Skillz,

Just taking everything in. Very interested in the case and I find all sides have their own credibility. I mostly am I Teresa's in gathering the most information possible so I can get a true idea of what actually happened.



I feel like after following up on the links and everything that have been posted since I joined the thread that I am leaning towards "better likely than not" that SA killed the woman, but I still don't find myself certain enough to convict. I still feel BD was not a major involved character, or that at worst he was involved without being aware of the actual consequences.


However at the same time I feel like it is also "better likely than not" that the police planted some evidence, which I do not think necessarily means SA can't also be guilty.


I think some of my wishy washy nature comes from not having many other potential murderers but I haven't gotten too deep into other theories yet.



Too me, if SA is innocent what seems most likely is that the police had to plant the car, not just the blood in the car. Which certainly seems far fetched.


Something feels off about the family of TH as well, in particular the brother who seemed unphased by any of the testimony in court.

Incorrect, I get why you linked it. You linked it to show me that the police do ****ed up ****. Whoever said anything to the contrary?

You are acting like it is the norm though. That is the problem. Coerced confessions are not the norm. And the mechanism used to get that guy to confess is nowhere near the one used to get BD to confess. Using the reid technique is not the same thing as torturing a confession out of someone. Especially when you introduce false positives into the confession to gauge BD response.

Ok but srsly, all GIFs aside, there is an important issue that needs resolving, though I'm suspecting it won't be resolved. Here is where to find the transcripts and videos of the interviews:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...interviews_ht/

Unfortunately the first school interview doesn't have a video.

The issue is: What do all the ellipses and blank chatboxes mean? There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus anywhere. Naturally I assumed they were what they were, parts where the speaker paused, but going through it started to seem like they were unintelligible parts, and then actual redactions.

So, if possible, give a skim of that and weigh in. You can ignore the actual most of the actual substance and just focus on the parts around an ellipses or blank. It's kinda bizarre.

OK ya sure fine bro ok. Are you really gonna ignore the part IN THAT SAME POST WHERE I LINKED A DIFFERENT CASE and described it as more applicable?

Also, that IS why I linked the first. Do I need to link the ensuing conversation, the pinnacle of which RichGangi described as beautiful? I totally could but like I said, kiddie game, up the street, grown folks talking, etc.

Take a bow.

False confession and wrongful conviction cases are the most difficult cases to try in court because most people don’t believe that an innocent person would admit to committing a murder. However, there are countless numbers of innocent people who have confessed to crimes. Some confess to crimes they didn’t commit because they want to become part of a famous case. Others cite intimidation and fear of police as a factor for confessing. As in the case of Daniel Villegas, police officers used physical force to get him to say that he killed the teens. Villegas stated that they also cornered him and yelled in his face at different times during the interrogation.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2499353/dan...ession-murder/

How about this? Is this just to show us cops do ****ed up **** or are you actually trying to draw a false equivalency here?

I'm a bit confused why you posted this. I've agreed with you that his perspective as defense lawyer is biased. I've also agreed with you that he offers no insight, and that his opinions on the criminal matter are not relevant.



Again, it seems that you have a different opinion than 2 people who specialize as defense lawyers in these types of lawsuits. These 2 lawyers both said they'd looked at similar cases and estimated a judgment in the low-to-mid 7 figures ($1-6million, says one lawyer, even for the most egregious of cases; the other lawyer says lower and similarly says that most law firms advertise "up to $6million").

Their opinions are backed up by the examples provided here: http://peopleslawoffice.com/issues-a...ul-conviction/

Most examples there received between $1-6million, and the highest is in a couple cases where the defendants received $9million each.

Again, what I think is most notable is that this lawyer claims the general sentiment of the civil defense before the murder happened is that they would have ended up paying around $1-2million. I'm sure the investigation, trial, and incarceration of Steven Avery has cost Manitowoc more than that. So it's hardly a thing to plan a massive conspiracy over IMO.

I think it's also notable that if Steven's lawsuit was such a lock for a huge judgment, that his civil defense team (or anyone actually) didn't help fund his criminal defense.


Civil defense lawyers' opinions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...ld_appreciate/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...torney_on_the/

Ive already explained to you why telling me cops do ****ed up **** is stupid because I have already agreed to this argument of yours.. In fact, I stated this itt before you even posted.

kk, ttyl.

Eh F it, spoilers for irrelevant lozl:






RichG post out of order, replying to the above:

Villegas' exoneration was due to the confession not matching the facts. LEOs denied physical intimidation so it became irrelevant, plus NONE OF IT WAS BEING VIDEOED.

p.s. I didn't bold that, you did. Sick bolding game dog.

p.p.s. Is there no apt equivalency in your mind?

I posted it because you dismissed my comment by saying (paraphrasing) "well, I wasn't asking about that."

Your initial comment was simply: Can you please comment on this. I reasonably interpreted that to mean - comment on all of it.

