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

02-25-2016 , 09:49 AM
I think it's likely he did it(say, 75%), but there was more than enough reasonable doubt and in no universe did he receive a fair trial.
02-25-2016 , 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
Do you need bullet points? Your buddy seems to love them so I can go ahead and give them a spin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33
... Stop being such a prick all the time...
Just can't help yourself I guess.
02-25-2016 , 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackize5 Making a Murderer
both of those guys have posted TONS of content. At this point can we agree AP, failey, and shillz are trolling and ban then from the thread?
stuff I agree with = content
stuff I don't agree with = trolling
02-25-2016 , 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichGangi Making a Murderer
I think it's likely he did it(say, 75%), but there was more than enough reasonable doubt and in no universe did he receive a fair trial.
What specifically about the trial was unfair?
02-25-2016 , 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
What specifically about the trial was unfair?
#1 with a bullet would be that pretrial press conference. That was just absurd, and if you can't understand why, I don't know what to say.
02-25-2016 , 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
What specifically about the trial was unfair?
The police investigation, the jury, the judge. Pretty much everything in the case was egregiously incompetent/corrupt.
02-25-2016 , 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
stuff I agree with = content
stuff I don't agree with = trolling
Lol. I didn't call for your ban did I? Perhaps it's not just the stance those guys take that makes it trolling then?
02-25-2016 , 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Jesus ****ing Christ

I'm not asking about the god damn trial. Are you brain-damaged? I'm asking about what you actually THINK. Not whether SA got a fair trial or how you would vote.

I'm asking WHETHER YOU THINK HE DID IT OR NOT

Isn't that the crux of what we're debating here? And you're response is he didn't get a fair trial. Deep-down you think he's guilty. Just admit it. He was treated unjustly, but he's guilty. It's ok to say that.
No. The crux of the debate is related to the process of justice system in this case and the results of the trial. Numerous posts have echoed this. The fact that you are aggressively ignoring them or deliberately talking past everyone else is why I think you're being a troll itt
02-25-2016 , 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Jesus ****ing Christ

I'm not asking about the god damn trial. Are you brain-damaged? I'm asking about what you actually THINK. Not whether SA got a fair trial or how you would vote.

I'm asking WHETHER YOU THINK HE DID IT OR NOT

Isn't that the crux of what we're debating here? And you're response is he didn't get a fair trial. Deep-down you think he's guilty. Just admit it. He was treated unjustly, but he's guilty. It's ok to say that.
No you asked if we thought he was not guilty. Not guilty is a legal term that is used in criminal trials. So actually even though you have no idea what you are saying you did ask if he was NOT GUILTY, which based on what happened and how the justice system works is 100%.

Not guilty does not equal innocent. Your question should have been how many people who think Avery is not guilty also think he is innocent.

I am on record in this thread in saying I don't even know if he is innocent of the crime he was previously exonerated for. Whether people think he is innocent or not is completely irrelevant so your wrongly phrased question is pretty meaningless.

The problems and outrage in these cases are the lack of due process, lack of compentcy as well as potential corruption. I have also noted in this thread I served on a jury where every single member of the jury agreed the defendant was absolutely guilty but the prosecutor did not meet their burden and we had to reluctantly find the guy not guilty.

So don't go all high and mighty on me when you phrase things improperly. Not guilty means something specific and while there is overlap between not guilty and innocent they are not close to the same thing. In case it is still not clear to you not guilty specifically refers to a prosecutors burden to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail, the person is not guilty.

This is not me just nitpicking semantics. This is an extremely important distinction between not guilty and innocent. I suspect not many would say Avery is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt but again totally irrelevant. The horror that is our justice system as brought forth by this story has nothing to do with that. It is about people getting a fair, just and competent trial free from corruption. Given the facts in hand there is zero percent chance either Avery or Dassey received such and thus are 100% not guilty.
02-25-2016 , 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Okay, you believe reasonable doubt was established at the trial and as a result the correct verdict was not guilty.

But based on everything you know of the case, what probability would you assign to Avery actually having committed the murder? I mean, it's fully legitimate to say "I believe it's x% likely that he is guilty, but that is not sufficient to convict him." What ballpark figure would you assign to x - above 80, above 50, lower? Or would your position be that he is likely or almost certainly innocent of any involvement in the murder? It's even possible to say that you are virtually certain he is the killer but should have been acquitted based on the trial.

