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

02-18-2016 , 03:25 AM
It's funny how they are trying to find détails about avery.
But keep quoting kratz who has Proven reccord of drug and sex addiction and who was a predator to women he was supposed to défend.
No problem at all for the integrity of the prosecutor
02-18-2016 , 03:27 AM
And linking things that don't even match what they're saying.

It's a good encore to the standing O.
02-18-2016 , 03:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
#apolgoizingforrapistsitt
02-18-2016 , 03:42 AM
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer




Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer



#LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer


Spoiler:
02-18-2016 , 03:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
It's funny how they are trying to find détails about avery.
But keep quoting kratz who has Proven reccord of drug and sex addiction and who was a predator to women he was supposed to défend.
No problem at all for the integrity of the prosecutor

Do you think it's best to ignore further details about Avery?

Do you think attacking Kratz's character makes it easier to ignore further details about Avery?

Regardless, no one is quoting Kratz when discussing this list of Steven's dirty deeds.
02-18-2016 , 03:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
...

If you haven't seen, among the evidence released yesterday, was a motion by the state to include 9 previous issues of misconduct (all were denied by the corrupt judge). In this document, along with the crimes he's been convicted of and a couple of other things, they ask to include evidence of: the rape you mention here, the rape of his ex-wife's friend in 1983, and the violence against Lori and Jodi.

...
Please note Poorshillz doesn't seem to know what "evidence" means.
02-18-2016 , 09:59 AM
I find it amazing that Krantz continues to assert these items of "evidence" as being left out of the documentary when the Court specifically excluded them from the trial.

If Krantz believes his case is so obvious, why does he need to keep dredging up "evidence" that was not allowed in the case - why can't he simply stand on the merits.

Poorshillz does not seem to realize that disputed items contested in limine are not matters of judicial truth, they are simply items of potential evidence that are being ruled on as potentially admissible at trial. Due to the potential prejudice to either party, in limine motions take place prior to the jury being seated so that the Court does not have to attempt to "unring a bell" if the item(s) is/are disputed when raised at trial.

Even if the judge admitted the State's items per the motion, that does not mean the Court accepts the merits of the evidence; it simply means that the State could go forward and call witnesses to testify on those asserted matters.

Given Krantz' unethical behavior in this case, it is fair to assume there was a lot more smoke than fire in these potential evidence points. Indeed, most of these items were purportedly related to the charges of rape, mutilation, etc. - all dismissed for no evidence.
02-18-2016 , 10:07 AM
kratz must be having a really hard time since MAM release and will have some super tought time for a few years at the very least.
Considering how many pros said that he was supposed to be trained to identify coerced confession and didn't and send dassey for 10 years in jail for most likely no reason, a civil lawsuit could be huge, let alone avery lawsuit and possible major **** up on that side aswell.
02-18-2016 , 10:09 AM
Another question is how the jury ruled that he /SA was guilty of murder but not mutilation of the corpse
02-18-2016 , 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Another question is how the jury ruled that he /SA was guilty of murder but not mutilation of the corpse
Jury found that based on the evidence Avery did not burn her body. Not sure why the guilty trio itt keeps talking about the bonfire and the bones when jury decided he didn't do that
02-18-2016 , 10:15 AM
Because there was no(or not enought) evidence of mutilation but the jury thought they had enought for the murder.
02-18-2016 , 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
In determining whether you agree that the jury should've found Steven Avery guilty, those 9 issues have little relevance as they were not included in the trial.

In determining whether you think Steven actually did the crime, in understanding his true character and why the judge called him "probably the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom", and in evaluating the documentary that this thread is about, those 9 issues are very relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
"this guy raped me"

should not be taken as a rumor especially when others are saying he is confessing to doing this. And you better believe if that was allowed as evidence the people in question would have been put on the stand to tell what happened.
The only relevance that motion has to this matter is what it reveals about Poorskillz and Fraley: Neither one of them is interested in a fair trial.

The matters were properly ruled inadmissible. It is a fundamental rule that a defendant is to stand trial for the act he is accused of, not collateral issues. SA's character is not on trial; having him have to also defend against non-relevant and highly prejudicial allegations as opposed to what he was actually charged with is not fair. Just raising these "allegations" puts the defendant in an untenable spot because the jury is misled as to the true nature of the case. Even if SA successfully diffuses these character attacks, it still poisons the jury.

Krantz shares the same view as his groupies Fraley and Poorshillz: Despite knowing full well this "character evidence" was excluded at trial, he brings it up to the public as if it supports his conviction.