Of course, I should have known you are in perpetual ******-mode, because you somehow think I should know exactly what portions you wanted me to comment on.

Then as to the portions you apparently sought my opinion on, you simply say, "well others that know more about the case disagree."

Ok.

I'm not playing your ****** games.

If you want to blindly follow an anonymous reddit poster (who may not be who (s)he represents - as I pointed out a real strange aspect of their post) be my guest.

As for you bothering me with requests to read your mind and your cut-and-pasted reddit posts, etc., please stop. I'm not going to do it.

man you just made me go rainbow up in this bitch

False confession and wrongful conviction cases are the most difficult cases to try in court because most people don’t believe that an innocent person would admit to committing a murder.

False confession and wrongful conviction cases are the most difficult cases to try in court because most people don’t believe that an innocent person would admit to committing a murder.

False confession and wrongful conviction cases are the most difficult cases to try in court because most people don’t believe that an innocent person would admit to committing a murder.

False confession and wrongful conviction cases are the most difficult cases to try in court because most people don’t believe that an innocent person would admit to committing a murder.

False confession and wrongful conviction cases are the most difficult cases to try in court because most people don’t believe that an innocent person would admit to committing a murder.

False confession and wrongful conviction cases are the most difficult cases to try in court because most people don’t believe that an innocent person would admit to committing a murder.

Sure, a situation where someone falsely confesses without any intimidation or physical violence.. Where he isn't held for hours without contact, water or food, where his lawyers and parents are denied access.. Where his confession matches physical evidence. You would have an accurate comparison.

Keep in mind, even if you can find an example it is an anomaly, because most of the time when people confess to a crime, especially in these kinds of circumstances they are guilty.

Edit: you answered, see my follow up post below

Failey you can answer this or ignore it, whatev, playtime is over, anybody reading that long ass multiquote can see that you either can't or willfully won't follow the basic framework of the whole thing.

IMO it all comes down to the blood. Would you agree that if it's shown the blood wasn't from the vial, then Steven is guilty?

The defense tries to claim the EDTA was a bad test. The show helps the defense's case by selectively editing footage to make the FBI's Chemistry Unit Chief look like a corrupt buffoon (in his actual testimony, he's anything but). Pretty much any analytical chemist would agree that the EDTA test was a reliable test that would have found EDTA in the blood samples if there was any.

You can read some opinions on the test here that should explain things:

• http://www.techinsider.io/making-mur...quality-2016-1
  
  
• The EDTA Testing- What was done and limitations
  
  
• The EDTA Test and the Testimony of Janine Arvizu
  
  
• The Subterfuge of Detection Limits, or, If I Wave My Arms Fast Enough Can I make All This Go Away?
  
  
• EDTA - Chad Steele Blogspot - A critique
  
  
• Why was the EDTA test rushed?
  

Ask yourself why you feel this way. Is it rational? What did Mike do in 2 selectively edited minutes to deserve your suspicion?

This is what I find most infuriating about the show. They've portrayed Steven as a flawed, but good and honest individual (have you read the actual details of his prior crimes?), and they've portrayed the victim's friends and family as dumb or corrupt. Is this fair?

There are many more examples in the show of footage being selectively edited to make people seem more suspicious than they actually are, to make the prosecution's case look bogus, etc. all to serve the filmmaker's narrative. It's completely unethical filmmaking IMO.

I think you might've typoed a negative here, which things apply to BD?

Because most of the time, people don't confess to murders they didn't commit, and ALMOST every time they do it is because they were physically attacked by police, denied basic human rights.. Food, water.. etc... Were held for hours upon hours without sleep until they confessed or something equally as ****ed up. Very rarely do police just use their wit to coerce a confession out of someone for something they didn't do. It does happen, but not often and out of those few cases where it does, rarely does it match physical evidence..

Bleach on his pants, bullet in the garage.. etc..

Right - because most of the time (unlike here) the police are outwitted.

I thought it was obvious that I don't value your opinion one bit on anything besides the civil lawsuit (you yourself admit that you don't know the actual details of the case), but yeah, I'll go back to ignoring you now.

I'm curious. Have you come across any essays or op-ed pieces that argue MOM is a product of unethical filmmaking?

If so, can you please post a link?

- Thanks.

That isn't what I am saying. I am saying that it is very difficult to just convince someone they did something they didn't do. Even if that person is slightly cognitively impaired.

Honestly, I do see where you're coming from and some of it might just come down to how we define "most of the time" but you're omitting one big factor, threatening the person with criminal penalties and/or in general just "getting in trouble" as it applies to minors. I suspect YOU might be using the anomalies, the Jon Burge enhanced interrogation fiascoes, to define the whole.

Reddit post: The $36 Million Lawsuit: Fiscal Impact on Manitowoc County

Also, can you clear this up really quick:

Did you mean to type is instead of isn't and 'does not match' after 'confession'?

Just read this:

http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/soci...nfessions.html