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

02-25-2016 , 07:29 PM
it is actually mark who stretches the english language to make up his own definition of "reasonable" doubt.
02-25-2016 , 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
...
BTW only the Guilty crowd have continually thrown insults, abused posters & acted like children ITT.

...
Not entirely true, and I'm speaking only about myself here.
02-25-2016 , 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
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.
STRONG LIKE BULL
02-25-2016 , 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
Not entirely true, and I'm speaking only about myself here.
But, but we were provoked.....
02-25-2016 , 08:32 PM
Quote:
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.
Not to speak for PoorS, but I honestly don't base my opinions on how many reddit posters agree with me.

Quote:
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.
Again, as I've said multiple times, if you are convinced the cops planted the evidence, nothing will probably change your mind. I see no reason to believe they planted the evidence, nor have I seen any proof that they did so. If there had been proof that even a single piece of the evidence was planted, SA would likely have been found not guilty. Stuff like "But why didn't he crush the car?", is not proof that evidence was planted. Likewise, Lenk finding pieces of evidence is not proof he planted that evidence.

Quote:
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.
No one has ever said it's not possible. But without any proof it's all speculation. Perhaps Zellner will find some proof and I will be forced to change my opinion of the case. But I doubt it, mainly because I doubt the evidence was planted in the first place.
02-25-2016 , 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
it is actually mark who stretches the english language to make up his own definition of "reasonable" doubt.

Oh geez, is marksmann still writing pompous essays on how he's the only one who understands reasonable doubt?
02-25-2016 , 08:42 PM
Quote:
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'm confused. The bulk of reddit discussion has always been that Avery's innocent, but it has actually begun migrating toward the side of guilt more and more as of late.
02-25-2016 , 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
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.
Thanks for the post. However I have to admit I am finding it hard to understand the distinction you are drawing.

You say you believe 100% that he was guilty. What are you basing this belief on if not on the case presented by the prosecution? What is the difference between saying you are 100% certain of the suspect's guilt based on the prosecution's case and saying that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt? Unless you are basing your position of certainty of guilt on information extraneous to the trial, which doesn't seem to be what you are saying.

Also just to circle back to the Avery case, based on your experience on a jury you say all the jury members carried out their civic duty conscientiously. On what basis can you assume that the members of the Avery jury did not do the same?
02-26-2016 , 12:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
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.
You're wrong. That's not what I asked. Go back and read how I phrased the question. Literally, I was asking the "not-guilty" crowd who thinks he "isn't guilty". There's a subtle difference. I'm asking who thinks he committed murder.

I obviously know the legal terms "guilty", "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" etc. To suggest I don't know what these mean is just stupid.

My question is not meaningless. I'm interested. Am I not allowed to be interested? Discussing the evidence and interpreting it is fun and more so when trying to figure out if he actually committed the murder or not. At least to me. You're entire response is pretty pathetic. I'm literally asking and interested to know who thinks SA actually committed the murder and how confident each is of this. There's no rule that this type of discussion can't take place. If you don't like my question, then ignore it. Don't twist what I said. Don't call me stupid. Don't go off on a tangent. Discuss my question constructively or move along.

It's obvious to what should be everyone that SA was not given a 100% fair trial. Just the prosecutor tainting the jury with that press conference should end any debate of that.
02-26-2016 , 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
...



Again, as I've said multiple times, if you are convinced the cops planted the evidence, nothing will probably change your mind. I see no reason to believe they planted the evidence, nor have I seen any proof that they did so. If there had been proof that even a single piece of the evidence was planted, SA would likely have been found not guilty. Stuff like "But why didn't he crush the car?", is not proof that evidence was planted. Likewise, Lenk finding pieces of evidence is not proof he planted that evidence.



...

Ok, revots is probably ignoring me now too, so this is directed to the grown folks. I'll play bad cop to markksman's good cop, because he's far too polite to these dumb mother****ers.

Also, I'll play the bold-the-entire-goddam-thing game.

