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

02-12-2016 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
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'.
An expert is someone who is a scholar or at least has a qualified opinion on the subject. I just looked up the credentials of both directors and one does have a JD so they do have knowledge of the legal process. But again, you are missing the point. The point is saying "everyone agrees with me so I must be right" is a logical fallacy.

And of course they have bias. They want to make a good tv show.
02-12-2016 , 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Or maybe she just does what she does best and overturns wrongful convictions?
Although you would admit, it would be quite a bit harder for her to overturn a rightful conviction, no?

She does not know for sure he is innocent so she may be wasting her time looking for evidence that isn't there. Like Buting and Strang waiting on the EDTA test on the blood in the car.
02-12-2016 , 04:55 PM
But fraley I had to make a separate post for this as it's so weird and amazing to me:

Quote:

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.
So while you were making the above post I was reading this thread from the ground floor and I came across PoorSkillz' 2nd (3rd?) post in the thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'm not going to argue with people who automatically assume anyone who accused Steven Avery is either lying or was coerced, just like I wouldn't argue with someone who believes in Ancient Aliens, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. (as there's no room for logical discussion).
I was thinking of how it's a weird phenomenon where people who are clearly incorrect use these analogies that are actually very good and apt, they just put themselves on the wrong side. You've arguably done this once, so I was going to point this post out to you, but as I was about to reply I noticed you had made the same analogy in the interim! That's crazy to me.

But don't think the non-bolded is not equally bizarre. It ties into the point, and I'm meeting you halfway by half ignoring how childishly strawmannish the question is phrased:

"So if someone is willing to make a doc you automatically take their opinion as reliable?"

So, the answer is no. I do however use my real non-crazy eyes and ears (Louis CK) to see and listen to what's actually being documented, regardless of the documentarian's opinion. As in, the sane and rational people saw multiple LEO's perjure themselves multiple times, for a start. These things were documented, no speculation or fantastic hypotheses required. Do you not see how you're the 9/11 truther in this analogy?

If you have one party seeking truth and justice and the other party lying, the truthier party doesn't have 'a bias in favor of the truth'. Well, maybe technically they do in theory, but in practice it's an absurd definition.
02-12-2016 , 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
But fraley I had to make a separate post for this as it's so weird and amazing to me:



So while you were making the above post I was reading this thread from the ground floor and I came across PoorSkillz' 2nd (3rd?) post in the thread:



I was thinking of how it's a weird phenomenon where people who are clearly incorrect use these analogies that are actually very good and apt, they just put themselves on the wrong side. You've arguably done this once, so I was going to point this post out to you, but as I was about to reply I noticed you had made the same analogy in the interim! That's crazy to me.

But don't think the non-bolded is not equally bizarre. It ties into the point, and I'm meeting you halfway by half ignoring how childishly strawmannish the question is phrased:

"So if someone is willing to make a doc you automatically take their opinion as reliable?"

So, the answer is no. I do however use my real non-crazy eyes and ears (Louis CK) to see and listen to what's actually being documented, regardless of the documentarian's opinion. As in, the sane and rational people saw multiple LEO's perjure themselves multiple times, for a start. These things were documented, no speculation or fantastic hypotheses required. Do you not see how you're the 9/11 truther in this analogy?

If you have one party seeking truth and justice and the other party lying, the truthier party doesn't have 'a bias in favor of the truth'. Well, maybe technically they do in theory, but in practice it's an absurd definition.
One question before I continue ignoring your ramblings: have you read the transcripts? (it's rhetorical, you don't have to answer)
02-12-2016 , 05:19 PM
Also, it's often mentioned how successful Zellner has been in the past (and she has been, I agree). But you people do realize she's not a god and has walked away from cases she was involved with in the past, right?
02-12-2016 , 05:21 PM
I have a hard time seeing Zellner's luminol test that shows TH blood was never there to be grounds for exoneration or retrial. Must be more than that. If just that, she's grasping at straws.
02-12-2016 , 05:22 PM
My opinion on this case isn't based just on the doc so no I am not the 9-11 truther in this analogy. I can recognize bias and look into claims made by the innocent crowd and realize how ridiculous they are. You however, are refusing to grasp that it would be next to impossible for all this evidence to be planted, the motive to plant all this evidence is week, and there is actual evidence that some of the evidence couldn't have been planted. Such as the blood.
02-12-2016 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
[ ] it would be next to impossible for all this evidence to be planted

[ ] the motive to plant all this evidence is week

[ ]there is actual evidence that some of the evidence couldn't have been planted. Such as the blood.
fyp
02-12-2016 , 05:30 PM
Very loose usage of the Word evidences here for sure.
No there's no evidence that the blood hasnt been planted.
02-12-2016 , 05:32 PM
The motive to plant evidence is week? Oh you mean weak. If you believe that statement you should stop posting in this thread boss.
02-12-2016 , 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
fyp
The bones
The car
The bullet
The key
The blood
The cellphone/pda
Dna of TH

IYO it is not extremely unlikely all of this was planted? And that is just the physical evidence we have mountains of circumstantial evidence here.

