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

02-09-2016 , 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.
That's fine and all, but you realize that case dealt with a victim that was the ex-wife of the accused, when the accused also had exceptional means and motive and the police had 0 (zero) motive to plant evidence. Oh...and OJ was found NOT GUILTY.

The contrast is unbelievably obvious.
02-09-2016 , 01:33 AM
Jesus. In poorskillz and fraley's world, the jury should accept all testimony and evidence as fact unless there is definitive proof that it is not fact. Somehow circumstantial stuff is enough to convict murderers all over the country but not enough to cast doubt on a piece of evidence or a prosecution witness's testimony.

Just lol at you people.
02-09-2016 , 02:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
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.
The young ADA in the pod was good, dam it they were all good. I really wanted to discuss a few of the points made in it but the mantiowoc 3 avoided it altogether. Its my fav piece so far tbh.



To poorskillz? Are you sure that Lenk did not know, or did someone tell all in the deposition that LENK knew? Hmm
02-09-2016 , 02:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackize5 Making a Murderer
Jesus. In poorskillz and fraley's world, the jury should accept all testimony and evidence as fact unless there is definitive proof that it is not fact.
Yep, the jury should probably not ignore a mountain of physical evidence and jump directly to police conspiracy, unless there is actual evidence of a police conspiracy.

Calling in to double-check a license number doesn't really cut it. Neither does a blood vial with a perfectly standard pinhole in the top... or any of the other stuff Strang and Buting threw at the wall to see what might stick.
02-09-2016 , 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Yep, the jury should probably not ignore a mountain of physical evidence and jump directly to police conspiracy, unless there is actual evidence of a police conspiracy.

Calling in to double-check a license number doesn't really cut it. Neither does a blood vial with a perfectly standard pinhole in the top... or any of the other stuff Strang and Buting threw at the wall to see what might stick.
While I disagree that it's a "jump" to conspiracy, you're at least arguing something from a realm of sanity. Your two compatriots in this thread are deliberately misunderstanding the concept of reasonable doubt, arguing against strawmen, and suggesting that prosecution evidence and witnesses are de facto near infallible.
02-09-2016 , 02:49 AM
And again I maintain that while the hole in the vial may be normal, there are serious breaches of procedure involved with the vial and that evidence lockup.

We have on record that the log for entry to the evidence lockup was being bypassed plus the fact that it was sealed improperly to begin with.

While this wasn't enough to present the vial at trial this is just yet another example of questionable procedure and or ethics from this law enforcement department.
02-09-2016 , 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
That's fine and all, but you realize that case dealt with a victim that was the ex-wife of the accused, when the accused also had exceptional means and motive and the police had 0 (zero) motive to plant evidence. Oh...and OJ was found NOT GUILTY.

The contrast is unbelievably obvious.
All that is irrelevant. They still planted evidence and I acknowledge that. And yes, the police did have a motive to plant evidence.
02-09-2016 , 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackize5 Making a Murderer
Jesus. In poorskillz and fraley's world, the jury should accept all testimony and evidence as fact unless there is definitive proof that it is not fact. Somehow circumstantial stuff is enough to convict murderers all over the country but not enough to cast doubt on a piece of evidence or a prosecution witness's testimony.

Just lol at you people.
What are you talking about? All evidence is allowed to be challenged but the jury should not be jumping to conclusions based on speculation. What is confusing to everyone about this?
02-09-2016 , 04:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
All that is irrelevant. They still planted evidence and I acknowledge that. And yes, the police did have a motive to plant evidence.
Having means and motive are irrelevant in the Department of fraleyight's Justice.
02-09-2016 , 04:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Yep, the jury should probably not ignore a mountain of physical evidence
lolmountain. The only thing that can be measured in topographical terms is the propabilities of having been planted, false or otherwise illegitimate.
02-09-2016 , 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Having means and motive are irrelevant in the Department of fraleyight's Justice.
Not in the context of this conversation. You said we think it is impossible for cops to plant evidence and that we never reach that conclusion. I personally have, and I am giving you an example of a situation where I am convinced this happened. It is irrelevant why they planted evidence, I am telling you that I think they did. Which means, you are again wrong about me.
02-09-2016 , 04:17 AM
The 3 most important factors when investigating a murder?
Means.
Motive.
Opportunity.
The Mantiowoc3 most important factors when investigating a murder
Muddy.
Manipulate.
Oppress.
02-09-2016 , 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
^^ The 3 most important factors when investigating a murder?
Means.
Motive.
Opportunity.
The Mantiowoc3 most important factors when investigating a murder
Muddy.
Manipulate.
Oppress.
How do you guys consistently miss the point? jfc. My response was only to show him that I DO REACH THE CONCLUSION that evidence is sometimes planted by police
02-09-2016 , 04:24 AM
f5 f5 f5
02-09-2016 , 04:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Not in the context of this conversation. You said we think it is impossible for cops to plant evidence and that we never reach that conclusion. I personally have, and I am giving you an example of a situation where I am convinced this happened. It is irrelevant why they planted evidence, I am telling you that I think they did. Which means, you are again wrong about me.
There's no doubt I'm wrong about you. It's impossible to figure out what is going on over there, but something's not right. You're almost like a bot. Maybe you are on the Kenny Kratz book publishing world tour PR campaign or something but the fact that you can be so pro Manitowoc is just unreal.

I want to know more about this:

"And yes, the police did have a motive to plant evidence."

What motive did the cops in the OJ simpson trial have to plant evidence?
02-09-2016 , 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
It is irrelevant why they planted evidence, I am telling you that I think they did.

