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

02-09-2016 , 03:30 PM
You cant in the same breath said this all stems from manitiwoc particpating in the investigation while also questioning manitiwoc PDs behavior before calumet took over. Lol
02-09-2016 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Blackize,

It seems that if you believe what you are saying then it seems like you think SA should never be found guilty without a confession or reliable eye witness testimony?


It seems like you are saying SA can never be on trial in manitiwoc county without a cloud over all evidence.
I think if the county acknowledges that there is a perceived conflict of interest and describes the steps they're taking to avoid it being an issue, I expect them to adhere to that. When they don't and the circumstances surrounding every piece of evidence they find is questionable then no I don't think he can be found guilty.

I think it's fair to ask the county to tread extremely carefully when investigating and prosecuting a man they have already wrongfully convicted once. That could mean active body cameras required for anyone engaged in a search. Or it could mean requesting outside resources to perform the investigation, which they did, and staying out of things and letting those resources handle it, which they failed to do.
02-09-2016 , 03:35 PM
Active body cameras? What year do you think this was?
02-09-2016 , 03:36 PM
Not every cop, but planting evidence and lying is common enough that advancement of career, meeting quotas, or just ensuring that people they *think* are guilty go to prison is enough motive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/ny...lice.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/op...nder-oath.html

There doesn't need to be part of a $36M lawsuit hanging over their heads.
02-09-2016 , 03:38 PM
I d like to know how often they have to use babysitters for investigators.
That fact alone would give me a huge doubt about any evidence found.
02-09-2016 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
You cant in the same breath said this all stems from manitiwoc particpating in the investigation while also questioning manitiwoc PDs behavior before calumet took over. Lol
"Confession" and Kratz going on TV saying he is guilty before he was found guilty changed the atmosphere.

His being framed in the past the same police prosecuting him again changed the atmosphere.

It doesn't matter if he did the crime or not. It is allowing evidence to be heard in an impartial fashion that was compromised.
02-09-2016 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
"Confession" and Kratz going on TV saying he is guilty before he was found guilty changed the atmosphere.

His being framed in the past the same police prosecuting him again changed the atmosphere.

It doesn't matter if he did the crime or not. It is allowing evidence to be heard in an impartial fashion that was compromised.
I understand this. I was laughing at the hypocritical stance epeg was taking.

The sepculation of manitiwoc planting/misconduct woukd havr occured no matter what is my point.
02-09-2016 , 04:10 PM
Just because you say something is hypocritical doesn't mean it is.

What are you even talking about.

MC DA goes on TV on Nov 5th and says they are handing over the investigation to CC.

When was the key found?
02-09-2016 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
No, it isn't. They mean that the jurors should not unreasonably jump to their own conclusions. They shouldn't be like "well, that guy is a ginger, so he probably did it". Or "****ing cops, they're all pigs, clearly they planted evidence". Those things would be unreasonable.

If the judge thought the defense's line of questioning/suggesting that evidence was planted was unreasonable/unfounded, he wouldn't have allowed it in court. He did. Therefore the jury is allowed to weigh that into their decision making.

I know all of this is very hard for you to understand. Try being reasonable about it.
Yes, I know that is what it means. What is different between what you said and what I said? You realize this would mean different things to different people right?
02-09-2016 , 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana Making a Murderer
Lol might want to read the first pages of the first link there Fraley.

Hahahahahaha
The first link is the insurance company of one of the sheriffs arguing against paying coverage. What do you want me to read here?
02-09-2016 , 04:32 PM
I mean in your guys world its almost as if SA could just do whatever he wanted since this motive and means would always exist in your mind.
02-09-2016 , 04:33 PM
Efrompegtown,

How often have you argued the colburn did something sketchy regarding yhe license plate check that happened prior to that?

You cant in the same breath say we wouldnt be having this conversation about MC misconduct if they removed themselves completely from the investigstion like they said they would while also discussing the colburn phone call as suspicious and likely pointing to misconduct and lying.

You being hypocritical allows me to call you hypocritical.

Also i hope you noticed the quote i researched for you on your request regarding your statements of bias. I assume you ignoring it means you are admitting you are currently trying to paint a rosier picture of your statements then what actuall happened?
02-09-2016 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
The first link is the insurance company of one of the sheriffs arguing against paying coverage. What do you want me to read here?
There are two separate and distinct potential duties at issue:

1. Coverage (will the claim be paid); and

2. Defense (does the insurance co. have a duty to defend).

The insurance co. has a clear exclusion for number one; the real issue in the declaratory relief action was over the duty to defend. If insurance company prevails on that, it will not provide a defense and the insured has to foot his own bill. That is significant.
02-09-2016 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
How often have you argued the colburn did something sketchy regarding yhe license plate check that happened prior to that?

You cant in the same breath say we wouldnt be having this conversation about MC misconduct if they removed themselves completely from the investigstion like they said they would while also discussing the colburn phone call as suspicious and likely pointing to misconduct and lying.
Yeah, I thought one of the main defense theories is that Colborn found the car on November 3rd and then him and Lenk planted all the evidence?

