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

02-18-2016 , 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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?
Yes I agree. It's one of the scenarios you mentioned.
02-18-2016 , 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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.
This isn't wholly true and is mostly speculation on your part.

The system only allows them to strike 6 jurors.

When you're dealing with a small town jury selection there are likely a ton of bad apples and they had to make a judgment call. They struck people they deemed worse than this juror, but does not mean they wanted this person on the jury.

It's like if you're picking suitable candidates to marry your daughter. You are given a lot of 30 trolls. You can only eliminate 6 of them from having a chance to marry your daughter. You throw out the worst 6, but the other 24 trolls still remain and are eligible to marry your daughter.
02-18-2016 , 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
This isn't wholly true and is mostly speculation on your part.

The system only allows them to strike 6 jurors.

When you're dealing with a small town jury selection there are likely a ton of bad apples and they had to make a judgment call. They struck people they deemed worse than this juror, but does not mean they wanted this person on the jury.

It's like if you're picking suitable candidates to marry your daughter. You are given a lot of 30 trolls. You can only eliminate 6 of them from having a chance to marry your daughter. You throw out the worst 6, but the other 24 trolls still remain and are eligible to marry your daughter.
I'm sorry, I know it hurts to think Strang was being disingenuous about this, but you don't seem to fully understand.

Everything I said was fact, except for the last sentence which IMO is a reasonable assumption based on the facts.

Here's a simple summary:

Quote:
Unlike a peremptory challenge (the number of which are limited by the court during voir dire, and unless a Batson challenge is raised the challenge is automatically granted) there is no limit to the number of strikes for cause that attorneys on either side of a case can be granted. However, also unlike a peremptory challenge, a strike for cause must state a specific reason (in the example above, the reason would be the juror's bias against a non-death penalty sentence) and be granted by the trial judge; often both attorneys and sometimes the judge will question the juror being challenged.

If one attorney moves to strike a juror for cause but the judge rejects the motion, the attorney may still use a peremptory challenge (if s/he has any remaining) to strike the juror, and on appeal may raise a claim that the motion should have been granted but, because it was not, the attorney had to either use a peremptory challenge or seat a biased juror.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_for_cause
02-18-2016 , 01:15 PM
The problem is the judge can strike any juror. This judge was horrible. Although I agree the size of the area really limits how many people can be removed, even by an incompetent judge.
02-18-2016 , 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'm sorry, I know it hurts to think Strang was being disingenuous about this, but you don't seem to fully understand.

Everything I said was fact, except for the last sentence which IMO is a reasonable assumption based on the facts.

Here's a simple summary:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_for_cause
You are really the worst. So you are admitting the judge effed it up.

You really take the time to document yourself being wrong? Trust me you don't need the help.
02-18-2016 , 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
The problem is the judge can strike any juror. This judge was horrible. Although I agree the size of the area really limits how many people can be removed, even by an incompetent judge.

So you think the judge should have struck the juror even though no one asked him to? Ok then.
02-18-2016 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Everything I said was fact, except for the last sentence which IMO is a reasonable assumption based on the facts.
So reasonable assumptions based on facts are OK for you to make, but not for the rest of posters ITT. Roger!
02-18-2016 , 02:27 PM
You said my post was "mostly speculation". It was not.

I hope I have clarified the issue regarding the juror for you (i.e. that it was never an issue back then).

Reasonable assumptions based on facts are OK for anyone to make.
02-18-2016 , 02:37 PM
Except Strang has stated in interviews recently that they would have struck him, but there were 6 others that were 'worse' than him.
02-18-2016 , 02:43 PM
So I read the first 3 pages of the thread and the last 3, what is the actual thread consensus?
02-18-2016 , 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
So I read the first 3 pages of the thread and the last 3, what is the actual thread consensus?
Of the people posting on here, regarding Steven:

Most people think that he should have been found "not guilty" and that the trial was unfair. (a lot of these people are just going by what was shown in the documentary)

Some people believe he's almost certainly innocent. (IMO most of these people are conspiracy nutters)

A few people (myself included) believe the trial transcripts show that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that even though the investigation and/or trial may not have been perfect, the transcripts and other documents show that they were fair.
02-18-2016 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Except Strang has stated in interviews recently that they would have struck him, but there were 6 others that were 'worse' than him.