Care to recant a bunch of your posts from earlier in the thread based on this?
02-09-2016 , 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
What are you talking about? All evidence is allowed to be challenged but the jury should not be jumping to conclusions based on speculation. What is confusing to everyone about this?
This is your post earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.
Using the blood in the Rav 4 as an example:

We agree that the police have motive to plant evidence in this case
We agree that they have the means to plant this evidence
We agree that they have opportunity to plant this evidence

We have a specific suspect, Lenk.
We have the suspect lying about his "alibi"

Note that many a defendant has been convicted on similar facts

Then on top of this we have several other pieces of evidence found by the same suspect under less than ideal circumstances.

We have prosecutors lying to the public about manitiwoc's involvement in the case.

We have questionablelab procedures

We have questionable prosecutorial ethics.

Amidst so much circumstantial evidence, it's outrageous to maintain that thinking evidence was planted is just baseless speculation.

I take issue with the use of the word speculation in those jury instructions. Barring getting caught in the act or on video, the entire point of a case like this is to use bits of evidence to speculate on what happened and who was involved, forming a narrative of the crime.

Speculation is a necessary part of the process. Neither the prosecution nor the jury should be engaging in BASELESS speculation, and that is what is meant by speculation in the context of those jury instructions. In the context given this is obvious, but it warrants clarifying because some people in this thread continue to deliberately misunderstand plain English.
02-09-2016 , 10:13 AM
hi guys i see this thread has hit 5k posts. i assume u guys are close to reaching a consensus?
02-09-2016 , 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skillgambler Making a Murderer
hi guys i see this thread has hit 5k posts. i assume u guys are close to reaching a consensus?
That planting evidence is no big deal as long as the guy is guilty for sure
02-09-2016 , 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
There's no doubt I'm wrong about you. It's impossible to figure out what is going on over there, but something's not right. You're almost like a bot. Maybe you are on the Kenny Kratz book publishing world tour PR campaign or something but the fact that you can be so pro Manitowoc is just unreal.

I want to know more about this:

"And yes, the police did have a motive to plant evidence."

What motive did the cops in the OJ simpson trial have to plant evidence?
Idk if you understand what I am saying, but the motive here is not relevant because the only point of my response was to illustrate to you that I have reached the conclusion you are saying i can't reach.

Anyway, the detective in the OJ case was a racist, there was positive EDTA found in some of the blood, and he was later released from duty for doing something similar to this. The planting is one of the main things that allowed OJ to be found not guilty.

So his motive was obviously to make sure a black man gets convicted.
02-09-2016 , 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackize5 Making a Murderer
This is your post earlier.

Using the blood in the Rav 4 as an example:

We agree that the police have motive to plant evidence in this case
We agree that they have the means to plant this evidence
We agree that they have opportunity to plant this evidence

We have a specific suspect, Lenk.
We have the suspect lying about his "alibi"

Note that many a defendant has been convicted on similar facts

Then on top of this we have several other pieces of evidence found by the same suspect under less than ideal circumstances.

We have prosecutors lying to the public about manitiwoc's involvement in the case.

We have questionablelab procedures

We have questionable prosecutorial ethics.

Amidst so much circumstantial evidence, it's outrageous to maintain that thinking evidence was planted is just baseless speculation.

I take issue with the use of the word speculation in those jury instructions. Barring getting caught in the act or on video, the entire point of a case like this is to use bits of evidence to speculate on what happened and who was involved, forming a narrative of the crime.

Speculation is a necessary part of the process. Neither the prosecution nor the jury should be engaging in BASELESS speculation, and that is what is meant by speculation in the context of those jury instructions. In the context given this is obvious, but it warrants clarifying because some people in this thread continue to deliberately misunderstand plain English.
I don't agree Lenk had any of those things. You should read what others have said on this before continuing this conversation. If you think after reading some of the posts from me, revolts, angerpush and poorskillz that the police did have all those things then we will continue the discussion.

There is no other speculation but "baseless speculation" what are you talking about? Speculation by definition is reaching a conclusion without evidence.
02-09-2016 , 11:01 AM
I will just reiterate for you.

Lenk was only deposed because he told Colborn to fill out a report in 2003 about a phone call he received in 1998. That is Lenks only involvement in the 1985 case. He didn't know about colborns phone call until 2003. Lenk was not going to get sued or be named in the lawsuit.

The insurance for the county was going to pay for the lawsuit. The only insurance company that challenged the lawsuit was the personal insurance of one of the deputy's who was actually named in the lawsuit (the guy who drew the sketch of avery and didn't look into the lead colborn gave him in 1998 after the phone call) This insurance company ended up paying on the entire 400k he settled for anyway.
02-09-2016 , 11:12 AM
Lenk was in LE, they like to put the people the perceive as bad behind bars.

Also, he's not on trial, we don't need to prove motive. The defence doesn't have to prove anything.

There's no point in arguing anything, the 3 of our are all "police can do no wrong, conflict of what now?"

And the rest of use are here trying to reasonably discuss the case.

At least Skillz tries to understand what people are saying and form an argument sometimes.

I don't care if SA is guilty or innocent. If he comes out tomorrow and says "I killed her, it happened just like BD said it did", I'll still be here talking about how poorly the entire investigation was handled.
02-09-2016 , 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer

The insurance for the county was going to pay for the lawsuit. The only insurance company that challenged the lawsuit was the personal insurance of one of the deputy's who was actually named in the lawsuit (the guy who drew the sketch of avery and didn't look into the lead colborn gave him in 1998 after the phone call) This insurance company ended up paying on the entire 400k he settled for anyway.

Citationneeded.jpg

      
m