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

02-10-2016 , 05:45 PM
Also,

When did I defend Kratz? thats a ****ing lie.
02-10-2016 , 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Seen that this morning its a Classic...
02-10-2016 , 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I got a good one that comes to the top of my head. The scenes in the Okelly interview where he is telling BD to draw pictures of specific things. all the doc shows is him saying

"draw a picture of her being tied up"

"Draw a picture of the knife"

etc..

It does not show that in that very same interview he confesses all those things to him before he tells him to draw those things. It just makes it look like he brought branden in a room and fooled him into drawing those things.

There are several other things as well. The stuff with the blood vial? Making it appear that the hole on top of the vial is a big deal when that is common, there is actually a technical name for that hole (name escapes me) that is the hole made when the blood is taken.

The downplaying of SA's criminal history and the stuff he has done in the past.

I understand the real story wouldn't be as interesting as the story the doc told so I understand why they used their artistic license to tell the story in the way they did, but it still misleads people to an unnecessary conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
For you, it's called a "glory hole."

Anyhow, the film was not deceptive on that point at all.

1. The film was shot at the time the box was opened and it captured Strang's reaction as he believed that in addition to the fact the package had obviously been accessed that the hole was a big deal.

2. Then they clearly show Strang's and Jerome's problem with that evidence is that regardless of access, they have to establish the blood in the car was the same as in the vial.

3. So, you are merely introducing a red-herring. I doubt the defense argued that the hole meant anything, and therefore, the prosecution did not argue that the hole was common. Anyway, the issue with the hole is completely meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Unbelievable, so you are saying the doc showing that scene and just leaving the viewer to wonder if the hole in the tube meant anything isn't misleading? Especially when the defense didn't use it in court? How can you not see that they showed that to put doubt in our minds on where the blood came from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
You are wilfully ignorant of any other portion of the documentary that follows this up.

Strang though he had a smoking gun: recall his reaction when box was opened, and his phone call after "today was a really good day."

Contrasted with his later conversations with J.B. (who has a stronger grasp of the science issues) where Strang concedes it is NOT the smoking gun.

You are either dishonest or have the attention span of a sparrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
It was a 10 hr doc and no I do not recall that conversation with strang that you are referring too and apparently many others don't as well given all the quotes provided to you itt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
That doesn't mean said conversation was not in the film. It was.

Watch it again (for the first time).
Lol, ya oski and I didn't have this conversation lost..
02-10-2016 , 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Seen that this morning its a Classic...
the sad part is that it look better than the real one
02-10-2016 , 06:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I came itt with the doc fresh in my mind having saw it a week or so before I started posting.
^^Classic Fraley.. lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Also,

When did I defend Kratz? thats a ****ing lie.
I'll Give you this one fraley, at no time have I seen you defend this POS.

Gotta laugh at the Mantiomoc3 the last 50/60 posts You guys need to up your're game.


#TheChiefThemisstress&TheGimp
02-10-2016 , 07:03 PM
You know I fully believe that BD will get released at some point in the near future & tbh I.ve tried to look at the positive aspect of BD's case & lets face it he wasin't going to have a great life on the outside if this did not happen to him.
So he gets a bit of education inside, prob meets a few friends(The decent corrections officers ect) gets some routine in his life & peace of mind in that he has no bills.

When he gets released he's going to be quite a celeb, may get some money of the state(if not there is going to be some gofundme ACC set up plus Talk shows ect) & gonna get more action than all the peeps ITT. :/
Can't wait to see Kratz's face when BD is Balling it up with the ShowGirls from wrestlemania

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ho...4GK8eyjXqoM%3A

Last edited by smacc25; 02-10-2016 at 07:19 PM.
02-10-2016 , 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Kind of funny oski told me he believed I didn't watch the doc because I told him I didn't remember that scene.

Come to discover, the scene doesn't even exist lol.

#evolvingpositions
Which makes it strange that you are arguing with another poster about the meaning of the scene that "doesn't even exist."

Good one.

As to Poorskillz, I am not going to apologize for understanding from my watching of the documentary that the blood vial was not important due to its physical condition - in all cases, the blood inside had to be connected to the blood evidence in the car. By virtue of the improper seal, access was already established.

Poorskillz also does not seem to understand that a practicing attorney may understand things better than a layperson. I am not going to speak to the filmmaker's intent on this particular point, but I do understand she is an attorney (or at least trained as one) as well. Perhaps in her mind, the point was conveyed. Who knows?

In any event, I had a particular understanding of what that all meant from the doc. and I am not the only one.

I also am not sure how this issue is even relevant to the issue of whether SA got a fair trial. I mean, it would if the decision to grant a new trial was based on a viewership poll, but its not.
02-10-2016 , 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Lol, ya oski and I didn't have this conversation lost..
You forgot to include this excellent quote in that discussion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Also, you aptly made my point - you either watched the doc. with such extreme bias that you chose to ignore the portions that did not fit your agenda, or you simply did not watch very carefully.

Anyhow, the scene is in there - give it a gander.
which ironically describes Oski perfectly - he watched the doc. with such extreme bias that he chose to make up portions that did fit his agenda!