There is little motive for Lenk to plant evidence here. I have already established this, his role in the civil case was only to testify against one of the cops being named in the lawsuit. He was a witness for SA.

The blood had no edta, had consistent stains as was found in SA grand prix and some was caused by dripping.
02-12-2016 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisGunBGud Making a Murderer
The motive to plant evidence is week? Oh you mean weak. If you believe that statement you should stop posting in this thread boss.
Lenk is the one that found a lot of this evidence you guys think was planted. Lenk was testifying on avery's behalf. Why would he help with SA's lawsuit then try and frame him?
02-12-2016 , 05:36 PM
To elaborate.

Difficulty scale of planting each piece of evidence. Scale from 1 - 10.
1 = no difficulty, very easy. 10 = extremely difficult, near impossible.

RAV4 - anyone could've easily put it there. 1

Hood latch DNA - 5 to plant. 5 for accidental transfer while held in police custody for months.

Blood - two possibilities here...

A) It came from the vial. 1

i) If it came from the vial, this means the EDTA test had to be unreliable. We'll give this a 5.

B) Steven's blood was found elsewhere, ie. a rag and smeared on the car. 7

Bullet - planting the bullet requires zero effort. 1.
The bullet having TH DNA requires a terribly controlled lab, which we have. Even under poor control, still requires accidental or intentional contact with TH DNA. 5

Key - After 7 searches (4 hours of) - 1.
SA DNA on key, but no TH or anyone else on key. Found/planted in SA's room. Lab contamination. 3.

Bones - Avery et al were gone for days. Planting the bones could've been done by children. 1.
02-12-2016 , 05:37 PM
Still no evidence it was not planted. You could argue that the defense had inconclusive evidence that it was instead of arguing a stupid stance as usual.
02-12-2016 , 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
To elaborate.

Difficulty scale of planting each piece of evidence. Scale from 1 - 10.
1 = no difficulty, very easy. 10 = extremely difficult, near impossible.

RAV4 - anyone could've easily put it there. 1

Hood latch DNA - 5 to plant. 5 for accidental transfer while held in police custody for months.

Blood - two possibilities here...

A) It came from the vial. 1

i) If it came from the vial, this means the EDTA test had to be unreliable. We'll give this a 5.

B) Steven's blood was found elsewhere, ie. a rag and smeared on the car. 7

Bullet - planting the bullet requires zero effort. 1.
The bullet having TH DNA requires a terribly controlled lab, which we have. Even under poor control, still requires accidental or intentional contact with TH DNA. 5

Key - After 7 searches (4 hours of) - 1.
SA DNA on key, but no TH or anyone else on key. Found/planted in SA's room. Lab contamination. 3.

Bones - Avery et al were gone for days. Planting the bones could've been done by children. 1.

LMAOOOOOOOO

edit: This is truly amazing. I don't know what's more ludicrous - "Steven's blood was found elsewhere, ie. a rag and smeared on the car" getting only a 7 or "Planting the bones could've been done by children" and a 1.
02-12-2016 , 05:43 PM
Lets focus on the blood. What do you think the likelihood is they find a rag with dripping blood? Wet blood.. Remember, avery wasn't at his property for a few days after oct 31st so how was there wet blood? Some of the blood found in the rav 4 was caused from dripping.
02-12-2016 , 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
An expert is someone who is a scholar or at least has a qualified opinion on the subject. I just looked up the credentials of both directors and one does have a JD so they do have knowledge of the legal process. But again, you are missing the point. The point is saying "everyone agrees with me so I must be right" is a logical fallacy.

And of course they have bias. They want to make a good tv show.
I'm not missing the point. I'm aware it's a fallacy and YOU'RE the one saying it. I just don't think you realize it because the application is slightly more abstract.

It's like this: the biggest thing preventing anybody from accepting what they see in this documentary is the notion that Cops Are The Good Guys and they generally don't do **** like this. That's the status quo, the "everyone agrees with me so..."