Any of the other posters are welcome to chime in. Basically, it makes sense to define as precisely as possible what position you are defending. If you are saying it is 90% likely he is guilty but 10% is enough for reasonable doubt, that is very different from arguing for his innocence.
I will say I don't know if he is innocent. I do know he did not receive a fairl trial which means 100% not guilty.

Not sure people who are asking about percent innocent understand our legal system or the issues at hand. Being innocent has nothing to do with our judicial system locking people up in prison. In fact a basic tenant is people are innocent until proven guilty. By that legal caveat he would be 100% innocent as well since he was never legitimately found guilty.

I just feel like some need to spend more time learning about the US judicial system and how it is supposed to work. Without that background and knowledge it leads to so many of the schoolboy errors of logic we see being made.

A jury is never tasked with determining if someone is innocent. In some cases evidence is so poorly presented by the prosecution or strongly by the defense that a jury will believe someone is not only not guilty but innocent. Hoewever this is irrelevant to the legal process. The massive burden to convict someone and lock them up in prison was wholly intentional. There was careful consideration to the dangers of locking innocent people up. The system was designed, clearly, to let guilty people go free before we wrongly lock up innocent people. However the whole system has gotten so polluted and twisted that is no longer how it works. Instead the establishment is fine with innocent people being locked up just to make sure they can try and get as many guilty ones as possible.

This is NOT how our legal system is supposed to work. In cases where so much gross incompetence was clearly evident there is no way Dassey or Avery should have ever been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the point of the documentary, this is the point of most of the outrage. These cases demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, our criminal justice system is not working. It is in fact failing miserably.
02-25-2016 , 01:26 PM
Can you explain what you mean by finding the accused not guilty even though you felt him absolutely guilty?

Do you mean you thought he was probably guilty but we're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt? Or that you were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but by information not presented in the trial?

Regarding the Avery case I don't really see what you are arguing. The question of an unfair trial is separate from the question of what the verdict should have been and separate again from whether he did it. As far as I can see you are claiming that the trial was unfair, that the correct verdict was not guilty, and taking no position on his actual involvement. Is that about right?
02-25-2016 , 01:35 PM
Lol america. DNA proves was another man. Judge denies retrial. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...-pointi/nqWd9/
02-25-2016 , 01:53 PM
Housenuts, watch the documentary After Innocence. Most of it is about how crappy exonerated men have it on the outside with the govt failing to expunge records and receiving no support for rejoining society. But one of the stories is a man where the prosecutor fights tooth and nail to fight the new DNA evidence
02-25-2016 , 02:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
The police investigation, the jury, the judge. Pretty much everything in the case was egregiously incompetent/corrupt.
Well I agree with the Kratz press conference being sleazy. Whether it materially effected the eventual outcome, I doubt. Regardless it was a dumb thing to do by Kratz who was (is) clearly a camera whore and a slimy individual.

The other stuff though, is based a lot on one's subjective perception of the police/judge/jury. No point rehashing all of it, but I don't find it as clear-cut as you do, that all those people were corrupt or incompetent.
02-25-2016 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Well I agree with the Kratz press conference being sleazy. Whether it materially effected the eventual outcome, I doubt. Regardless it was a dumb thing to do by Kratz who was (is) clearly a camera whore and a slimy individual.

The other stuff though, is based a lot on one's subjective perception of the police/judge/jury. No point rehashing all of it, but I don't find it as clear-cut as you do, that all those people were corrupt or incompetent.
Yeah, I agree. The press conference was unfair but I think its effect on the trial is a bit exaggerated (truthfully none of us actually know what kind of effect the press conference had), and jury selection process is one way to diminish the effect.

What I really don't understand though are the arguments that the actual trial, and especially the judge, was unfair.

For every important ruling the judge made (Denny, EDTA, etc.), he gave a detailed explanation for why he made his decision based on legal precedent (these can all be found in the transcripts, but many of those complaining have never even read these explanations).

Strang and Buting themselves even said the case went about as well as it could have.






I haven't seen one reasonable argument of any substance that the judge was unfair, and I compare the arguments I have seen to a fan of the losing basketball team complaining about how bad the refs were.

