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

02-07-2016 , 01:42 PM
Bill maher is a vaccine denier. I think his conclusion about vaccines is unreasonable. I do not think all his conclusions are unreasonable or that he is unreasonable because he reaches some conclusions that may be unreasonable.
02-07-2016 , 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
First of all, what fraley said.

Second of all, "reasonable doubt" is ultimately subjective. I personally don't think there was reasonable doubt, nor did the jury.

I do believe people like lostinsauce are unreasonable. Someone like him would likely never make it onto the jury in the first place.



Again, please state the evidence of "horrible law enforcement behavior" in this case instead of repeating your vague platitudes about "reasonsble doubt" and "conflict of interest" for the 100th time.

And no, Manitowoc officers being involved in the investigation in a supporting role is not "horrible law enforcement behavior".
Another word poorskillz does not understand, "supporting".

We are going to have to create a Poorskillz Learning Dictionary.

Literally every part of the investigation was marred with incompetence. Procedures and policies disregarded at every turn.

You are unlikely to find anyone involved in law enforcement outside of Wisconsin who believes that this investigation was handled with competence on any level.

When the DA publically declares early on that due to potential conflicts the Mantiwoc County Sheriff department will not be doing the investigation and the Calumet County Sherriff said that Mantiwoc Officers would not be involved in the investigation except in support roles.

Searching for and finding key evidence is not a support role. A support role is watching the perimeter or fetching food and water or bringing equipment. It's not going through Avery's property and finding all the evidence lol.

Like I mentioned one Calumet Sergeant apparently would not let the Mantiwoc Officers on the Avery property, which given the public statements of the Mantiwoc DA and Calumet Sherriff makes sense. Surprisingly as soon as a different Calumet officer had that responsibility Mantiwoc officers got on the property and started finding evidence.

It's ridiculous and it's absurd you are not willing to hold law enforcement to even a mediocre standard of job performance before locking a person up in prison.

1) Mantiwoc finding much of the key evidence
2) hood latch DNA found months later
3) bullet DNA test receives of exceedingly rare waiver
4) key found in tiny trailer after tens of man hours of searching by Mantiwoc officers
5) Scotch tape
6) Mantiwoc County distributing missing persons bulletins via crayon and smoke signal
7) sign in sheets at crime scene that have no rhyme or reason
8) Dassey 'confession' lol lol lol
9) Never investigated anyone else
10) officer previously jailer received call that was passed on to detective that was not acted on and kept Avery in 8 years longer than necessary the first time
11) The whole first trial
12) lol the judge. You know the guy who was apparently the only judge in that part of Wisconsin. The one who kicked Dassey's first attorney for not being in interview but still allowed confession
13) Kratz proven to be a scum bag
14) Not letting state crime lab do crime scene investigation
15) Using ridiculous crime scene techniques in many areas such as when uncovering bones.

But really that's just off the top of my head. Do you think that much incompetence is part of every criminal case? Do you guys who defend this conduct realize you are the ones casting aspersions on all police by claiming this is standard operating procedure.
02-07-2016 , 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Another word poorskillz does not understand, "supporting".

We are going to have to create a Poorskillz Learning Dictionary.

Literally every part of the investigation was marred with incompetence. Procedures and policies disregarded at every turn.

You are unlikely to find anyone involved in law enforcement outside of Wisconsin who believes that this investigation was handled with competence on any level.

When the DA publically declares early on that due to potential conflicts the Mantiwoc County Sheriff department will not be doing the investigation and the Calumet County Sherriff said that Mantiwoc Officers would not be involved in the investigation except in support roles.

Searching for and finding key evidence is not a support role. A support role is watching the perimeter or fetching food and water or bringing equipment. It's not going through Avery's property and finding all the evidence lol.

Like I mentioned one Calumet Sergeant apparently would not let the Mantiwoc Officers on the Avery property, which given the public statements of the Mantiwoc DA and Calumet Sherriff makes sense. Surprisingly as soon as a different Calumet officer had that responsibility Mantiwoc officers got on the property and started finding evidence.

It's ridiculous and it's absurd you are not willing to hold law enforcement to even a mediocre standard of job performance before locking a person up in prison.

1) Mantiwoc finding much of the key evidence

If by "key evidence", you mean literally the key, then yes. Otherwise, not true.

2) hood latch DNA found months later

How is this "horrible law enforcement behavior"?

3) bullet DNA test receives of exceedingly rare waiver

Explanation for waiver is explained in testimony. How is this "horrible law enforcement behavior"?

4) key found in tiny trailer after tens of man hours of searching by Mantiwoc officers

How is this "horrible law enforcement behavior"?

5) Scotch tape

How is this "horrible law enforcement behavior" in this case?

6) Mantiwoc County distributing missing persons bulletins via crayon and smoke signal

What does this even mean? How is this "horrible law enforcement behavior"?

7) sign in sheets at crime scene that have no rhyme or reason

Someone forgot to sign in or out a couple times. I guess you can subjectively view this as "horrible law enforcement behavior", but lol.

