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

02-12-2016 , 12:54 PM
Quote:
Havent read the thread through but does anyone actually believe Brendan had anything to do with the murder?
Well he did confess. He also told his cousin about it, which she then reported to a school counselor and then the authorities. The cousin then claimed she made it all up for no particular reason. He also told his mother on a recorded phone call.
02-12-2016 , 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Depends on what you mean by "leading scientific minds" but irrelevant to my point. We are talking about majority opinion, not expert opinion here anyway.
Yeah, but lostinthesaus was referencing expert opinion and you took the contrary. You're the flat-earther in your analogy.
02-12-2016 , 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
Yeah, but lostinthesaus was referencing expert opinion and you took the contrary. You're the flat-earther in your analogy.
"Moira and Laura, you were wrong"
"Netflix, you are wrong"
"Jerome and Dean, you were and are wrong"
"Kathy and Innocence Project Lawyer Bushnell you and your entire team are certainly wrong"
"All of reddit, WRONG".

Red= not expert
Lime green= bias, people defending SA

There are not unbiased expert opinions he has offered here. Just majority opinion, most of whom are layman.
02-12-2016 , 01:20 PM
I mean, I can do the same thing..

Ken Kratz, you are wrong

Innocence project pre doc you are wrong

The entire supreme court you are wrong

The Jury you are wrong

TH friends and family you are wrong

Etc..
02-12-2016 , 01:31 PM
It is also important to note that it is still an adpoulum argument unless he can demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of experts agree with him, like you would in the scientific method. that can't really be demonstrated here ever because law doesn't work the same way as science.
02-12-2016 , 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yimyammer Making a Murderer
Is anyone else bothered by the lack of defense shown for Brandon?

Seems like they could have gotten his charges drastically reduced by citing his age and that he was afraid of saying no to his uncle and merely went over to his uncles to deliver mail and got dragged into a nightmare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RollWave Making a Murderer
^^^ only person who thought Len Kachinsky could have been the hero of the story if only he hadn't been railroaded out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yimyammer Making a Murderer
I'm not following you amigo, could you explain please sir

Amazing
02-12-2016 , 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
"Moira and Laura, you were wrong"
"Netflix, you are wrong"
"Jerome and Dean, you were and are wrong"
"Kathy and Innocence Project Lawyer Bushnell you and your entire team are certainly wrong"
"All of reddit, WRONG".

Red= not expert
Lime green= bias, people defending SA

There are not unbiased expert opinions he has offered here. Just majority opinion, most of whom are layman.
Uh... I'll just assume there's been some misunderstanding somewhere and give you the benefit of the doubt, because you seem to be saying the people that made a 10 hour documentary on this topic are not experts, and I'm not sure how to respond to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I mean, I can do the same thing..

Ken Kratz, you are wrong

Innocence project pre doc you are wrong

The entire supreme court you are wrong

The Jury you are wrong

TH friends and family you are wrong

Etc..
Well it's a good thing some people didn't make a 10 hour documentary showing this wrongness otherwise this might be a holy false equivalency batman.
02-12-2016 , 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
Uh... I'll just assume there's been some misunderstanding somewhere and give you the benefit of the doubt, because you seem to be saying the people that made a 10 hour documentary on this topic are not experts, and I'm not sure how to respond to that.
That is correct. They are not experts. And on top of that they have a bias to make a good tv show.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
Well it's a good thing some people didn't make a 10 hour documentary showing this wrongness otherwise this might be a holy false equivalency batman.
So if someone is willing to make a doc you automatically take their opinion as reliable? So the people who made loose change are experts and we should agree that 9-11 was an inside job? How many fallacies can someone commit in one post. Mind boggling.
02-12-2016 , 02:12 PM
Just 30 days to go.

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article...ing-a-murderer

Quote:
Kathleen Zellner believes she will be able to achieve the total exoneration of Mr Avery with the presentation of this new evidence. “We are confident Mr. Avery’s conviction will be vacated when we present the new evidence and results of our work to the appropriate court.
We don't need no stinkin' retrial!
02-12-2016 , 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjosh Making a Murderer
After the appeal is filed how long does a response generally take? We should all get some side bets going.
02-12-2016 , 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
The evidence was planted, contaminated, lied about, established through coercion and "guessing" and otherwise false.

Did you see the documentary? Have you opened any internet page ever regarding Making a Murderer*?