SA's character is not on trial. Of course, one may have their own opinion of SA (in my case, I do not think he is a person of high moral character and I have argued that point with LITS) but it has zero to do with whether he murdered T.H.
02-18-2016 , 10:45 AM
If Krantz has shown us anything, it is that he is particularly adept at character assassination. However, he seems quite satisfied to dish it out, but he certainly can't take it.
02-18-2016 , 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
No, I think it's a few key players at the top and everyone else is just following orders in order to remain in their positions of power as well as continue doing god's work by cleansing the gene pool. That is not a joke. The beliefs that Anger and Faley and Shillz keep attempting to disseminate here about Avery's character are how and why he was in jail for 18 years the first time. It's absolutely disgusting to consider that people really believe they have the right to say something like "the gene pool needs to end here" and "some people are just born pieces of ****". It is my opinion that those beliefs combined with the instinct of self-preservation (not losing jobs and assets as a result of the atrocities committed in the first crime) are way, way, way more than enough for me to understand how and why it would come from the top down to make sure he ends up in jail. They have already displayed an extremely low disregard for human and civil rights by purposely ignoring the calls indicating that they probably had the wrong person in jail and letting him rot for 18 years. High ranking officials doubted the DNA results were accurate and admitted YEARS later that they still feel he's guilty of the rape.

From all this we can conclude:

1) When it comes to Steven Avery's case, high ranking officials and LEOs of Manitowoc County hold civil and human rights as well as the law and constitution in very low regard.

2) They will do anything to be "right", including convincing themselves that SA is guilty of raping and attempting to murder PB. This is even after PB, the actual victim says she has doubts about Avery's guilt. This is years upon years after another county advises them they may have an innocent man locked up. This is even almost 20 years after the actual perpetrator that they were warned about and multiple rape and sexual assault convictions, was proven to be the source of the DNA found on PB's genitals the day of the Rape.

3) Those who were told to simply remain quiet, do their jobs don't ask questions, did so. They followed orders. It's extremely reasonable to understand that these exact same people would do as they are told AGAIN, especially when they actually have something to lose if Avery is NOT found guilty.

However, you can't justify Colborn's inactivity by saying "he told his supervisor". You can't say "Lenk had nothing to do with Avery being wrongfully imprisoned". Both knew extremely well who was in prison and what for and that they possibly had the wrong man.
Both were not being truthful in the deposition IMO.
02-18-2016 , 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Jury found that based on the evidence Avery did not burn her body. Not sure why the guilty trio itt keeps talking about the bonfire and the bones when jury decided he didn't do that
That just doesn't add up to me, who do they think burned the body then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Because there was no(or not enought) evidence of mutilation but the jury thought they had enought for the murder.
02-18-2016 , 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Another question is how the jury ruled that he /SA was guilty of murder but not mutilation of the corpse
The truth is only the jury knows.

What follows is mainly speculation on my part:

We don't know for sure the exact details of Steven's crime - for all we know, it's possible that Steven burnt her while she was still alive.

It is known that the deliberations took 20+ hours.

I assume the deliberation for murder came first.

I assume at some point a majority of the jury was voting "guilty", but there were probably a couple of people who it was very difficult to convince to vote "guilty".


2 possible scenarios (not exhaustive) at this point:
  1. Vote-trading, as one juror has claimed, where there's a couple of stubborn "not guilty" voters creating a deadlock and the rest of the jury says "listen, if you just vote guilty on the murder, we'll vote not guilty on the mutilation, ok?". The stubborn voter(s) agrees.


  2. No vote-trading. Most people have decided Steven is guilty, but there's 1 or 2 that aren't quite convinced. They've bought into the defense's conspiracy theory and so it seems no amount of evidence can convince them (just look ITT for examples of this). After 20 hours of deliberation, the stubborn "not guilty" voter(s) gives in and votes "guilty". Maybe the tensest 20 hours of the jury's lives are now over with.

    Then comes the "mutilation of a corpse" charge. The stubborn "not guilty" voter(s) need convincing again. At this point Steven is already going to jail for life. The majority of the jury wants to go home. They don't want to do this all over again. They decide to just say "fine, not guilty". Win/win in everyone's minds, but not for Steven.