8) Dassey 'confession' lol lol lol

Have you seen the actual interrogations? How is this "horrible law enforcement behavior"?

9) Never investigated anyone else

Not true. Read the transcripts.

10) officer previously jailer received call that was passed on to detective that was not acted on and kept Avery in 8 years longer than necessary the first time

Irrelevant to this case.

11) The whole first trial

Irrelevant to this case.

12) lol the judge. You know the guy who was apparently the only judge in that part of Wisconsin. The one who kicked Dassey's first attorney for not being in interview but still allowed confession

You do realize the two cases were in two different counties with two different juries, right? Also, I believe the confession you're referring to was ruled inadmissible by the judge because the lawyer wasn't present.

13) Kratz proven to be a scum bag

Irrelevant to this case.

14) Not letting state crime lab do crime scene investigation

What are you even talking about?

15) Using ridiculous crime scene techniques in many areas such as when uncovering bones.

Lol "ridiculous". Subjective opinion. How is this "horrible law enforcement behavior"?

But really that's just off the top of my head. Do you think that much incompetence is part of every criminal case? Do you guys who defend this conduct realize you are the ones casting aspersions on all police by claiming this is standard operating procedure.

The list you've given is a list of inaccuracies, personal opinions, and irrelevancy.

I asked for evidence of what you described as "horrible law enforcement behavior" in this case, not what you think seemed suspicious, not what happened in the wrongful conviction case, not personal opinions. I'm asking for facts.

Finding a key on the 2nd general search is not evidence of "horrible law enforcement behavior".

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 02-07-2016 at 02:44 PM.
02-07-2016 , 02:53 PM
TTU School of law. Lets see what the Panel/students got to say.

http://mediaservices.law.ttu.edu/Pan...e-e74ea5dd3cd1

Last edited by smacc25; 02-07-2016 at 03:07 PM.
02-07-2016 , 02:59 PM
Did they read the transcripts tho?
02-07-2016 , 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by truefish Making a Murderer
Yawn at all.
Thanks for reading.
02-07-2016 , 03:21 PM
Team Innocent believes the first case should be considered but none of SA's previous bad behavior should. Let's stay consistent, please.
02-07-2016 , 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
The list you've given is a list of inaccuracies, personal opinions, and irrelevancy.

I asked for evidence of what you described as "horrible law enforcement behavior" in this case, not what you think seemed suspicious, not what happened in the wrongful conviction case, not personal opinions. I'm asking for facts.

Finding a key on the 2nd general search is not evidence of "horrible law enforcement behavior".
PoorSkillz is defending the police work now. You were hanging in there pretty good with some questionable justifications for questionable activity, but now this?...This is just the work of a pure shill. The amount of time you clearly spend scouring this thread alone in order to quote single sentences from posts older than a week must be staggering. Is your entire day dedicated to the defense of Manitowoc County Sheriff's Dept.? Not to mention the gleaning of single words that fit your defense such as pulling the word "squabble" from one moment in Strang's description of a phone call.

Its almost like you had something to gain (or not lose) from this.
02-07-2016 , 03:32 PM
Did Lost really think I'm in Law Enforcement because of my avatar?

Indicator of his intelligence.
02-07-2016 , 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Team Innocent believes the first case should be considered but none of SA's previous bad behavior should. Let's stay consistent, please.
Take a 1hr out & listen. Then we can discuss this piece.

Or is Texas Tech University just making **** up?
02-07-2016 , 04:30 PM
18 years wrongfull imprisonment with huge possible settlement VS killing a cat when he was 18 seems like a great comparaison, and i m not team innocent , i m team investigate that ****.
And yeah lost you are kinda AIDSing this thread on the opposite side of the 2 autistic shill.
02-07-2016 , 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
That's a good question that could've been explored by a documentary looking at a case in hindsight where there was a clear instance of police misconduct.

Instead these people began filming the Averys and their lawyers long before the trial even happened and the facts actually came out, then edited the footage to make it look like the case wasn't clear cut, and the police (and possibly the victim's brother and friends and even the head of the FBI chemistry unit) were clearly corrupt, in order to serve their narrative.
This is just so stupid. Why would they do that? I'm not even going to start pointing out how absolutely ridiculous this shill-spew statement is.
02-07-2016 , 04:37 PM
episode 3 is out
https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-profile

in case you want to hear professional opinions of people with professsional knowledge and experience
02-07-2016 , 04:39 PM
Quote:
If by "key evidence", you mean literally the key, then yes. Otherwise, not true.

2) hood latch DNA found months later
Again, as I've posted with proof at least 3 times, this might be the most obvious piece of sh*t police work in the entire case. It might also be the most obvious evidence of not only a coerced confession, but also planting of evidence and the fact that the Crime Lab is totally corrupt.
02-07-2016 , 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Team Innocent believes the first case should be considered but none of SA's previous bad behavior should. Let's stay consistent, please.