*does not include stevenaverycase.com
I'm taking into account the questions raised in the documentary about various pieces of evidence. Note that it's possible that evidence was planted but Avery is still guilty.

The defended raised a certain degree of doubt. The question is whether it surpasses the threshold of reasonable doubt. It's certainly possible to make the argument that it does.

My point is that the debate should be between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "probably guilty but sufficient doubt to acquit."
02-12-2016 , 02:24 PM
02-12-2016 , 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Making a Murderer
Source? Or is this pulled out of your ass? A quick Google search for polls on this matter generally have about 70% people saying he's not guilty, so please show your work.
Oh, you did a quick Google search? Want a brownie or something?
02-12-2016 , 02:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Info distortion itt. Who? This guy. I like the "born with excuses tho" part best.
If by distortion you mean perfectly detailed, then yeah
02-12-2016 , 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjosh Making a Murderer
Just 30 days to go.

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article...ing-a-murderer



We don't need no stinkin' retrial!
So she's pinning the entire appeal on the luminol testing? Good luck with that.
02-12-2016 , 03:09 PM
Funny,

I thought she had new evidence before she took the case? Why is she basing testing that she did after taking the case for her appeal? And what exactly does she think Luminol testing is going to prove 15 years later?

I am legit surprised people don't see this for what it is.
02-12-2016 , 03:11 PM
they talk about some evidence, it s unlikely to be luminol related
02-12-2016 , 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
they talk about some evidence, it s unlikely to be luminol related
Quote:
The key piece of new evidence Zellner will present is said to be provided by advanced Luminol testing. Luminol reactions are used to detect blood residue that is unseen to the naked eye, by reacting in such a way that stains become visible under a blacklight. Itís basically the trick that youíve seen in every episode of CSI/Silent Witness/NCIS ever: but for some reason no one has ever thought to use it until now. Go figure.

This will allegedly prove the complete historical absence of Teresaís blood from key areas of the Averyís property, proving that Teresa Halbach was killed in neither Stevenís trailer, nor his garage, as former State Prosecutor Ken Kratz had claimed.
I don't see any other evidence mentioned, at least not in that linked article.
02-12-2016 , 03:19 PM
I dont think she mentioned anything and it s pure journalist speculation, I cannot see what luminol could bring as a new evidence when she keep talking about potentialy identifying the real murderer, now it s very possible she is full of **** but that doesnt seems likely to be from the luminol itself that the evidence will come from, most likely she used luminol to check some possible theories and that s it
02-12-2016 , 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
I dont think she mentioned anything and it s pure journalist speculation, I cannot see what luminol could bring as a new evidence when she keep talking about potentialy identifying the real murderer, now it s very possible she is full of **** but that doesnt seems likely to be from the luminol itself that the evidence will come from, most likely she used luminol to check some possible theories and that s it
This is a possibility I suppose.
02-12-2016 , 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Oh, you did a quick Google search? Want a brownie or something?
Yes, but not from you. So you just made it up?
02-12-2016 , 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
I don't think this is true. I would guess most people believe him to be guilty.
^

This isn't him making anything up. He is just telling us what he thinks is correct. Nowhere does he say this is fact or that he is sure it is true.
02-12-2016 , 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
That is correct. They are not experts. And on top of that they have a bias to make a good tv show.




Ok, well, I think we have wildly different opinions on what it means to be a relative expert of something in context.

I also think we have wildly different definitions of 'bias'.
02-12-2016 , 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
So she's pinning the entire appeal on the luminol testing? Good luck with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Funny,

I thought she had new evidence before she took the case? Why is she basing testing that she did after taking the case for her appeal? And what exactly does she think Luminol testing is going to prove 15 years later?

I am legit surprised people don't see this for what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
I dont think she mentioned anything and it s pure journalist speculation
Eddymitchel is right for once - that article is complete trash. The only quotes from Zellner in the article are taken from the same standard email reply she's been sending out since a month ago.

I'm really intrigued as to how Zellner eventually exits this case though:

will it be a loud proclamation that the justice system is so corrupt that even the Great Zellner can't save Steven?

or silently drifting away and distancing herself from the case over the course of several years?

or will she be able to pull off her greatest magic trick yet?
02-12-2016 , 04:32 PM
Or maybe she just does what she does best and overturns wrongful convictions?

      
m