had just as much time, and the best they could do was to get the test very late in the game - and it took a lot of juice with and within the FBI to get the test done.

So, at the end of the day, you have done nothing with "outside evidence" but make the documentary's point STRONGER. I guess you are not sure how arguing a position works.
02-04-2016 , 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Nah. Not for lack of effort though.

You still seem upset.
Not in the least. I love this stuff. I AM a name caller and I am rude and nasty. I have no problem taking shots at morons like you all day.

So, keep it coming. This could get interesting (which would be the first time for anything you've been involved in).
02-04-2016 , 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I get the impression you get involved in a lot of forum discussions on these topics and spout trite platitudes about how corrupt the system is and what reasonable doubt means (and how only you truly understand what it means), all in a condescending tone of intellectual superiority.
I hate to break it to you. Marksmann (among most other posters in this thread) is a lot smarter than you. That such is obvious should not be a badge of shame for Marksmann. It is merely a fact and it is okay to point it out; it is quite okay to demonstrate intellect, even if it exposes the sheer idiocy of people like you.

Why would you try to shame someone for being smarter than you? That makes no sense (yet, from you, I guess that should be expected).

Do you go around confronting people taller than you for showing you up in public?

You are an absolute fool.
02-04-2016 , 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Bravo:

So, you augment the message of the documentary by raising an additional possibility that there was an unfair trial.
Yes, I try to consider the possibilities of what might make the trial "unfair". If some of that is proven, then that is the best piece of evidence. It is not proven.

Quote:
The other stuff was in the Doc.: excusing the juror and the blood test. As presented at least in the show, the circumstances of that test was unfair - it was dropped in during the trial. I understand you have a different opinion on the defense having an opportunity to perform the test, but I think it is weak. You overlook that the prosecution had just as much time, and the best they could do was to get the test very late in the game - and it took a lot of juice with and within the FBI to get the test done.

So, at the end of the day, you have done nothing with "outside evidence" but make the documentary's point STRONGER. I guess you are not sure how arguing a position works.
Again, read the transcripts.
02-04-2016 , 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Here's some of the evidence photos; I know you hate transcripts, but maybe photos are okay for your amateur investigation.

Also, if you're trying to determine tire tracks, I suggest you also check the weather during this time.
The passenger seat seems to be level with the driver's seat. I would be curious to see the measurements. B.D. would be a tight fit there. I know SA is short, but that also seems like a tight fit.

At the same time, its not like they would be driving to Florida - so moving the seats may not have even been an issue (for me personally, I automatically move the seat back when I hop in my wife's car - even if it is to move parking spots).

As for the cabinet: I recall that someone said "all the stuff" in or on the cabinet was replaced after it was shaken (and thus exposing the key). I don't see that there is much stuff in or on the cabinet.
02-04-2016 , 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana Making a Murderer
Stating lost is arguing better at convincing equals oski convinced SA is innocent. Lol. The AIDS is worse and I didn't think that could happen. Is Custer like the ikes of the rest of the forum?
Well, an unrelenting nitty argument is called a Custerfluck.
02-04-2016 , 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I am advising you to read the transcripts because you have a bad habit of constantly making factually inaccurate statements. You also say a lot of dumb **** that you hopefully wouldn't if you actually read the transcripts and became informed..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
This entire paragraph is factually inaccurate. Reading transcripts is not going to save it.

...

Please cite the factually inaccurate statements coming forth from my keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Again, read the transcripts.
Why? The transcripts do not seem to have been helpful to you. You have not pulled anything from them that adds to your argument.

Yet, you want me to read them too? I already asked you to back up your claim about all the "factually inaccurate statements" and you could not.

It seems to me, my knowledge of this case is equal, or exceeds yours and I have not had to waste my time digging through transcripts. I suppose the art is knowing what matters and what doesn't. I appreciate your dedication to a lost cause (indeed, you are the self-described Sisyphus pushing that rock up the hill every day), but it really serves no purpose. Unshackle yourself from the chains of your unfruitful pursuit. Focus your attention and efforts on improving your knowledge with things that matter. You don't have to clutter your mind with such needless information.

You are welcome.
02-04-2016 , 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'm against claiming people are corrupt like it's a fact without proof and making baseless accusations though.

Very few(like less than 2 ppl ITT) have said that the cops were corrupt.(Fair?)
Most ppl itt have said the MCSD were incompetent(Fair?)