Also, the scene is not in there - Oski's a lying moron.
02-10-2016 , 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
You forgot to include this excellent quote in that discussion:



which ironically describes Oski perfectly - he watched the doc. with such extreme bias that he chose to make up portions that did fit his agenda!

Also, the scene is not in there - Oski's a lying moron.
You mean the scene that was identified by another poster? Okay.

I am sorry you were so badly tricked by those sneaky filmmakers. I guess you were worried sick that the "hole in the vial" would dash your dreams that Lenk is an honest investigator.
02-10-2016 , 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Which makes it strange that you are arguing with another poster about the meaning of the scene that "doesn't even exist."

Good one.
No sir, I remember the scene that they are talking about. I remember them saying something about the fbi coming up with a dishonest test. I do not however, remember the scene you are talking about and it apparently doesnt exist. This is ironic because you proceeded to make judgement calls about me because I didn't remember this scene.
02-10-2016 , 09:09 PM
Poorskills, Did colborn admit in court that he was a Customer at the Avery's because he liked to fix old cars?

Why would AC use the Avery yard for spares when the under sheriff has a yard?

Hmm I wonder if the averys have a record for AC before SA got released.

No wonder he lost the vote.

Last edited by smacc25; 02-10-2016 at 09:18 PM.
02-10-2016 , 10:23 PM
I'm grunching the hell out of this thread and am only on episode 4, but wow, just, holy ****ing **** wow...

I assume we're past the point of spoilers but I'll hide them anyhow:

Spoiler:
The kid's OWN GODDAMN LEGAL TEAM is coercing the same fraudulent statement from him, after it's been made even more clear the kid himself is denying the statement... My mind is officially blown.
02-10-2016 , 10:28 PM
Way past spoilers here.
02-11-2016 , 01:31 AM
In that case,

HOLY ****ING ****!
02-11-2016 , 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
In that case,

HOLY ****ING ****!
AKA "Damn Fine Police Work" - fruit snacks.
02-11-2016 , 03:23 AM
Making a Murderer Transcripts

I'm sure this is what PoorSkills uses to argue his absolutely useless points. Just so you guys are on the same page, I've provided a link to the entire docuseries transcript so you can see what episode and when exactly Brendan Dassey said "yeah" or anything else you want to confirm was said or not said or was mistaken from a later interview or w/e.
02-11-2016 , 09:36 AM
The only people who need to read transcripts are appeals courts and their new lawyers. The jury didn't read the transcripts only a few selected excerpts.

Acting like the transcripts are an accurate record of what the jury understood is to not understand the process but why should I expect anything different from poorskillz.
02-11-2016 , 09:41 AM
How are we supposed to know what actually stuck in the mind of the jury? We can't. The transcripts shows what they actually heard during the trial. Which parts they found reliable/convincing is up for discussion.
02-11-2016 , 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
How are we supposed to know what actually stuck in the mind of the jury? We can't. The transcripts shows what they actually heard during the trial. Which parts they found reliable/convincing is up for discussion.
This.

Markksman is a clown, and his last statement might be the most clown thing he's said yet lol.

Markksman (just like oski) just wants to be able to still feel knowledgeable on the case without having done any research, as he's used up all his "reasonsble doubt" essays.
02-11-2016 , 11:14 AM
Markksman is like a bad live player - "The transcripts are for nerds, I don't need all that useless data. I can feel when a trial is unfair by staring into Kratz's soul."
02-11-2016 , 11:50 AM
This isn't Other Other Transcripts. Also, I don't need to do research to know Michael Moore/Ken Kratz/Fraley are full of ****.

Last edited by TheJacob; 02-11-2016 at 11:56 AM.
02-11-2016 , 11:59 AM
I did research, and TheJacob is full of ****.

You guys can keep purposefully living in ignorance (the trial transcripts don't matter!) and cry about how unfair Avery's trial was and how he wasn't proven guilty... but you're wrong...
02-11-2016 , 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJacob Making a Murderer
This isn't Other Other Transcripts. Also, I don't need to do research to know Michael Moore/Ken Kratz/Fraley are full of ****.
The bolded part is true. this is technically a thread about the tv show making a murderer, since the tv show is documenting a real event, I think it is completely on topic to discuss the real event.

As for you needing to look into the information being provided to you to determine if we are full of ****. Yes you do. If you don't care, that is a completely different thing.
02-11-2016 , 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I did research, and TheJacob is full of ****.

You guys can keep purposefully living in ignorance (the trial transcripts don't matter!) and cry about how unfair Avery's trial was and how he wasn't proven guilty... but you're wrong...
You got me. I think Ed Edwards framed him and the cops helped cover it up.

In actuality I thought it was possible he was innocent after watching a biased documentary and now believe he is likely guilty.

Last edited by TheJacob; 02-11-2016 at 12:42 PM.
02-11-2016 , 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJacob Making a Murderer
You got me. I think Ed Edwards framed him and the cops helped cover it up.
And if you want to believe that, that's fine.

It's not based on the facts though, and you're wrong when you say fraley is full of ****.

      
m