It's not about being convinced they planted evidence, nor is it about needing to prove they did. In the same way the defendant is given the presumption of innocence and the state needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the LEOs need to prove everything they did was to the letter/by the book/above board/dealer's choice for what colloquialism you prefer. You won't hear it phrased as the following because usually it's not about outright planting evidence, it's about all the other numerous factors in play, but, essentially, THEY NEED TO PROVE THAT THEY DID NOT PLANT EVIDENCE even if nobody made a hint of a whiff of an accusation. It's all tied together with the presumption of innocence, because the defendant is the only one with that luxury. THAT IS WHY THERE ARE SO MANY STRINGENT PROTOCOLS CONCERNING EVIDENCE COLLECTION AND LEO BEHAVIOR. It all leads to the possibility of imprisoning a living human; everybody involved needs and wants to be sure as the gravity of this endeavor is not to be taken lightly.


Sweet christ it was tilting reading this thread and seeing the huur no proof of planting duur over and over.
02-26-2016 , 12:59 AM
Follow up:

I hope one of the big takeaways from all this, regardless of what side you're on, is: When you hear about somebody 'going free' because of a 'technicality' think about this case and understand, unless you're dealing with pure fiction it's rarely a ****ing 'technicality'. It is that there was sufficient suspicion surrounding the collection of evidence, sufficiently enough protocols broken, that no sane and just society would consider imprisoning a person based on it.
02-26-2016 , 01:00 AM
BOLD GAME STRONG DOG
02-26-2016 , 01:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackize5 Making a Murderer
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
I disagree. There's quite a lot of discussion about evidence and what it means and whether SA actually murdered TH or not.

The process of the justice system sucks. The end. No more discussion there. Now let's get back to whether we think SA murdered TH or not.
02-26-2016 , 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Oh geez, is marksmann still writing pompous essays on how he's the only one who understands reasonable doubt?
Yes
02-26-2016 , 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
I've never ignored anyone in my 6+ years on 2p2
Yeah, I meant not just the ignore function but the manual ignoring i.e. actively not reading a post and acknowledging said ignoring... Ok, uh, nvm.

Anyhow about your other question of SA's innocence, I put him at 4% guilty and maybe 3.98% of that is due to the cat incident. We can talk about that if you like.

#TeamCat
02-26-2016 , 01:25 AM
How exactly are they supposed to prove they didn't plant evidence... when there is no proof they planted evidence?

The entire basis of the defense, was that SA was framed. If he was framed, then someone planted the evidence. Not just one piece of it... all of it. The car, the bones, the blood, the DNA, everything.

Yet the defense was unable to prove any of it was planted. Their best hope was the test on the blood. When that didn't pan out the way they hoped, they attacked the test itself.

Actually, the defense didn't have to prove the evidence was planted. They just had to create enough doubt in the minds of the jury. They failed. If the investigation was such a cluster**** as you seem to think it was, it should have been easy for 2 top-flight defense attorneys to convince the jury.

In the end, there was nothing incompetent or sinister in how the case was investigated. The state met its burden, and a murderer was put away. The system worked, and TH's family got some small amount of closure.
02-26-2016 , 01:35 AM
An anecdote about The Evidence:

So, my sister is an immigration attorney, not a criminal attorney. She had not watched MaM nor followed the buzz. Basically all she'd read was an article about what they 'left out'. We were talking and I was giving her the rundown. She asked what evidence they found and I listed the car, the burn barrel, the blood, the key, the bullet fragments and she interrupted me to ask, "But what did they find in his actual house?" I told her the key, and the bullet in the garage and she said, "Oh.. Uh... Hmmm..." This was right at the beginning of our talk and there was no discussion yet about any suspicious circumstances. Her unbiased kneejerk response was that finding evidence on somebody's property but outside their actual living quarters is nowhere near the slam dunk people seem to think.
02-26-2016 , 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
How exactly are they supposed to prove they didn't plant evidence... when there is no proof they planted evidence?

The entire basis of the defense, was that SA was framed. If he was framed, then someone planted the evidence. Not just one piece of it... all of it. The car, the bones, the blood, the DNA, everything.

Yet the defense was unable to prove any of it was planted. Their best hope was the test on the blood. When that didn't pan out the way they hoped, they attacked the test itself.

Actually, the defense didn't have to prove the evidence was planted. They just had to create enough doubt in the minds of the jury. They failed. If the investigation was such a cluster**** as you seem to think it was, it should have been easy for 2 top-flight defense attorneys to convince the jury.