Yes, there was a lot of things wrong with that wrongful conviction. I am in full agreement with that. Michael Greisbach (who some people ITT think is me) covers this critically in his book on the wrongful conviction.

What in you're opinion should have happened to the Sheriff Officers(if found guilty) who were responsible in the wrongful conviction of SA apart from his lawsuit?

Also, they paid $400k for it (would have likely been a few million if Steven didn't murder someone and settle the lawsuit). OF TAX PAYERS MONEY

(Without admitting wrong) And that's the problem because then the MCSD do not need to show restitution towards the victims which IMO is despicable.



I've ignored a lot of your posts. To be honest, I find the questions you are asking to be particularly irrelevant, and that's why I probably will continue to ignore your posts. Sorry.

The main Q's I've asked yourself were about the follow up by the MCSD were regarding the victims in the GA case.(irrelevant?)

Even a hypothetical will do regarding the victims of Rape in a case the exact same as SA, were the P.D are found to be guilty of corruption?(Would you say Jail time 1yr 5yr 10y +20y & Tax $ is enough or should another approach be taken?)




I have no idea what they've done or haven't done, but I don't think Twitter is the answer.
Oh Come on its 2016 & they don't even facebook
02-04-2016 , 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Why? The transcripts do not seem to have been helpful to you. You have not pulled anything from them that adds to your argument.

Yet, you want me to read them too? I already asked you to back up your claim about all the "factually inaccurate statements" and you could not.

It seems to me, my knowledge of this case is equal, or exceeds yours and I have not had to waste my time digging through transcripts. I suppose the art is knowing what matters and what doesn't. I appreciate your dedication to a lost cause (indeed, you are the self-described Sisyphus pushing that rock up the hill every day), but it really serves no purpose. Unshackle yourself from the chains of your unfruitful pursuit. Focus your attention and efforts on improving your knowledge with things that matter. You don't have to clutter your mind with such needless information.

You are welcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I hate to break it to you. Marksmann (among most other posters in this thread) is a lot smarter than you. That such is obvious should not be a badge of shame for Marksmann. It is merely a fact and it is okay to point it out; it is quite okay to demonstrate intellect, even if it exposes the sheer idiocy of people like you.

Why would you try to shame someone for being smarter than you? That makes no sense (yet, from you, I guess that should be expected).

Do you go around confronting people taller than you for showing you up in public?

You are an absolute fool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morphismus Making a Murderer
Absolute Gold!!!
02-04-2016 , 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Why? The transcripts do not seem to have been helpful to you. You have not pulled anything from them that adds to your argument.

Yet, you want me to read them too? I already asked you to back up your claim about all the "factually inaccurate statements" and you could not.
Lol every time I have cleared your false statements up for you by going into the transcripts and quoting the relevant excerpts, you've disregarded them as too "biased", preferring to get all your facts from the independent sources of the show, Strang, and lostinsauce. That's why I don't even bother anymore, besides telling you to read the transcripts yourself.


Quote:
It seems to me, my knowledge of this case is equal, or exceeds yours and I have not had to waste my time digging through transcripts. I suppose the art is knowing what matters and what doesn't.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA OMG THE HUBRIS

Thank you for confirming everything I've been saying about you!


Quote:
I appreciate your dedication to a lost cause (indeed, you are the self-described Sisyphus pushing that rock up the hill every day), but it really serves no purpose. Unshackle yourself from the chains of your unfruitful pursuit. Focus your attention and efforts on improving your knowledge with things that matter. You don't have to clutter your mind with such needless information.

You are welcome.
I don't think your previous quote can be topped - it basically sums you up perfectly, and it's only fun to mock someone like you for so long, so I will be taking your advice and ignoring you from now on.

p.s. enjoy investigating the passenger seat, I have a feeling you and lostinsauce are going to crack the case open
02-04-2016 , 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Well I'll admit I just skimmed it, it's pretty long... but I saw nothing about not having a car brought to a crime lab for investigation. Since you say it's there, how about posting the relevant quote.
Yup Got me.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...the-crime.html

http://harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/f...scene_pro.html

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for...000/twgcsi.pdf

Fair enough it does say due to circumstances that a piece of evidence can be moved.
But if you are treating it as a crime scene then why did the RAV4 get damaged?
02-04-2016 , 06:25 PM
So, you can't back up your lie about me making "factually inaccurate statements about the case."

You aren't fooling anyone.
02-04-2016 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
.

Also, who said I'm a woman?
I challenge you to take a lie detector test.

      
m