I swear I just went over this...


Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'm sorry, I know it hurts to think Strang was being disingenuous about this, but you don't seem to fully understand.

Everything I said was fact, except for the last sentence which IMO is a reasonable assumption based on the facts.

Here's a simple summary:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_for_cause
02-18-2016 , 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Reasonable assumptions based on facts are OK for anyone to make.
Facts:

Lenk had unfettered access to the evidence room

The evidence tape was cut open on the evidence box containing Steve Avery's blood sample

Lenk knew that blood sample was there

Steve Avery's blood was found in the RAV4

Reasonable Assumption:

Lenk accessed Steve Avery's blood and placed it in the RAV4
02-18-2016 , 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Facts:

Lenk had unfettered access to the evidence room.

First, the box of evidence was in the County Clerk's office. Second, I assume you're talking about the master key. I think it was established that the Sheriff's department had one, but not Lenk himself. But yes, maybe he could've secured the key. Still he would have had to sneak in there and there is no evidence that the room where the box was in was broken into.


The evidence tape was cut open on the evidence box containing Steve Avery's blood sample

The defense acknowledged that the box was cut open at the behest of Steven's former lawyers in 2002 and not resealed with evidence tape.


Lenk knew that blood sample was there

No, this was certainly never established by the defense at least. In 2001 or 2002, Lenk signed a transmittal form for Steven's hair and nail clippings. Lenk testifies that he never even inspected the evidence box, instead he just signed the form and had someone else do it.


Steve Avery's blood was found in the RAV4

And the FBI did an EDTA test that showed with "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" that the blood wasn't from the vial.


Reasonable Assumption:

Lenk accessed Steve Avery's blood and placed it in the RAV4
Based on the actual facts (which I've clarified for you above, let me know if you dispute any of them), I'd say your assumption is speculation at best, proven false to "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" at worst.
02-18-2016 , 05:22 PM
Is PoorSkillz a criminal defence lawyer? I know Strang is.

I think I'll defer to Strang.
02-18-2016 , 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Is PoorSkillz a criminal defence lawyer?
Michael Griesbach is a DA.
02-18-2016 , 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Is PoorSkillz a criminal defence lawyer? I know Strang is.

I think I'll defer to Strang.
Strang claimed he used all his peremptory strikes on other people. This is probably true, and I am not disputing this.

But he omitted the fact that he could have still attempted to strike the man for cause (there is no limit on these). This is not debatable; it's a fact that lawyers are able to do this. I think even oski (as biased as he may be) would admit this.

Hence why I feel Strang was being disingenuous with his answer in that interview.

Feel free to believe whatever you want, but you're clearly wrong.

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 02-18-2016 at 06:07 PM.
02-18-2016 , 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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:
1. The poster, regardless of who he or she may actually be, by admission has no particular insight into the criminal matter. Indeed, as to the murder, this poster merely rehashes talking points that we have seen all over the place already - nothing of note is added, just a rehash of prior points.

2. It is hard not to recognize that the poster purportedly represented the County in the civil lawsuit and therefore could be biased.

3. I have doubts as to whether this poster really was an attorney for the county (or, technically, for the insurance policy covering the county). The settlement would undoubtedly be "confidential" thus no attorney can speak about the settlement terms or material facts of the case. I would have a hard time believing that this quasi-anonymous (but not really anonymous) poster would risk civil penalties for these disclosures.

