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

02-17-2016 , 05:58 AM
on 2nd thought I can resist

Last edited by 5ive; 02-17-2016 at 06:00 AM. Reason: resist!
02-17-2016 , 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
In before, Pagel issues a press release stating the article left out many important facts favoring the investigators.
"he killed a cat and molested his cousin"
Stop with that conflict of interest non sense

Fun fact i saw on reddit the manitowoc coroner was barred from the crime scene. The people with conflict of interest were not.
02-17-2016 , 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I would be interested if there is even a case where someone was exonerated with their blood found on something of the victims and where the victims remains were found on the suspects property.
Total coincidence as I was probably not gonna bother with this string, but:

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/judg...murder-n458916

It's not what people traditionally think of as exoneration (omg DNA points to real killer!) but it qualifies.

Here's the kicker: lostinthsaus mentioned this exact case ITT earlier, and linked the dateline episode about it.

I'd saved the link in my bookmarks so I popped it open to see if the case was famous or obscure (the episode was simply titled 'Game Night' and I was hoping it concerned a murder with the actual Clue game pieces... the Faria case was semi-famous, though not nearly enough) and not even thinking about the post I quoted, so triplelol/sigh at this little twist of fate and Failey starting with 'Hur durr I would be interested...'

Mother****er no you wouldn't be stop lying.

Maybe somebody else is though.

The other answer to the question is yes of course there are, and maybe tomorrow I can post some and Failey can point out how they're all false equivalencies. That'll be fun.
02-17-2016 , 07:59 AM
I'm glad we've found yet another poster to spew all over this thread.

Thanks, 5ive, for keeping this steaming pile of rhinoceros turd not only rolling down the mountain, but continuing to gain speed.

I'm sticking to the conclusion that reasonable people reached a long time ago: a decent, probably >50% chance that SA was involved somehow, but the evidence was way too shaky for the verdict that was delivered.

I just felt like somebody should restate the obvious, maybe once every thousand posts or so.

Carry on.
02-17-2016 , 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
p.s. Do you still want to know why only BD's first confession matters or were you trolling with that question? You wouldn't do that, right? You had read the thread and seen it explained it many times, just needed somebody else to paraphrase it again so you could get it, right?

Honestly that's something I wanted to discuss about for awhile now but with all the intellectual dishonesty and/or outright trolling it's not easy.
I wanted to hear your explanation.

I disagree. Also, I simply don't have the time to thoroughly read every single post itt. I do what I can. It's not something that is a fact; rather, it's an opinion how many confessions should be considered. I wanted your perspective.

The poster itt I dislike the most is LITS based on his absolute certainty of innocence and the condescending way he talks to people. I truly think him being 99%+ sure of innocence is stupid and naive.
02-17-2016 , 12:27 PM
Good reddit post (that I completely agree with) regarding the defense not doing an EDTA test:

Quote:
Is there a source you can point to on this? I've only seen the defense say they wanted to test for EDTA in the media, outside of court. And they claimed they couldn't get anyone to do it, which is kind of silly if you know anything about the test method and the very common equipment needed to do it. Any commercial lab or even a university could have done this test for a fee.

"The defence wanted to use EDTA testing at the start of the trial but the judge refused to allow."

I see this quoted a lot but I think it might be a confusion on the judge's pre-trial motion for a continuance (made by the prosecution) to allow the prosecution time to do the test. The defense objected and said they wanted to proceed to trial unless Avery was released on bond for the period of the delay. The judge did not allow the continuance, but in his ruling he said he was not making a judgment on the admissibility of EDTA testing, and indicated it might be admissible under Wisconsin laws.

The only time I have ever found the defense asking the judge for the opportunity to test is after the FBI showed up with their results. They requested they be allowed either a continuance or a mistrial so that they could now do their own testing. In the judge's ruling at the end of Day16 of the trial he basically called bull**** on the defense, citing that they reasonably could have known of the existence of the blood vial as early as June 2006 (it was shown on an inventory list of a box they knew existed). They chose not to pursue testing. They waited to actually "discover" the blood vial on the red letter day in front of the cameras in mid-December. This date was only days before the deadline imposed by the judge on the introduction of new evidence to be used at trial. The defense chose not to pursue testing. The timing made it almost not possible for the prosecution to pursue their own testing, hence their request for a continuance. If the defense wanted to test at that time, they could have agreed to the continuance and both sides could have tested at the same time. The defense chose not to pursue testing. Once the trial was underway, the prosecution got the judge to allow the blood vial to be sent to the FBI for testing. The defense knew the testing was being attempted by the prosecution. The defense chose not to pursue testing.