People have been convicted of murder, not to mention lesser crimes, based on far less evidence than the evidence concerning the planted evidence. Just look at the basis for SA being a prime suspect in this case, that he was the last one to see TH alive, and apply it to the magic key. A bunch of non-corrupt officers search, find nothing, then an officer proven to be corrupt, who wasn't even supposed to be at the scene, comes in and finds the key. In any sane world that's an immediate criminal investigation. The only preventing this is our bias in favor of the police (and everybody agrees...) the good guys.
02-12-2016 , 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
I'm not missing the point. I'm aware it's a fallacy and YOU'RE the one saying it. I just don't think you realize it because the application is slightly more abstract.

It's like this: the biggest thing preventing anybody from accepting what they see in this documentary is the notion that Cops Are The Good Guys and they generally don't do **** like this. That's the status quo, the "everyone agrees with me so..."

People have been convicted of murder, not to mention lesser crimes, based on far less evidence than the evidence concerning the planted evidence. Just look at the basis for SA being a prime suspect in this case, that he was the last one to see TH alive, and apply it to the magic key. A bunch of non-corrupt officers search, find nothing, then an officer proven to be corrupt, who wasn't even supposed to be at the scene, comes in and finds the key. In any sane world that's an immediate criminal investigation. The only preventing this is our bias in favor of the police (and everybody agrees...) the good guys.
That is not what I am saying. I am fully aware cops plant evidence and that evidence can be planted. There is no evidence of it here and no reason to assume such an event took place. Not to mention the stretch you need to make to say some of this evidence was planted.
02-12-2016 , 05:48 PM
For example, even with the evidence that some of the stuff in the OJ case was planted I still would have convicted him and he still should have been convicted. Unfortunately for you however, there is 0 evidence anything was planted here.
02-12-2016 , 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
IYO it is not extremely unlikely all of this was planted? And that is just the physical evidence we have mountains of circumstantial evidence here.
LoL, I was just typing out a detailed response to one of your previous replies and then got bored and scrapped it but in it I was highlighting the point you just made here. I think this statement really sums up my whole attitude and opinion on the case right now. Even if we look past all the physical evidence in this case; SO MUCH of the circumstantial evidence points towards Steven Avery as being a prime suspect for this crime.
02-12-2016 , 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
One question before I continue ignoring your ramblings: have you read the transcripts? (it's rhetorical, you don't have to answer)
Wait which transcript? This one?



Judge Hank "The Hangman" BMW: Now prosecutor, why you think he done it?

Prosecutor: 'Kay. Number one your honor, just look at him. And B, we've got all this, like, evidence, of how, like, this guy didn't even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo.

[crowd boos]

Prosecutor: I know! And I'm all, 'you've gotta be ****tin' me!' But check this out man, judge should be like

[bangs fist on table]

Prosecutor: 'guilty!' Peace.
02-12-2016 , 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
Wait which transcript? This one?



Judge Hank "The Hangman" BMW: Now prosecutor, why you think he done it?

Prosecutor: 'Kay. Number one your honor, just look at him. And B, we've got all this, like, evidence, of how, like, this guy didn't even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo.

[crowd boos]

Prosecutor: I know! And I'm all, 'you've gotta be ****tin' me!' But check this out man, judge should be like

[bangs fist on table]

Prosecutor: 'guilty!' Peace.
I don't know if you are aware of how the legal system works in the united states but there are actually 12 citizens that decide if he is guilty. It isn't the judge and prosecutor meeting over lunch to determine this.
02-12-2016 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Lenk is the one that found a lot of this evidence you guys think was planted. Lenk was testifying on avery's behalf. Why would he help with SA's lawsuit then try and frame him?
Did he have a choice in "helping" with the lawsuit?

Just because someone is required to testify and tell the truth doesn't mean they like it. I don't know what the circumstances were exactly so please clarify.
02-12-2016 , 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJacob Making a Murderer
Did he have a choice in "helping" with the lawsuit?]

Just because someone is required to testify and tell the truth doesn't mean they like it.
Sure, he could have lied, not filed any report and said Colborn never brought the call to his attention in 2003. He could have told colborn to forget about it when Lenk was informed in 2003.
02-12-2016 , 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
That is not what I am saying. I am fully aware cops plant evidence and that evidence can be planted. There is no evidence of it here and no reason to assume such an event took place. Not to mention the stretch you need to make to say some of this evidence was planted.
Fair enough, but notice I said 'our bias' and not 'your bias'. Cops do plant evidence but based on the pure numbers the vast majority of them do not, so the bias we have in favor of them, the benefit of the doubt we give them, is logical, even if it apparently varies by great degrees. I guess we're just at an impasse if you honestly think there's 'no reason to assume such an event took place' here.

      
m