The whole "MCSD is involved in the investigation" thing can explain the key, but it doesn't really explain how something like the bones were planted. I thought the theories were either that it was the "true killer" who planted that or that the cops planted everything before November 5th.

Whoever it was, the theory is still possible even if MCSD never officially participated in the investigation at all.
02-09-2016 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Yes, I know that is what it means. What is different between what you said and what I said? You realize this would mean different things to different people right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I mean in your guys world its almost as if SA could just do whatever he wanted since this motive and means would always exist in your mind.
I don't really understand what you're asking.
02-09-2016 , 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Efrompegtown,

How often have you argued the colburn did something sketchy regarding yhe license plate check that happened prior to that?

You cant in the same breath say we wouldnt be having this conversation about MC misconduct if they removed themselves completely from the investigstion like they said they would while also discussing the colburn phone call as suspicious and likely pointing to misconduct and lying.

You being hypocritical allows me to call you hypocritical.
Ok, it likely wouldn't have been near as big an issue had they actually recused themselves. I apologize for using the incorrect vernacular.

Quote:
Also i hope you noticed the quote i researched for you on your request regarding your statements of bias. I assume you ignoring it means you are admitting you are currently trying to paint a rosier picture of your statements then what actuall happened?
My stance hasn't and didn't change.
02-09-2016 , 04:52 PM
Next time dont type lololololool and then blatantly contradict your previous stances in this thread. Its a bad look

And lol at you not changing. You went from saying all yhe bias came from the prosecution denying to particpate to saying some and acting like you admitted there were other biases.
02-09-2016 , 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
You cant in the same breath said this all stems from manitiwoc particpating in the investigation while also questioning manitiwoc PDs behavior before calumet took over. Lol
A large part of this stems from them basically giving 0 ****s. Right down to having colburn do the Perp walk with these guys.

Think its fair to be suspicious when they say they won't participate then do it anyway. Not so much when they are investigating a missing person in their own county.
02-09-2016 , 04:52 PM
This exchange sums up efrompegtown:


Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Let me expand on what I said a bit.

Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It's a doubt for which a reason can be given, based on fair and rational consideration of evidence or lack of evidence. It means doubt that would cause a reasonable person to pause or hesitate when deciding if someone is guilty.

However, a reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. If it's based merely on sympathy or fear to return a guilty verdict then it's not reasonable doubt. Yeah, it's the jury's duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, but the jury should not search for doubt, the jury should search for the truth.


Do you still disagree? If so, why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
You're not getting it. The jury is not on a truth seeking mission.

Their entire role in the process is to consider all evidence/testimony provided at trial, and determine whether or not the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

No truth seeking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer



Ok thanks guys. I was actually just basing these thoughts on reasonable doubt from an excerpt of the judge's instructions to the jury during the Avery Trial. As you guys have pointed out though, this is clearly wrong. I guess the judge didn't know what he was talking about. Thank you again for providing your expert input and clearing this up for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
So, basically everything I said is in that first paragraph.

I don't really see where you're going with this?

The above exchange sums up efrompegtown.
02-09-2016 , 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
There are two separate and distinct potential duties at issue:



1. Coverage (will the claim be paid); and



2. Defense (does the insurance co. have a duty to defend).



The insurance co. has a clear exclusion for number one; the real issue in the declaratory relief action was over the duty to defend. If insurance company prevails on that, it will not provide a defense and the insured has to foot his own bill. That is significant.

It's as if Fraley doesn't read or understand the things he posts.
02-09-2016 , 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
No truth seeking.
The above quote sums up efrompegtown.
02-09-2016 , 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJacob Making a Murderer
A large part of this stems from them basically giving 0 ****s. Right down to having colburn do the Perp walk with these guys.

Think its fair to be suspicious when they say they won't participate then do it anyway.
I agree. Dont forget i am on team not guilty. I just enjoy calling out saus, efrompegtown, and smacc when they say hilariously stupid things because everyone likes ganging up on team guilty because they disgree with them.

Both super active sides are hilarious.
02-09-2016 , 05:05 PM
This is what fraley posted:

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.
While I don't agree the insurance was definitely going to pay for the lawsuit (and this isn't for the guy who drew the sketch, he meant the former sheriff Koceurek) he's right in that we only have evidence of the sheriff's personal insurance refusing to pay (as the county's insurance is supposed to cover him instead, unless he was acting outside of the scope of his employment). He's also right that the insurance company covered the settlement.
02-09-2016 , 05:05 PM
I'd be curious if SA had a good lawyer when this all went down if he has a chance of stopping them via legal means from participating.

If so it seems to me their statement should then be legally binding.
02-09-2016 , 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
I agree. Dont forget i am on team not guilty. I just enjoy calling out saus, efrompegtown, and smacc when they say hilariously stupid things because everyone likes ganging up on team guilty because they disgree with them.

Both super active sides are hilarious.
Bumping this, since you never answered it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
CCuster, what are your thoughts on this article?

I understand saying you can't know one way or another, as you have not seen the information.

But in many cases there comes a time when, after weighing all the information, "the middle ground" is clearly wrong.
http://www.techinsider.io/making-mur...quality-2016-1

      
m