So the judge basically said that the defense had made a strategic decision to not test for EDTA, and had assumed the prosecution would not be able to test. He said that was a rational decision and strategy, but he wouldn't allow them to change horses after 15 days of testimony by granting a mistrial and starting the whole thing anew at a later date.

The defense decision to not pursue testing for EDTA is really a revealing insight into whether they believed their own framing narrative. If the RAV4 blood came from the vial and has EDTA they have absolute proof of the frame-up and Avery walks. The only other two documented cases using EDTA testing in the courts were to the benefit of the defendant. And yet the defense very steadfastly refused to pursue testing, and tried to block the prosecution testing.
02-17-2016 , 01:19 PM
Just finished the show

My questions:

1. Why was there no trace of her blood anywhere in his house or garage?

2. If SA was able to meticulously clean the crime scene, why was he not able to wipe away plain view blood in the car, or clean blood off the bullets?

3. Why was her blood in the car to begin with?

4. Would SA be dumb enough to hide the car near the entrance of his salvage yard and allow a police search?

5. What was the prosecutions "story" of how the murder took place, and motive?


Not sure if he is guilty or not but does seem to be enough doubt for me to not convict at this point.
02-17-2016 , 01:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
No the **** we can't. The thread is about a show that raises a question if a man was framed. The topic of the thread is that show. If you choose to derail the thread into general police corruption, which would encompass something even as small as giving someone a parking ticket when they are only going 5 miles over the speed limit then be my guest. I won't be participating in any discourse of the sort.
Beautiful.

Carry on....
02-17-2016 , 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
I truly think him being 99%+ sure of innocence is stupid and naive.
Do you agree that PoorSkillz being 99%+ sure Avery is guilty is stupid and naive, also?
02-17-2016 , 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Just finished the show

My questions:

1. Why was there no trace of her blood anywhere in his house or garage?

2. If SA was able to meticulously clean the crime scene, why was he not able to wipe away plain view blood in the car, or clean blood off the bullets?

3. Why was her blood in the car to begin with?

4. Would SA be dumb enough to hide the car near the entrance of his salvage yard and allow a police search?

5. What was the prosecutions "story" of how the murder took place, and motive?


Not sure if he is guilty or not but does seem to be enough doubt for me to not convict at this point.
1 he was a blood spatter analyst for the Miami city police for 7 season
2 sorry i cannot even give an answer even ironic
3 according to one version of brendan confessions they took her for a ride to the pond but it was dry. They left only Steven blood and sweat under the hood
4 god guided him i guess
5 some rape and bloodbath in the trailer with one of brendan confession as only evidence
02-17-2016 , 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Just finished the show

My questions:
A lot of these aren't really questions that anyone can answer, except for speculation, so I'm not really sure what you're looking for... but I'll try my best :

Quote:
2. If SA was able to meticulously clean the crime scene, why was he not able to wipe away plain view blood in the car, or clean blood off the bullets?
Who knows - maybe he didn't notice he left the blood, maybe he figured he was going to destroy it anyway - as if it's found on his property, he's already sort of ****ed, blood or no blood.

He most likely didn't find the bullets. One fragment was hidden in a crack in the concrete. One was hidden under a piece of machinery by the wall. This explains why they didn't find these bullets on the initial searches while it was a missing person investigation, when they didn't know it was the crime scene and didn't move any items and do a thorough search.

You're basically asking, "Why do dumb people make mistakes?"


Quote:
4. Would SA be dumb enough to hide the car near the entrance of his salvage yard and allow a police search?
It wasn't near the entrance - if you look at the map, and the photos of how the car was hidden, it was probably the ideal hiding spot on short notice. Here's a
post explaining further: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...orking/czp3ls7



Quote:
5. What was the prosecutions "story" of how the murder took place, and motive?

1. Why was there no trace of her blood anywhere in his house or garage?

3. Why was her blood in the car to begin with?
I'll let you read from Kratz's closing statement:

Quote:
We know sometime later, that is, we know sometime in the future, a bullet is found in this exact area, has Teresa Halbach's DNA on it. All right. The inference, and this is an inference that I'm asking you to draw, is that Teresa Halbach was killed in the garage. She was killed in Steven Avery's garage.

