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

02-08-2016 , 05:45 PM
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/hr/hrde...Management.pdf

Nearly one in five people have anger management issues.

Hmmm....let's put a person falsely away for 18 years. And then provide no help. And then after make it seem after that he deserved to be in there anyway and lie about the initial investigation.

That doesn't give one the right to rape and murder anyone, but who wouldn't have anger issues? It seems people are pretty angry just watching this documentary.
02-08-2016 , 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Here's a good reddit post listing some of the quotes about the anger issues Steven had after his exoneration:
I didn't see them in the transcripts
02-08-2016 , 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Can someone go back in the thread to where I clearly acknowledged the film had bias.

But yes, I do also believe that a lot of that bias is attributed to the fact that one whole half decided not to participate.
Ya sure no problem:


Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I've already stated earlier that the documentary appears biased or one sided. It appears that way because only the defense team agreed to participate.

The film makers extended an invitation to the prosecution to also be part of the documentary, and they chose not to.

How do you expect the film makers to portray the prosecution's side if they weren't cooperative? I think the film makers did a fair enough job in 10hrs of film presenting the more/most important pieces of evidence from the trial.


So your stance has changed from saying all the bias comes from only one side participating to a lot of it? Progress!

Is that your final answer? Should we downgrade it to 'some' or maybe even 'a little bit of'? I just want to know how far you will backpedal.



Also cool use of the word "appears" bro.
02-08-2016 , 07:08 PM
#readingTranscripts
02-08-2016 , 09:05 PM
Poorskillz got angry at Oski is he a murderer?
02-08-2016 , 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana Making a Murderer
That does not lead me to believe he was checking something he had previously written down. It's just a weird statement altogether imo. He had the information but calling it in cemented in his mind who the vehicle belonged to and the plates associated with it? wat?
It is so convoluted. Plus revots ignores the idea that the police are publishing missing persons info in such a haphazard manner. Screw computers have these police heard of text messaging?

The whole idea that a missing person report is phoned to each officer who then had to try and remember it while driving then write it down later then call back in and double check the information. Lolol

I don't care why they did it, that it seems to work that way is so lol and is the best case scenario.

I wonder if he had to go to the local store and sketch her picture on milk cartons.
02-08-2016 , 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
OK he didn't remember it. So what? Do you remember every detail of every phone call you make over a year later?
Again seems like Mantiwoc needs better ways to disseminate information. Seems very umm errr incompetent to me.
02-08-2016 , 09:31 PM
Both in his reports and his testimony, Wiegert says he called Colborn about the missing person.

If Wiegert is calling Colborn about the missing person, we can assume he's giving him details on her, including her car information, instead of just saying "Hey Colby, there's a missing person named Teresa".

In Colborn's call to dispatch he asks to check if the plate matches "the missing person". Since he already has the information from Wiegert, if he saw the car, he wouldn't need to call.

It's much more likely he calls because he wants to make sure it's the right info rather than a vast conspiracy of both malice and stupidity.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. That's why Steven's in prison.
02-08-2016 , 09:37 PM
I'm willing to stipulate that I think Wiegert called Colborn, told him TH was missing and gave him the details of her car etc...

Explain to me how you come to this conclusion based on that;




Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Since he already has the information from Wiegert, if he saw the car, he wouldn't need to call.

It's much more likely he calls because he wants to make sure it's the right info rather than a vast conspiracy of both malice and stupidity.

So your logic is that he has the information, so he wouldn't need to call, but he calls anyways just to double check.

And that's somehow more likely than the alternative.
02-08-2016 , 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Just needed to chime in?
I don't know what this means.
02-08-2016 , 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabby Hayes Making a Murderer
There is still people that believe Brendan and Avery are guilty in this thread? Lol. Seriously? I thought 2p2 was smarter than that.
You're an idiot
02-08-2016 , 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I'm willing to stipulate that I think Wiegert called Colborn, told him TH was missing and gave him the details of her car etc...

Explain to me how you come to this conclusion based on that;

So your logic is that he has the information, so he wouldn't need to call, but he calls anyways just to double check.

And that's somehow more likely than the alternative.
So if Colborn has the information, then why does he need to call dispatch if he sees the Rav4, unless to confirm the information he's written down?

If he needs to confirm the information he's written down regardless, then it's perfectly reasonable to believe he just innocently called to confirm the information, which is something he says he often does and what he says he did in this case.

Furthermore, if he saw a Rav4 that says SWH582 and he had something scribbled down on his notepad that looked like SWH582, he wouldn't exactly need to call dispatch to confirm it, especially when plotting a conspiracy, would he?

Furthermore, if it's such a bizarre call, he probably also wouldn't ask to see if it came back to "that missing person", for fear that dispatch would notify others that Colborn found the Rav4. It must have slipped past dispatch though... or maybe she's in on it too? According to oski logic, there's a strong indication she would be added to the suit.

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 02-08-2016 at 10:09 PM.
02-08-2016 , 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjosh Making a Murderer
Zellner: "Police reports: Only SA suspect but BIG RED FLAGS on others. Must have to do w/BIG GREEN DOLLARS. #MakingAMurderer"

Somebody obviously helped him right that. Or else he somehow advance about 7 grades since the threatening letter to Jodi came out a couple weeks ago
02-08-2016 , 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
So if Colborn has the information, then why does he need to call dispatch if he sees the Rav4, unless to confirm the information he's written down?

If he needs to confirm the information he's written down regardless, then it's perfectly reasonable to believe he just innocently called to confirm the information, which is something he says he often does and what he says he did in this case.