4. Under this posters analysis, the civil settlement was worth $0.00 (as it is claimed S.A. was going to get $400,000.00 from restitution fund). This comment was to lead the reader to believe S.A.'s case was without merit. It wasn't: even with S.A. being charged with murder, the matter settled for $400,000.00. That fact matters - with the plaintiff in the worst possible light, the case still settled for $400k. It is easy to conclude that if S.A. was not charged with murder and the case continued, that the settlement would have been as analyzed previously - millions, perhaps over 10 million.

5. I don't buy the "well, S.A. was not railroaded in the first trial because it was a reasonable mistake." If you read closely, the poster relies on an untested legal theory that the M.C.S.D. did not have a duty to investigate the information provided in the phone call from Brown County or information from M.C.S.D. That nicely skirts the question - why was this potentially exculpatory phone call essentially ignored? The "lawyer" does not explain why there would be no duty in the context of a Civil Rights suit - maybe under the doctrine of negligence a duty could not be established, but the Civil Rights action is a different matter.

6. Coverage issues. I will take the poster at his or her word - that no motion to bifurcate coverage issues was filed. I will also point out that given how far along the case was (one year from filing, but discovery just beginning) that doing so would be premature. The insurance would want to see how the claim develops before taking that next step - also, at least for the County, the duty to defend was not at issue. It was an issue to at least one of the individuals, but I do not know how far along they were (for example, if the case had gone through demurrers and other challenges to the complaint, the case would have only started in earnest). Often an insurance defense will try to defend the case by attacking the pleading showing no legal duty as a matter of law. From the timing of things, I would surmise this portion of the proceedings had concluded early summer, and then the parties were moving forward with written discovery and depositions.

7. In that same vein (poster attempting to point to lack of a specific legal filing to indicate strength of case) I also note that no defendant filed for summary judgment, either. Of course, just like with the motion to bifurcate coverage issues that would have also been premature.


So, regardless of the poster's bona fides, I don't believe his or her opinion adds anything of note to the debate.
02-18-2016 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
discussing this list of Steven's dirty deeds.
Let's see if anyone else has any dirty deeds:

Sherry Culhane's Crime Lab:

* An analyst in 2002 falsely claimed to have done a fingerprint match, then submitted falsified documentation to support it. The person drew a written reprimand.

* An analyst in an unnamed portion of the lab was fired in 2004 after supervisors documented "an extremely high error rate (and) a pattern in inattentiveness" over three years.

* A DNA analyst was suspended for two days for being drunk on the job in 2006. The misconduct occurred around the same time and in the same laboratory where evidence in the Avery case was analyzed, Buting said.

* An analyst received a two-day suspension in 2004 for incorrectly eliminating a suspect in a fingerprint match. The same analyst had "false positive" fingerprint matches in two previous instances.

* In another instance in 2004, an analyst received a letter of reprimand for erroneously identifying a fingerprint for a background check.

* A fingerprint technician was suspended for three days in 2005 for a series of incidents, including taking fingerprint cards home and making two erroneous identifications on background checks.

The above are documented occurences. They are not conjecture or allegations.
02-18-2016 , 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Facts:

Lenk had unfettered access to the evidence room

The evidence tape was cut open on the evidence box containing Steve Avery's blood sample

Lenk knew that blood sample was there

Steve Avery's blood was found in the RAV4

Reasonable Assumption:

Lenk accessed Steve Avery's blood and placed it in the RAV4
Lol that's not a reasonable assumption. Not even close. If you and others honestly think it is, that explains a lot I suppose.
02-18-2016 , 06:58 PM
Thanks saus for providing the reasons Sherry(Burp!!! Excuse me) Culhane did not trust another analysis to get the DNA test's done correctly.
Opening herself up to a conflict of interest in the process(since she tested the HAIR sample that convicted SA in 1985) & Sherry was under that much pressure she forgot to process any/all of the tests until 5 months later & had to be reminded by fassbender to PLACE THE BULLET IN THE GARAGE/TRAILER, cool got it.