Now, we have heard testimony about luminal finding blood, that is a reagent, a chemical that is used by the Crime Lab is spread out. There's two things that are most reactive with luminal, one is human blood and the other is bleach. Bleach coincidentally is the one thing that eats up or destroys DNA.

We have heard about just to the left and just to the back of this tractor, about a three to 4 foot area, large area that lit up or glowed very brightly. Mr. Ertl testified about that. He was the person who processed that area. I'm asking you to infer that Mr. Avery cleaned up this area with bleach.

Now, you knew that inference, or that suggestion from the State, I think, was coming. We have put in the bleach. We have talked about the luminal. We have gotten expert testimony from Mr. Ertl that the two things that light up, it wasn't blood, but it was, in fact, bleach.

You heard from Blaine Dassey, importantly, that the garage, other than the junk on the surrounding edges of this garage, looked pretty much like this, from the sense of the Suzuki and the snowmobile, which were in there later on that week, were on the side of the garage at the time. So Teresa Halbach's vehicle is backed in, backed into the garage.

Teresa Halbach is killed. She's laying down. She's shot twice, once in the left side of her head, once in the back of her head, or I guess I should more accurately say she's shot at least twice. Because two bullet's were found two entrance wounds were found to her head. We do have the 11 shell casings on the 6th that were recovered. How many times Mr. Avery actually shot this poor girl, you probably aren't going to be able to determine, but it's at least twice, and it's at least twice to the head.

What does he do though, later, with Teresa Halbach. It's the State's theory in this case, and we're entitled to a theory, just like the defense, that after backing in the SUV, into the garage, which was, again, empty at the time, after closing the garage door, which Mr. Fabian testified is how he saw it at around dusk, Mr. Avery does a couple of things.

Remember he doesn't know if the cops or somebody is coming looking for Teresa. He has got lots to do. He has got lots of things in the next several hours to do in this case. He has to get rid of all of Teresa's stuff, her camera, her cell phone, her PDA, which very well may be in a purse or something, in the vehicle, which he burns. We know that those are in the burn barrel. We're going to talk about that in just a minute.

And he places Teresa Halbach in the back, or the cargo area of her own SUV. Now, in doing that, Mr. Avery does a couple of things. He doesn't do it very gently, because we know that there's motion involved. He throws, if you will, Teresa, in the back, because of the blood spatter across the back of the open gate. But Teresa is laying at rest; she is resting at peace, having been killed by Mr. Avery, kind of diagonally in the back of that SUV.

And because of her hair imprint, you are able to deduce that. You are able to know that. Again, remember my closing argument, those are more indications of Teresa telling you this is where I was. All right. This is where he put me. And those are inferences, again, that you should and can adopt. Why, because it's not dark yet, and he needs a big rip roaring fire before he can dispose of and mutilate this body.

Again, he has got to do all of this stuff quickly, because he doesn't know if the police are coming. So we hear then, at at least 7:30, perhaps before then, but at 7:30 there's already a fire, a big fire in the back. Although it's dark out, there's a big fire in the back of his garage. And we'll talk about some of the more details there. But as long as Mr. Buting asked about the theory of prosecution, again, which we are entitled, that is, in fact, the theory of the State's prosecution.
.

Quote:
Not sure if he is guilty or not but does seem to be enough doubt for me to not convict at this point.
I don't know of anybody, myself included, that thought they could convict Steven after only watching the documentary.

IMO: in documentary filmmaking (at least mainstream documentary filmmaking) there is an implicit trust granted by the viewer that the documentary will attempt to present an accurate portrayal of events. In Making a Murderer, the filmmakers blatantly violated this trust in order to better serve their narrative of examining a corrupt justice system. It was the filmmakers who framed the cops!

If you are truly interested in reading up on the case, some things you can read:

Stuff left out of the documentary - http://stevenaverycase.com/what-maki...idnt-tell-you/

A breakdown on if evidence was actually planted - http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/

A layperson's explanation of the EDTA test - http://stevenaverycase.com/blood-edta-test-explained

Trial transcripts - http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-av...l-transcripts/
02-17-2016 , 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Making a Murderer
Do you agree that PoorSkillz being 99%+ sure Avery is guilty is stupid and naive, also?
I think it's 99%+ because all the evidence points to him - enough evidence for a jury to convict him, for a judge to sentence him to life in prison without parole, and for all of his appeals to be rejected.

Do you not recognize the difference between thinking it's 99%+ he's guilty vs 99%+ he's innocent?
02-17-2016 , 03:10 PM
I just want to note I was the first one to call poorskillz on his nonsense when people were politely giving him the benefit of the doubt.