Furthermore, if he saw a Rav4 that says SWH582 and he had something scribbled down on his notepad that looked like SWH582, he wouldn't exactly need to call dispatch to confirm it, especially when plotting a conspiracy, would he?
Wiegert calls him and gives him information. If he needed to confirm said information, why would he call anyone other than Weigert.

Quote:
Furthermore, if it's such a bizarre call, he probably also wouldn't ask to see if it came back to "that missing person", for fear that dispatch would notify others that Colborn found the Rav4. It must have slipped past dispatch though... or maybe she's in on it too? According to oski logic, there's a strong indication she would be added to the suit.

How many license plate checks does the average dispatcher get in a day/week? You realizes she's likely just a clerk at a desk punching numbers into a computer right?
02-08-2016 , 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet Making a Murderer
Prosecution: uh, I think he's guilty.

Defense: Maybe not. Maybe someone else did it.

Poorskills: that's just baseless speculation, not reasonable doubt.
You don't understand how this works. You are correct that the prosecution hold the burden of proof because they are the ones making the claim. Their claim is supposed to be based on evidence, they present the evidence and the jury has to determine if that evidence meets the burden beyond a reasonable doubt. This doubt that they reach is not supposed to be based on guesswork or speculation, because that is not a doubt that is reasonable.

So if the prosecutor shows blood in a rav 4 that matches SA for example, it is unreasonable to doubt it came from anywhere other than his body unless there is evidence that can prove this. Someone saw the cops planting it and testifies to this under oath for example. If the person finds the testimony credible, they can reach reasonable doubt that the blood came from his body.
02-08-2016 , 10:33 PM
In other words just making up theories is not a reasonable doubt. Especially if without those theories the conclusion should be that the defense met their burden of proof.
02-08-2016 , 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Poorskillz got angry at Oski is he a murderer?
Stop with these strawmans. No one is saying he is a murderer because he gets angry and threatens people. It is just one of many circumstantial pieces of evidence on top of the physical evidence. You can't just look at something like him getting angry and pretend like the entire prosecution relied on that one piece of information.
02-08-2016 , 10:40 PM
Colborn forgets the info wiegert gave him so calls dispatch to confirm, cool.

Colborn forgets to write down what SA told Colborn on the night of 3rd Nov 2005, cool.

Colborn forgets to visit Zipperer on the 3rd Nov about a missing person. Not so Cool.

Colborn forgets to pass on info he got in a phone call regarding SA being innocent, but remembers 8YEARS later, cool.

Andy"Hmm, sorry I don't remember"Colborn ran for Office in 2006 But thankfully the people FORGOT to vote for him. Thank ****.
02-08-2016 , 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Wiegert calls him and gives him information. If he needed to confirm said information, why would he call anyone other than Weigert.
Colborn explains this in his testimony.


Quote:
How many license plate checks does the average dispatcher get in a day/week? You realizes she's likely just a clerk at a desk punching numbers into a computer right?
How many license plate checks for missing women does she get?
02-08-2016 , 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Colborn forgets the info wiegert gave him so calls dispatch to confirm, cool.
True.

Quote:
Colborn forgets to write down what SA told Colborn on the night of 3rd Nov 2005, cool.
Partly true - he thought Calumet was handling all reports.

Quote:
Colborn forgets to visit Zipperer on the 3rd Nov about a missing person. Not so Cool.
False - someone else visited.

Quote:
Colborn forgets to pass on info he got in a phone call regarding SA being innocent, but remembers 8YEARS later, cool.
False - he passed the info on.

Quote:
Andy"Hmm, sorry I don't remember"Colborn ran for Office in 2006 But thankfully the people FORGOT to vote for him. Thank ****.
Not cool.
02-08-2016 , 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
True.



Partly true - he thought Calumet was handling all reports.
Nope He did not take any Notes on 3 Nov 2005 regarding the investigation of a missing 25yr old young woman.


False - someone else visited.
Nope- A.C Had to make 2 visits on the night of 3 Nov 2005 regarding the missing 25yr old young woman & he forgot to do 1 or was running out of time because his shift finished at 8.30pm. Lazy or forgetful? hmm


False - he passed the info on. To Lenk? Fair enough, But why did he not take a note of it? Ahh he was only a corrections officer.
That is 1 of my top 5 rage moments in MaM in that AC was still escorting SA/BD to & from Jail, WTF. WHY?
Did you listen to the TEXAS Tech University Pod that I posted Poorskillz. If not you should.
02-09-2016 , 12:21 AM
The Texas Tech panel seems like it was made specifically for PoorSkillz, Fraleyight and AngerPush. They just pound home the reasons why people just refuse to believe something like this could happen AND why people would continue to propagate why it did not happen when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It's quite informative.

But I'm sure they are biased.
02-09-2016 , 12:50 AM
Lost,

I already admitted to a situation in which I am sure evidence was planted. So, I fully accept it can happen. The OJ case is the situation I am referring to by the way.
02-09-2016 , 01:09 AM
False - someone else visited.
Quote:
Nope- A.C Had to make 2 visits on the night of 3 Nov 2005 regarding the missing 25yr old young woman & he forgot to do 1 or was running out of time because his shift finished at 8.30pm. Lazy or forgetful? hmm
No, he visited Zipperer. Read the transcripts.

False - he passed the info on.
Quote:
To Lenk? Fair enough, But why did he not take a note of it? Ahh he was only a corrections officer.
That is 1 of my top 5 rage moments in MaM in that AC was still escorting SA/BD to & from Jail, WTF. WHY?
No, not Lenk. He doesn't know who. Yes, he was just a corrections officer and either told the detective to contact MCSD detective division or transferred the call to them. Read the transcripts.

      
m