Again, this is mainly speculation. Only the jury really knows.
02-18-2016 , 12:04 PM
Hey Oski, I would actually like your opinion on something! Try to remain objective and give your thoughts on this reddit post from over a month ago:


Quote:
First, allow me to say that I understand that everyone will (and should) be skeptical about some claims I'll make here. It is the internet after all. I'm doing this because my community has been under attack nationally and when I listened to Bill Simmons and Cousin Sal bring it up yesterday on a Sports Podcast, I couldn't take it anymore. I am a civil defense attorney. I worked on the defense of the federal civil suit brought by Mr. Avery in 2004 (which was settled in 2005 after he killed Ms. Halbach). While I cannot discuss anything protected by attorney-client privilege, I can discuss anything that was made part of the record.

In order to (maybe) convince someone I am who I say I am, I would note that the depositions you see in episodes 1 and 2 were taken in the basement of the old Nash, Spindler, Grimstad, & McCracken building along the lake in Manitowoc (Which burned down in December 2010). I know because I was in that room for those depositions. I even asked questions (though the viewer wouldn't know it as you only hear from Avery's team - this is unsurprising). While you, the reader, may not be able to fact-check that, perhaps this detail will lend me some level of credibility.

OK. Mr. Avery killed Ms. Halbach. Thankfully, there are some journalists doing some work to show that the "point of view" of the television show is one-sided (and, understandably so - no one watches this if it is obvious Mr. Avery killed Ms. Halbach). I would point the reader to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel coverage, where a journalist has recently demonstrated that Mr. Dassey's confession was not coerced, but selectively edited for the TV show, as well as adding a number of other key facts left off the program.

But my main function here should be sticking to what I know. And what I know is that the entire TV show falls apart if you pick apart the basic premise - that the Sheriff's Department railroaded Mr. Avery in 1985 and, therefore, had motive to railroad him again. This is simply false.

Mr. Avery (and his family) had many run-ins with the law prior to his 1985 wrongful conviction. It's odd to type a sentence that contains the phrase "Mr. Avery doused his cat in gasoline and threw it on a bonfire, but that wasn't the most awful thing he did prior to 1985." And yet, I just did. No, the most awful thing he did was stick a shotgun in his cousin's face after he ran her off the road. Lucky for her, he saw a baby in the backseat and decided not to kill her. That was after she complained to the Sheriff's Department about him masterbating in the road when she drove by in the mornings (and he was visited by said Sheriffs). True true, she later said this never happened, but (1) if you know anything about domestic violence, you know that victims often change the story and (2) if the doc is clear about anything, it's that the Avery family takes care of their own.

So, when the owner (at the time) of our quant little candy store reported to the Sheriff's Department that she had been raped on the beach at 3pm for 15 minutes on a clear day, had a good look at the suspect, and described someone almost identical to Mr. Avery (the eye color was different), it wasn't "railroading" to presume that he was a suspect. It was reasonable. Then she picked Mr. Avery out of a lineup, and then ID'd him at trial. A forensic expert testified that the hair that was found was consistent with Mr. Avery's hair. Sure, we now know that witnesses have a difficult time recalling what their assaulters actually look like, but that wasn't the case in 1985. This all seemed straightforward.

Except one thing. And this is the reason that the Manitowoc Police Department told the Sheriff's Department that "they had the wrong guy", as the TV show so succinctly put it (without explanation). Mr. Avery had an alibi. But the alibi was not airtight. He was seen (with his family) at a store in Green Bay approximately (I don't recall the specifics, so don't get mad if my numbers are off) 90 minutes after the assault. The police timed everything out (Avery would have had to run from the beach to the nearest place to park, which was over a mile away, then gone home, picked up his family, and driven the 40 minutes to Green Bay). It was close. They believed it wasn't probable. But it WAS POSSIBLE. In hindsight, the Sheriff's Department should have continued to investigate the possibility that it was someone else given that evidence. They did not. But, again, the premise of this show requires you to believe that the Sheriff's Department railroaded Mr. Avery here. They did not. This was not unreasonable.

The civil suit was really about one thing. Mr. Avery was always going to get his loss of past wages claim (which is, in essence, what he got - 20k/year for 18 yrs, and he got 400k). The difficulty for the defense lay in the phone call from Brown County 8 years prior to Mr. Avery's release. I can't tell you what the defense's experts would have said, but I can tell you that we had sheriffs from 5 surrounding counties and the instructor at Fox Valley Technical Institute (police training) all set to testify on behalf of the defense. I can also tell you that the defense asserted in court documents that it was not required to take the information from Brown County any further than it was taken. You can put two and two together.

Now, is this a good thing? No. No it isn't. Law enforcement, if they receive a tip like that from another agency, should be required to investigate or, at the very least, let the inmate know about it. Anything except sit on it. But it wasn't REQUIRED, and that's where the law creeps in. In essence, we felt we had a pretty good defense for that and the plaintiff had the emotional, human side that they would have appealed to.

