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

02-06-2016 , 12:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
You know how big the property is, right?
Yep.

That goes more to the issue of whether he premeditated the murder. According to that theory, he lured T.H. to the property for the purposes of killing her. I would assume he thought about what he would do with the body (especially as he was waiting around that day for her to confirm whether or not she would actually make it there that day). So, I would at least expect that if SA was planning a murder, he would have thought about what to do with the body. If the plan included dumping the body in a pond on his property, I would think SA would take a few minutes beforehand and check to see if the pond actually still existed.

Last edited by Oski; 02-06-2016 at 01:03 AM.
02-06-2016 , 01:06 AM
I believe Brendan Dassey's lies/imagination buried Steven Avery, and gave truth to something that never happened. I'm extremely surprised Dassey was found guilty after his admittance to having made up everything, and the breakdown of his cousin to having made up everything. How 3-7-2 gets turned into unanimous guilty verdict is unbelievable.

fraleyight added to ignore list (thread spam)
02-06-2016 , 01:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Also, are you going to acknowledge that the snippet you posted where he said steven had a lot of blood on his hands is not indication there was too much blood he couldn't clean up?
In order for there to be a lot of blood on someone's hands, there has to be a lot of blood to begin with.

I don't really see your scenario working out without leaving any evidence behind.
02-06-2016 , 01:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Yep.

That goes more to the issue of whether he premeditated the murder. According to that theory, he lured T.H. to the property for the purposes of killing her. I would assume he thought about what he would do with the body (especially as he was waiting around that day for her to confirm whether or not she would actually make it there that day). So, I would at least expect that if SA was planning a murder, he would have thought about what to do with the body. If the plan included dumping the body in a pond on his property, I would think SA would take a few minutes beforehand and check to see if the pond actually still existed.
So many variations of the same "aren't psychopathic murderers with low IQs always super-smart about pre-planning every detail of their murders?" argument.

Believe it or not he may have simply been a misogynistic, rage-filled psycho who gave little to no thought to covering up every detail of his crime. The world is full of dumb criminals. That's why so many get caught.
02-06-2016 , 02:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
So many variations of the same "aren't psychopathic murderers with low IQs always super-smart about pre-planning every detail of their murders?" argument.

Believe it or not he may have simply been a misogynistic, rage-filled psycho who gave little to no thought to covering up every detail of his crime. The world is full of dumb criminals. That's why so many get caught.
Indeed But in order to make a reasonable argument that this was premeditated, we have to accept a certain level of planning. Diposing of the body is not a minute detail.

So, I believe I am asking a fair question.

On the other hand, I don't recall one single post of your thay even hints at considering the other side's argument. I found such an approach to be completely unreasonable. I would guess that is why I've never seen any one really ask you any questions.
02-06-2016 , 02:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
In order for there to be a lot of blood on someone's hands, there has to be a lot of blood to begin with.

I don't really see your scenario working out without leaving any evidence behind.
He was choking her where she was bleeding. that doesn't mean there was this huge amount of blood.
02-06-2016 , 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
He was choking her where she was bleeding. that doesn't mean there was this huge amount of blood.

And then they shot her because they didn't want to see her suffer.
02-06-2016 , 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
He was choking her where she was bleeding. that doesn't mean there was this huge amount of blood.
You're ****ing ******ed. Hi Brendan.
02-06-2016 , 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
You know how big the property is, right?
I'm sure he lived there long enough to know whether the pond would be dried up or not, and if he didn't know he would know it would eventually.
02-06-2016 , 03:30 AM
I still can't get around why he shot her, the last thing someone would want to do after almost murdering someone is draw any sort of attention. Unless that is part of the plan that is.
02-06-2016 , 03:44 AM
Isn't the psychology of a murderer who uses his hands a bit different then someone who would use a rifle.
02-06-2016 , 05:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nit3.runn3r Making a Murderer
You're ****ing ******ed. Hi Brendan.
Well thats not very nice.
02-06-2016 , 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx702 Making a Murderer
Isn't the psychology of a murderer who uses his hands a bit different then someone who would use a rifle.