I don't think too many people ITT are team innocent but;

Team Guilty believes that SA's previous bad behaviour should be considered but none of the first case should. Let's stay consistent, please

Team Guilty believes that SA's *67 phone calls are clear indication that he lured TH with the intention to rape and kill her but that nothing can be inferred from his phone calls with Jodi that same night. Let's stay consistent, please
02-07-2016 , 05:16 PM
Team Guilty:

Ken Kratz
DA Vogel
Sheriff Hermann
Sheriff Petersen
Judge Fox
Sherry Culhane
Weigert
Fassbender
Lenk
Colborn
Nancy Grace
PoorSkillz
Fraleyight
AngerPush
fruit snacks

Team Innocent:

Dean Strang
Jerome Buting
Kathleen Zellner
Tricia Bushnell
Walter Kelley
Stephen Glynn
lostinthesaus
smacc25

Team "I can't really make a decision based on probabilities or facts presented because the internet said the documentary was biased so I am going to just choose not guilty or maybe needs a new trial or maybe he's a scumbag but something's not right about the cops, etc etc"

eddymitchell
a bunch of other people.

Seems to be some clear character alignments in these groups imo. Or so the documentary makers would edit their 10 years of footage to have you believe.

Who's team would you rather be on?

EDIT: Trade of eddymitchell to expansion team.

Last edited by lostinthesaus; 02-07-2016 at 05:23 PM.
02-07-2016 , 05:17 PM
you confuse team not guilty with team innocent, we are split in half , your half beeing the weakest one
02-07-2016 , 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I disagree with poorskillz. I think most 9-11 truthers are reasonable outside of their convictions about 9-11 for example.
So exactly how many unreasonable opinions can a "reasonable person" hold?

This whole discussion of reasonable is stupid. In the context of reasonable doubt, "reasonable" means - is how you arrived at having a doubt supported by reason, can other people understand how you got there?

If you accept that the police and prosecution behavior in this case have consistently followed questionable procedure, you CLEARLY have grounds for reasonable doubt or at the very least a new trial.

Last edited by blackize5; 02-07-2016 at 05:29 PM.
02-07-2016 , 05:46 PM
If anyone cares (and I'm sure they don't), for some context as to how I arrive at my decisions based on past similar cases, I thought Michael Peterson in The Staircase was certainly guilty but the defense did a tremendous job and there was a legit 50/50 shot of him walking.
02-07-2016 , 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer

Team Guilty believes that SA's *67 phone calls are clear indication that he lured TH with the intention to rape and kill her but that nothing can be inferred from his phone calls with Jodi that same night. Let's stay consistent, please
No, the *67 is not a clear indication of anything - just another piece of circumstantial evidence that fits along with the mountain of physical evidence.

Nothing can be inferred from the phone call with Jodi, because a criminal trying his best to act normal on the phone is not unexpected or unusual. Did you expect him to burst into tears and tell her what he'd just done? Perhaps you are just overly impressed with SA's acting ability.
02-07-2016 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
No, the *67 is not a clear indication of anything - just another piece of circumstantial evidence that fits along with the mountain of physical evidence.

Nothing can be inferred from the phone call with Jodi, because a criminal trying his best to act normal on the phone is not unexpected or unusual. Did you expect him to burst into tears and tell her what he'd just done? Perhaps you are just overly impressed with SA's acting ability.

You need to talk to the rest of your camp about the significance of the *67 calls, I'm not digging through pages of this thread, but they were brought up multiple times.
02-07-2016 , 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Team Guilty:

Ken Kratz
DA Vogel
Sheriff Hermann
Sheriff Petersen
Judge Fox
Sherry Culhane
Weigert
Fassbender
Lenk
Colborn
Nancy Grace
PoorSkillz
Fraleyight
AngerPush
fruit snacks

Team Innocent:

Dean Strang
Jerome Buting
Kathleen Zellner
Tricia Bushnell
Walter Kelley
Stephen Glynn
lostinthesaus
smacc25

Team "I can't really make a decision based on probabilities or facts presented because the internet said the documentary was biased so I am going to just choose not guilty or maybe needs a new trial or maybe he's a scumbag but something's not right about the cops, etc etc"

eddymitchell
a bunch of other people.

Seems to be some clear character alignments in these groups imo. Or so the documentary makers would edit their 10 years of footage to have you believe.

Who's team would you rather be on?

EDIT: Trade of eddymitchell to expansion team.
Please stop posting
02-07-2016 , 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I don't think too many people ITT are team innocent but;

Team Guilty believes that SA's previous bad behaviour should be considered but none of the first case should. Let's stay consistent, please

Team Guilty believes that SA's *67 phone calls are clear indication that he lured TH with the intention to rape and kill her but that nothing can be inferred from his phone calls with Jodi that same night. Let's stay consistent, please
I don't think this is true. Everything should be considered and properly evaluated.
02-07-2016 , 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Did Lost really think I'm in Law Enforcement because of my avatar?

Indicator of his intelligence.
I just think your dumb because of what you post itt, but nobody asked me.
02-07-2016 , 06:48 PM
I just think you're dumb because of what you post itt, but nobody asked me.

      
m