I will also comment, briefly, on insurance. There are some very smart things written by other attorneys here on reddit regarding whether and to what extent insurance was available to the three parties in the civil suit. I will note this, my firm billed itself as an insurance defense firm. The $400,000 (settlement to Mr. Avery) was paid for by insurance. And after more than a year of litigation, the insurance companies did not file a motion to bifurcate and stay the proceedings (to determine coverage). Honestly, that should tell you all you need to know. And, frankly, should be an excellent reminder that you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV.

Anyway, I hope that gets you started on, at the very least, questioning whether there was any motive by A COUNTY ENTITY THAT WAS NO LONGER RUN BY THE SHERIFF (and named party in the civil suit) to frame Mr. Avery for murder. I will write that there was none. None at all. But don't take my word for it. Just think it through.
02-18-2016 , 12:06 PM
^^ that seems like a fair process
02-18-2016 , 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
We don't know for sure the exact details of Steven's crime - for all we know, it's possible that Steven burnt her while she was still alive.
At some point she was dead and her corpse was mutilated. Even if burned while alive, she dies at some point during the burning process and the corpse is further mutilated.
02-18-2016 , 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
At some point she was dead and her corpse was mutilated. Even if burned while alive, she dies at some point during the burning process and the corpse is further mutilated.

Okay, but now try explaining that to the lostinsauce on the jury.
02-18-2016 , 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Okay, but now try explaining that to the lostinsauce on the jury.
meh, rather than explaining, I'd rather just think Avery is not guilty of murder, but agree to vote him guilty of murder if lostinsauce agrees to vote not guilty of mutilation.
02-18-2016 , 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
That just doesn't add up to me, who do they think burned the body then?
It s way more complicated than it seems , there s allegation of pressure inside the jury, some of them were family of cop there, and some jury have declared they feared for their security if they didnt vote guilty.
02-18-2016 , 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
meh, rather than explaining, I'd rather just think Avery is not guilty of murder, but agree to vote him guilty of murder if lostinsauce agrees to vote not guilty of mutilation.

I propose that if anyone's a crazy/dumb person in this scenario, it is the one who agrees to vote "guilty" on "murder" when they don't believe it's true just so others will vote "not guilty" on "mutilation" even though they don't believe it's true.

Can we establish this much?
02-18-2016 , 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
It s way more complicated than it seems , there s allegation of pressure inside the jury, some of them were family of cop there, and some jury have declared they feared for their security if they didnt vote guilty.
One juror was the father of a deputy (there are no other jurors with known direct relations to cops). The defense was well aware of this during jury selection. The man was open and honest about this fact.

The defense questioned the man as to whether he was open to believing cops could lie and plant evidence. The man said yes, and he even shared a personal incident he had with cops in the past.

The defense chose not to use one of their peremptory strikes on the man.

The defense chose not to attempt to strike the man for cause.

If the defense attempted to strike this man for cause and was denied, it would have been a great thing to bring up in Avery's appeals.

It is reasonable to assume that the defense wanted this man on the jury.

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 02-18-2016 at 12:40 PM.
02-18-2016 , 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
The only relevance that motion has to this matter is what it reveals about Poorskillz and Fraley: Neither one of them is interested in a fair trial.

The matters were properly ruled inadmissible. It is a fundamental rule that a defendant is to stand trial for the act he is accused of, not collateral issues. SA's character is not on trial; having him have to also defend against non-relevant and highly prejudicial allegations as opposed to what he was actually charged with is not fair. Just raising these "allegations" puts the defendant in an untenable spot because the jury is misled as to the true nature of the case. Even if SA successfully diffuses these character attacks, it still poisons the jury.

Krantz shares the same view as his groupies Fraley and Poorshillz: Despite knowing full well this "character evidence" was excluded at trial, he brings it up to the public as if it supports his conviction.

SA's character is not on trial. Of course, one may have their own opinion of SA (in my case, I do not think he is a person of high moral character and I have argued that point with LITS) but it has zero to do with whether he murdered T.H.

You quoted my post, but I'm not sure if you actually read it...


Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
In determining whether you agree that the jury should've found Steven Avery guilty, those 9 issues have little relevance as they were not included in the trial.

In determining whether you think Steven actually did the crime, in understanding his true character and why the judge called him "probably the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom", and in evaluating the documentary that this thread is about, those 9 issues are very relevant.

      
m