Must be tough not to trust the people you work with day in day out with routine DNA/fingerprint analysis, so I guess when new staff come in that's its acceptable for Sherry to show these new analysis the CORRECT way to follow procedures, except SHE ****ED that up to & tries to hid it from her supervisor & another co-signature.(I guess with all the **** ups before SHERRY new it was nearly impossible to get SACKED from this Crime Lab).

Drunk on the Job in a CRIME LAB & you don't get sacked JFC/WTF/OMG!!!
I guess that's why WI has a major drinking problem.

Last edited by smacc25; 02-18-2016 at 07:15 PM.
02-18-2016 , 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
1. The poster, regardless of who he or she may actually be, by admission has no particular insight into the criminal matter. Indeed, as to the murder, this poster merely rehashes talking points that we have seen all over the place already - nothing of note is added, just a rehash of prior points.

I never said he did offer insight on the criminal matter, and I'm sure you're aware that's not what I was interested in your opinion on.

2. It is hard not to recognize that the poster purportedly represented the County in the civil lawsuit and therefore could be biased.

Yes, of course.

3. I have doubts as to whether this poster really was an attorney for the county (or, technically, for the insurance policy covering the county). The settlement would undoubtedly be "confidential" thus no attorney can speak about the settlement terms or material facts of the case. I would have a hard time believing that this quasi-anonymous (but not really anonymous) poster would risk civil penalties for these disclosures.

The settlement terms he divulged were part of the public record. I don't think he really divulged much, if any, information that isn't part of the public record.

4. Under this posters analysis, the civil settlement was worth $0.00 (as it is claimed S.A. was going to get $400,000.00 from restitution fund). This comment was to lead the reader to believe S.A.'s case was without merit. It wasn't: even with S.A. being charged with murder, the matter settled for $400,000.00. That fact matters - with the plaintiff in the worst possible light, the case still settled for $400k. It is easy to conclude that if S.A. was not charged with murder and the case continued, that the settlement would have been as analyzed previously - millions, perhaps over 10 million.

I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted this part. I think he is saying that the very least Steven would win in a lawsuit is money for lost wages (which he says would probably end up equaling somewhere around $400k). If you read in his comments, he says, "You can google wrongful convictions and find firms that advertise up to 6 million, but, at the time, the closest case was a case from NY where the man, wrong convicted of rape and served 12 years, got 1.5 million from a jury. But he had more education and a higher lost wage claim (even though he was in for less years.) Realistically, Mr. Avery's best day in court would have gotten him to 2 million. Most likely 1 million. And he settled for 400k."

I also have read the opinion of two civil lawyers who deal with these types of cases now, and neither estimated the lawsuit would end up being for over $10million. This lawyer estimates $400k-2million. The other lawyer, with less knowledge of this case, estimated between $1-6million.

5. I don't buy the "well, S.A. was not railroaded in the first trial because it was a reasonable mistake." If you read closely, the poster relies on an untested legal theory that the M.C.S.D. did not have a duty to investigate the information provided in the phone call from Brown County or information from M.C.S.D. That nicely skirts the question - why was this potentially exculpatory phone call essentially ignored? The "lawyer" does not explain why there would be no duty in the context of a Civil Rights suit - maybe under the doctrine of negligence a duty could not be established, but the Civil Rights action is a different matter.

Fair enough, that's your opinion on the matter, although you also don't know nearly as many details on the matter.

6. Coverage issues. I will take the poster at his or her word - that no motion to bifurcate coverage issues was filed. I will also point out that given how far along the case was (one year from filing, but discovery just beginning) that doing so would be premature. The insurance would want to see how the claim develops before taking that next step - also, at least for the County, the duty to defend was not at issue. It was an issue to at least one of the individuals, but I do not know how far along they were (for example, if the case had gone through demurrers and other challenges to the complaint, the case would have only started in earnest). Often an insurance defense will try to defend the case by attacking the pleading showing no legal duty as a matter of law. From the timing of things, I would surmise this portion of the proceedings had concluded early summer, and then the parties were moving forward with written discovery and depositions.