In the end, there was nothing incompetent or sinister in how the case was investigated. The state met its burden, and a murderer was put away. The system worked, and TH's family got some small amount of closure.
I just vomited in my mouth a little. I'm gonna tag in markksman.
02-26-2016 , 01:43 AM
No but srsly that was the most circular bull**** ITT and that's saying something. But as for this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
...

... If the investigation was such a cluster**** as you seem to think it was, it should have been easy for 2 top-flight defense attorneys to convince the jury.

...
Like, I dunno, maybe they had a jury full of revotses? I mean, if we're cutting the **** and being real for a second there are a lot more revotses in the world than there are 5ives.
02-26-2016 , 01:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
Her unbiased kneejerk response was that finding evidence on somebody's property but outside their actual living quarters is nowhere near the slam dunk people seem to think.
Most people don't think it's a slam dunk.
02-26-2016 , 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
No but srsly that was the most circular bull**** ITT and that's saying something. But as for this:



Like, I dunno, maybe they had a jury full of revotses? I mean, if we're cutting the **** and being real for a second there are a lot more revotses in the world than there are 5ives.
Good thing. Because you seem pretty stupid.
02-26-2016 , 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Most people don't think it's a slam dunk.
A vocal minority maybe? She found it very weird the location of the car was even admitted as evidence, though she kept stressing 'I'm not a criminal attorney so I might be wrong', lol.
02-26-2016 , 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Yet the defense was unable to prove any of it was planted. Their best hope was the test on the blood. When that didn't pan out the way they hoped, they attacked the test itself.
In reality, what it seems the defense were hoping for was to present the vial with the hole in it and not test the blood.

According to the State's motions, the defense knew about the vial since July 2006 at the latest.

The defense had their "red letter day" vial discovery on December 14th, 2006, the day before the December 15th deadline for general discovery of evidence.

With only a couple months until the trial started in February 12th, 2007, the prosecution filed a motion to either exclude the vial as evidence or delay the start of the trial so they could test it and prove there was no EDTA. The defense fought this motion, and the judge sided with the defense.

However, the FBI Chemistry Unit made the test a high priority and finished it in time for the trial. The results were not good for Steven.

Only then did the defense want to do their own test, and asked the judge for a mistrial or to delay the trial. This time, the judge sided with the prosecution, and here's an excerpt of his explanation:

Quote:
“The Court also concludes that if the defendant had felt the testing of the blood was important, the defendant had adequate opportunity in which to arrange for such testing. The defendant could have sought release of the blood vial much earlier and requested permission to test it himself under Section 971.23 (5).

In the alternative, if the defendant did not want to risk spending resources on a test which could possibly produce inconclusive or unfavorable results, the defendant could have disclosed the existence of the blood evidence earlier, asked the Court to set a deadline for the State to conduct any testing that it wished to conduct and still allow the defense adequate time to make its own decision as to whether or not it wanted to independently test the blood vial, all of which could accomplish — been accomplished well before the start of trial in this case.

The Court believes the defense decision not to pursue identification of the blood vial until very close to the discovery deadline was a decision that the defense was entitled to make.

[...]

Finally, by waiting until shortly before the time it was permitted to do so, the defense may have left the State with less time to prepare to meet the evidence and, specifically, with not enough time in which to conduct the State’s own tests. It certainly appeared, based on the original State request to adjourn the trial, that that may well have been the case here."
His full explanation is much more in-depth and really well-put IMO.

Basically IMO, the defense's strategy was to sneak the vial into the trial without allowing it time to be tested.

You can read a more detailed summary of the issue at http://stevenaverycase.com/avery-blood-edta-test-rushed

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 02-26-2016 at 02:00 AM.
02-26-2016 , 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Good thing. Because you seem pretty stupid.
Sick burn bro etc but hmmm, I thought we had a peace treaty. Maybe I DON'T reed as gud as I thought.

I even answered the question about the thing you wanted to talk about:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
...

Anyhow about your other question of SA's innocence, I put him at 4% guilty and maybe 3.98% of that is due to the cat incident. We can talk about that if you like.

#TeamCat
02-26-2016 , 02:07 AM
lul PoorShillz going HAM ITT

1. Look guys they totally didn't plant this one specific piece of evidence in this one specific manner using Dat Vial that my shill site has a zillion printed words about.
2. ????
3. Profit!

      
m