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 02-25-2016 at 03:52 PM.
02-25-2016 , 03:53 PM
Not to mention the judge denied motions from the state as well.
02-25-2016 , 03:55 PM
Lol at marks post. Are you going to inform us that water is wet next?
02-25-2016 , 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Not to mention the judge denied motions from the state as well.
Yes, of course. It's just like a basketball game: there's going to be close calls the ref will have to make and some calls will favor one team, while other calls will favor the other team. Still, it's almost a certainty that a bunch of fans on the losing side will claim that the refs were incompetent, biased, corrupt, etc.

Then, you'll have the 5ives and Lostinsauces that will bring up Tim Donaghy as proof that this unrelated ref is also corrupt.

The filmmakers expertly put everyone on the side of Team Avery and edited the highlights in a way that gives the fans something to get angry about.
02-25-2016 , 06:20 PM
Lol...

Here's a basketball analogy for the debate in this thread:

The winner of a basketball game, the team (or player in a 1vs1) that scores the most points, is not contingent on all or even any of the players knowing how to read numbers and count.





(in b4 proof-of-concept when TeamShillz says huh I don't get)
02-25-2016 , 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Just can't help yourself I guess.
What makes you think I'm even trying to help myself, especially when I said the opposite? Besides you being not so smart, obv.
02-25-2016 , 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
There is no Fox Hills stuff. All part of the conspiracy. That's where they supposedly convinced BD to make up his confession I guess.
Ok revots, last chance.

What would be your hypothetical explanation for why the detectives put BD&fam in Fox Hills for only one night when the purported reason was for their protection? And why was there an unrecorded interrogation?
02-25-2016 , 06:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Yeah, I agree. The press conference was unfair but I think its effect on the trial is a bit exaggerated (truthfully none of us actually know what kind of effect the press conference had), and jury selection process is one way to diminish the effect.


Strang and Buting themselves even said the case went about as well as it could have. STOP the B.S Poor.
http://bcheights.com/news/2016/damag...ak-law-school/

and I compare the arguments I have seen to a fan of the losing basketball team complaining about how bad the refs were.
And there we go its just a game to these people, JFC.

BTW only the Guilty crowd have continually thrown insults, abused posters & acted like children ITT.


Time? http://wbay.com/2016/02/25/clerk-mak...in-avery-case/

To..Take a break from the thread for the mantiowoc 3 & 1/2 & go play some catch.....

Come back when y'all can add something of substance to the thread instead of beating the dumb drum....



Thanks Marksman for those 2 outstanding posts ITT.... "100% Innocent because he DID NOT receive a fair trial" was a highlight.

Innocent until Proven Guilty always & forever.
02-25-2016 , 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Well I agree with the Kratz press conference being sleazy. Whether it materially effected the eventual outcome, I doubt. Regardless it was a dumb thing to do by Kratz who was (is) clearly a camera whore and a slimy individual.

The other stuff though, is based a lot on one's subjective perception of the police/judge/jury. No point rehashing all of it, but I don't find it as clear-cut as you do, that all those people were corrupt or incompetent.
Name any person involved.

I already posted the singular person in the state of Wisconsin who touched this case in an official capacity who was not corrupt or incompetent. A single calumet county sergeant. More then happy to discuss the incompetence of anyone else associated with the case.

My biggest take away from those in the Msntiwoc 3.5 is they seemingly have very limited knowledge or experience with how criminal trials and criminal investigations work. If you lack the fundamental understanding and experience how such things are consistently handled elsewhere it's kind of hard to accurately assess or understand when things are out of bounds.

The amount of incompetence involved at every level in this case is absolutely staggering. I can see are people with little experience or knowledge of the criminal justice system might have a more difficult time seeing it but we are talking about gross negligence in many cases.

Best practices were pretty much never used during any part of the investigation. There are very important reasons stringent procedures exist for investigating crimes as well as collecting and processing evidence. When such procedures are repeatedly ignored at every level of the case it is pretty much impossible to view any of it legitimately.