His postings and arguments have just gotten more terrible over time. He still doesn't understand anything about the criminal justice system and masturbates to pics of Wisconsin prosecutors.
02-17-2016 , 03:20 PM
I just want to note it was already shown ITT that markksman vehemently disagrees with the judge's own thoughts on what "reasonable doubt" means.

I just want to note markksman doesn't even know how to spell "reasonable doubt", yet he has condescendingly lectured people on it at least a dozen times ITT.
02-17-2016 , 03:25 PM
I just want to note that markksman has rarely, if ever, attacked the argument at hand ITT, usually choosing instead to attack the person (his go-to attack is "you clearly do not understand the meaning of reasonsble doubt").
02-17-2016 , 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
I just want to note I was the first one to call poorskillz on his nonsense when people were politely giving him the benefit of the doubt.

His postings and arguments have just gotten more terrible over time. He still doesn't understand anything about the criminal justice system and masturbates to pics of Wisconsin prosecutors.
This. It seems like a completely different person. The recent posts are outrageously bad.
02-17-2016 , 03:49 PM
Finally i have a possible theory on why the obvious bloodstain near ignition. He was supposed to have something similar in his car so some stupid cop thought it would make sense to match it in the victim car dispite the narrative of the car beeing cleaned of trace of avery and dassey.
That's the only thing that would make sense when you consider he was either never in the car or capable to clean everything else
02-17-2016 , 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Finally i have a possible theory on why the obvious bloodstain near ignition. He was supposed to have something similar in his car so some stupid cop thought it would make sense to match it in the victim car dispite the narrative of the car beeing cleaned of trace of avery and dassey.
Except Steven brought his Pontiac with him to Crivitz, which pretty much destroys your theory...


Quote:
That's the only thing that would make sense when you consider he was either never in the car or capable to clean everything else
If this theory is truly the only thing that makes sense, then it's obvious why Steven is locked up for life.
02-17-2016 , 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
A lot of these aren't really questions that anyone can answer, except for speculation, so I'm not really sure what you're looking for... but I'll try my best :



Who knows - maybe he didn't notice he left the blood, maybe he figured he was going to destroy it anyway - as if it's found on his property, he's already sort of ****ed, blood or no blood.

He most likely didn't find the bullets. One fragment was hidden in a crack in the concrete. One was hidden under a piece of machinery by the wall. This explains why they didn't find these bullets on the initial searches while it was a missing person investigation, when they didn't know it was the crime scene and didn't move any items and do a thorough search.

You're basically asking, "Why do dumb people make mistakes?"




It wasn't near the entrance - if you look at the map, and the photos of how the car was hidden, it was probably the ideal hiding spot on short notice. Here's a
post explaining further: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...orking/czp3ls7





I'll let you read from Kratz's closing statement:



.



I don't know of anybody, myself included, that thought they could convict Steven after only watching the documentary.

IMO: in documentary filmmaking (at least mainstream documentary filmmaking) there is an implicit trust granted by the viewer that the documentary will attempt to present an accurate portrayal of events. In Making a Murderer, the filmmakers blatantly violated this trust in order to better serve their narrative of examining a corrupt justice system. It was the filmmakers who framed the cops!

If you are truly interested in reading up on the case, some things you can read:

Stuff left out of the documentary - http://stevenaverycase.com/what-maki...idnt-tell-you/

A breakdown on if evidence was actually planted - http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/

A layperson's explanation of the EDTA test - http://stevenaverycase.com/blood-edta-test-explained

Trial transcripts - http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-av...l-transcripts/
Thanks for the post
02-17-2016 , 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Thanks for the post
NP, and if you still have questions after reading the summaries I linked, I'll try my best to answer them.
02-17-2016 , 04:34 PM
Do you think PoorSkillz is being disingenuous on purpose or he really believes all the things he posts
02-17-2016 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Do you think PoorSkillz is being disingenuous on purpose or he really believes all the things he posts
Do you think the entire Wisconsin and federal judicial system is out to get Steven Avery, or do they really believe the decisions they upheld?
02-17-2016 , 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Do you think the entire Wisconsin and federal judicial system is out to get Steven Avery, or do they really believe the decisions they upheld?

I don't think the entire Wisconsin system is against SA, no. Not sure why you brought up the federal system.

Not en sure what that has to do with this discussion.
02-17-2016 , 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
NP, and if you still have questions after reading the summaries I linked, I'll try my best to answer them.
Puke.

      
m