Read the transcripts

Last edited by prana; 02-06-2016 at 11:03 AM. Reason: Joke obv
02-06-2016 , 11:14 AM

Lol and this is the same **** Fraley did with the reasonable doubt. I didn't have time to look yesterday but Jesus Christ man. These links show nothing I asked rofl. Throw **** at wall and hope it sticks.
02-06-2016 , 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Indeed But in order to make a reasonable argument that this was premeditated, we have to accept a certain level of planning. Diposing of the body is not a minute detail.

So, I believe I am asking a fair question.

On the other hand, I don't recall one single post of your thay even hints at considering the other side's argument. I found such an approach to be completely unreasonable. I would guess that is why I've never seen any one really ask you any questions.
The other side's argument is based purely on speculation that is why I don't really address it.

I've said multiple times that it is possible the police planted all that evidence. But you can speculate about almost anything. We could just as easily spend hundreds of pages discussing the "serial killer who lived an hour away" theory. But what is the point? It's just random speculation.

The evidence is overwhelming that SA killed this woman. If you choose to believe that the police planted all that evidence, that is certainly your right. But I don't see the point in considering random theories that have nothing to back them up.
02-06-2016 , 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana Making a Murderer
Lol and this is the same **** Fraley did with the reasonable doubt. I didn't have time to look yesterday but Jesus Christ man. These links show nothing I asked rofl. Throw **** at wall and hope it sticks.
idk if you noticed but the links I sent you about reasonable doubt was something from oxford saying reasonable doubt is quantified around 95% something from skeptic juror who had several citations quantifying it at 85% and a couple articles where you can read the abstract and conclusion saying reasonable doubt is generally not as high of evidence as people think.

Anyway, my overall point wasn't the quantifiable measure of reasonable doubt anyway because that will never be the same for everyone. My point was to explain what it actually means.
02-06-2016 , 11:42 AM
Naw you claimed 85 to 95 percent and NOT ONE of your links made that claim. Oxford was closest and said 95% was minimum lol.
02-06-2016 , 11:43 AM
And you still don't even understand what it means. Stop trying to think you are some expert on the subject rofl.
02-06-2016 , 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana Making a Murderer
Naw you claimed 85 to 95 percent and NOT ONE of your links made that claim. Oxford was closest and said 95% was minimum lol.
The skeptic jury said it was 85% and again, the point wasn't about the quantified amount of reasonable doubt. I said 85-95% you found one link that disagrees with me. Get a clue.
02-06-2016 , 11:47 AM
No it ****ing didn't. Learn to read.
02-06-2016 , 11:49 AM
Yes it did, there are also several books on this topic.

http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2011/0...ble-doubt.html
02-06-2016 , 11:50 AM
Most theory have nothing to back them because no effort has been done by law enforcement to explore them.
A framing serial killer possibly seen in manitowoc at this time seems pretty relevant to a case where there are framing suspicion. It's not Ground breaking or anything. I m not conviced either that it's the same guy that is shown in the pictures but yet it's more interesting than reading the transcript of the trial which show only what the prosecussion wanted or had to show.

When a guy murder his dog and tried to murder his wife and daughter around the time theresa was killed is seen on the crime scene and live nearby. It's pretty legitimate to wonder if the police did their job about him because suddenly his profile fit way better than avery.

And Ofc we can only speculate because the people who should have done the real work didn't in the first place.

It's shocking that this case isnt investigated by some indépendant 3rd party to either uncover some huge problem or at least restore trust in the system.
02-06-2016 , 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Yes it did, there are also several books on this topic.

http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2011/0...ble-doubt.html
jfc


Quote:
In summary, when our country's jury pool is asked to quantify the reasonable doubt standard, they claim they set the threshold at 85%.
DOES NOT EQUAL WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS AND DOES NOTHING TO BACK YOUR CLAIM

Fraley ladies and gentlemen.
02-06-2016 , 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana Making a Murderer
jfc




DOES NOT EQUAL WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS AND DOES NOTHING TO BACK YOUR CLAIM

Fraley ladies and gentlemen.
How the **** else would you quantify it other than what the jury pool views it as?

      
m