I think ignorance is the biggest enemy of the Mantiwoc 3.5. It has taken some of them weeks and weeks to sort of begin to understand what Reasonsble doubt even is. It is not really surprising people who have almost no previous knowledge of how the criminal justice system works or how it is supposed to work would blindly side with law enforcement, no matter how egregiously wrong they are. They entered this discussion handicapped by lack of knowledge and the believe the legal and justice system is to always be trusted.

Unfortunately their education is coming along very slowly. Plus I suspect most have hidden agendas. We know Fraley has been stalking the Halbach family online which is completely untoward. I suspect poorskillz is omitting some kind of connection to some level of the legal/justice system which have left them with one sided views. Revots just seems ignorant of the justice system. All three have clearly demonstrated they have little to no experience reviewing and discussing other criminal cases. Their lack of understanding of simple and basic components, factors and procedures prove that.

The positions and knowledge have not changed much at all since Poorskillz first showed up in this thread with his reddit links. Ironically his usage of reedit links dropped off precipitously as the bulk of Reddit discussion migrated to support the other side.

I don't feel like any of the Mantiwoc 3 plus have provided any insight or information in this thread to make anyone consider anything other than this was a miscarriage of justice. Instead it is just repeating over and over thst the cops and rest did an okay job. Which only makes sense if you have no experience or frame of reference for how police normally operate.

The reality is the bulk of uncovered information since the documentary was released has served to make law enforcement to look much worse. The handful of gotcha items that once got poorskillz erect bore out to be less than compelling.

I do find it weird that they won't admit it is possible these guys got an unfair trial when one of them already got one in the same jurisdiction and served 18 years in prison. It is irrational to take a stance believing that it is not possible or likely for additional unfair trials. Especially given the local and state governments seemed to do nothing at all to try and prevent future problems.
02-25-2016 , 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Can you explain what you mean by finding the accused not guilty even though you felt him absolutely guilty?

Do you mean you thought he was probably guilty but we're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt? Or that you were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but by information not presented in the trial?

Regarding the Avery case I don't really see what you are arguing. The question of an unfair trial is separate from the question of what the verdict should have been and separate again from whether he did it. As far as I can see you are claiming that the trial was unfair, that the correct verdict was not guilty, and taking no position on his actual involvement. Is that about right?

The defendants behavior was very suspicious. Even some witnesses testimony supported that. However it was a felony domestic abuse case and in this jurisdiction the DA always prosecutes. However as so often is the case the victim is afraid to testify.

The police found the guy hiding beneath the trailer of his neighbor. Witnesses testified to hearing and witnessing parts of the altercation.

However this did not add up to beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet every juror was convinced he was guilty. That was the first discussion we had, we were in total agreement of his guilt. It was also the last discussion we had after unanimously deciding he was not guilty.

We had specific instructions from the court. The evidence did not allow us to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In any case there is information a jury knows that they also must disregard in deliberations.

The jury is not tasked with deciding guilt or innocence. They are tasked with determining, based on the specific instructions they received, if the prosecutor proved their charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my case if the victim had testified it very likely could have changed the verdict. Without it we could just not take some pretty damning and unexplainable evidence to convict the guy because it did not meet the burden required by the prosecution based on the charges, which is what we were required to consider.

I still 100% support our decision as a jury. I still 100% believe he was guilty. Honestly the process enheartened me and gave me more hope for the jury process in this country. We quickly discussed our impressions of his guilt. Then we proceeded to discuss all the evidence and finally how that evidence related to the specific criminal charges. I don't think we took an actual vote until that point. It was not a contentious jury, everyone seemed to be on the same page.

We did discuss the moral implications of finding him guilty even though the prosecutor did not meet their burden on the charges filed. Again, though, no jury is tasked with deciding guilt or innocence. They are tasked with whether the prosecutor Met their burden beyond a reasonable doubt on the filed charges. Innocence is not really a question any jury should be debating.
02-25-2016 , 07:27 PM
I can break down what Mark is trying to say with a simple analogy..

Someone claims all the stars in the universe equal an even number.

The claim can either be accepted, rejected because you believe the answer is odd or rejected because you are not convinced the answer is even. You do not have to reach the conclusion the answer is odd to reject that the answer is even. In the case of guilty vs innocent we are only addressing one claim.. the defendants guilt. this is actually pretty simple, idk why he thinks I don't understand this. I understand how burden of proof works, both in the legal sense and in debate.

      
m