Fair enough, that's your opinion on the matter, although you also don't know nearly as many details on the matter.

7. In that same vein (poster attempting to point to lack of a specific legal filing to indicate strength of case) I also note that no defendant filed for summary judgment, either. Of course, just like with the motion to bifurcate coverage issues that would have also been premature.


So, regardless of the poster's bona fides, I don't believe his or her opinion adds anything of note to the debate.

Thanks for you opinion. While it seems you disagree with some of the poster's opinions, it also seems you agree this poster knows what they are talking about.

I think the most notable takeaway for me here was getting an opinion on what the lawsuit settlement would be from the perspective of a lawyer directly involved in the case (although this is unverified) - that is between $400,000 and $2,000,000.

I've seen an analysis of the financials of Manitowoc County at that time (maybe I'll post it here later) and the county would have easily been able to afford this lawsuit, even if it were for $6,000,000.

Basically, it's my firm opinion that the narrative of this lawsuit threatening the county's livelihood (and subsequently of a frame-job to stop this lawsuit) is pure bull****.

Thanks again.
02-18-2016 , 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Strang claimed he used all his peremptory strikes on other people. This is probably true, and I am not disputing this.

But he omitted the fact that he could have still attempted to strike the man for cause (there is no limit on these). This is not debatable; it's a fact that lawyers are able to do this. I think even oski (as biased as he may be) would admit this.

Hence why I feel Strang was being disingenuous with his answer in that interview.

Feel free to believe whatever you want, but you're clearly wrong.
The judge can also strike on his own. And you somehow think not pissing off sn already incompetent judge is not a concern of a defense attorney. Technically they could ask for every jury for five years to be striked for cause.

How do you think that plays with the judge? Btw judges are often less ambitious and/or less capable attorneys. Imagine the cluster that is judgeship in Wisconsin given the pool of attorneys they pull from.

I always feel like this is the first criminal trial you have ever paid any attention to ever. It just seems you lack layman fundamental understandings of how things work in the real world.

Since neither you nor I were there for jury selection we haven't the faintest idea of what the actual procedure was like. You can't just read the transcripts and disregard the other 95% of dynamics in human interaction.

Also lol if you think that judge would have ever struck that juror even though it presented a clear conflict of interest.
02-18-2016 , 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Let's see if anyone else has any dirty deeds:

Sherry Culhane's Crime Lab:

* An analyst in 2002 falsely claimed to have done a fingerprint match, then submitted falsified documentation to support it. The person drew a written reprimand.

* An analyst in an unnamed portion of the lab was fired in 2004 after supervisors documented "an extremely high error rate (and) a pattern in inattentiveness" over three years.

* A DNA analyst was suspended for two days for being drunk on the job in 2006. The misconduct occurred around the same time and in the same laboratory where evidence in the Avery case was analyzed, Buting said.

* An analyst received a two-day suspension in 2004 for incorrectly eliminating a suspect in a fingerprint match. The same analyst had "false positive" fingerprint matches in two previous instances.

* In another instance in 2004, an analyst received a letter of reprimand for erroneously identifying a fingerprint for a background check.

* A fingerprint technician was suspended for three days in 2005 for a series of incidents, including taking fingerprint cards home and making two erroneous identifications on background checks.

The above are documented occurences. They are not conjecture or allegations.
I'll just assume all these are true, that still doesn't change the fact that literally 0 of these incidents pertain to Steven Avery's case, including the bolded, as that analyst was not working on the case at all.

I would like to know what mistakes you can find in any crime lab and if this list stands out distinctly from any other lab. If it doesn't (and I'm guessing it doesn't), are you of the opinion we should just free everyone?
02-18-2016 , 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Lol that's not a reasonable assumption. Not even close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Do you guys see a motive here? Holy ****.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer

"The defendant built a bonfire in his back yard.

      
m