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

02-27-2016 , 05:16 PM


Speculation, RH or ST...With the way KZ & SA have been tweeting & writing I guess the safe $ is on Ryan.
Also with KZ having no access to the evidence items & having recently been to Mantiowoc for luminol testing of SA yard maybe she is/was also testing other area's in the county & has discovered TH DNA elsewhere.
I think at this point I'd say that KZ has been giving INFO that we don't yet know of concerning Ryan H.

So Fraley what's the deal with you & RH & his friends? Are they getting nervous yet?
And do you know who Might have leaked the Info(if at all).
02-28-2016 , 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
explain
It is incoherent
02-28-2016 , 01:45 PM
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
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
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.
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.
From Strang's cross-examination of Dr. Eisenberg:

Q As you sit here, and on the evidence you have, one or both of those gunshots, as easily, could have been fired into the skull of a dead person as into the skull of a living person; true?

A That is possible.

Q Which -- Not only possible, it's true, isn't it?

A Yes. In the absence of being able to reconstruct the skull, um, I would agree with you.

Q And -- and you've completed the work that you've been able to do on reconstruction of this skull?

A To the best of my ability, yes.

Q All right. And if the gunshot wounds were fired into the skull after the person was dead, then the gunshots did not cause the death of the person, did they?

A That would be a correct assessment.

Q If the gunshots did not cause the death of the person, then, as we go back to manner of death as homicide, the evidence you have for homicide is the burning or destruction of the bones that you saw?

A That is correct.

....


Q All right. And the law in the state of Wisconsin includes, among other possible crimes, but two relevant here, first degree intentional homicide, that is, intentionally causing the death of a human being, you understand that?

A Yes.

Q And a crime called mutilation of a corpse, you understand that --

A Yes, I do.

Q -- as well? And if one is living, then the defendant or the person is incapable of mutilating a corpse, because it -- you know, if you're living, you're not a corpse; correct?

A Correct.

Q All right. So you understand, here, that these folks to your left will have to make a distinction between homicide on the one hand and mutilating a corpse on the other? You understand that?

A Yes, I do.
02-28-2016 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
It is incoherent

So because you don't understand what I am saying, that means I do not know what I am talking about?

Which part do you not understand?
02-28-2016 , 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
From Strang's cross-examination of Dr. Eisenberg:



Q As you sit here, and on the evidence you have, one or both of those gunshots, as easily, could have been fired into the skull of a dead person as into the skull of a living person; true?



A That is possible.



Q Which -- Not only possible, it's true, isn't it?



A Yes. In the absence of being able to reconstruct the skull, um, I would agree with you.



Q And -- and you've completed the work that you've been able to do on reconstruction of this skull?



A To the best of my ability, yes.



Q All right. And if the gunshot wounds were fired into the skull after the person was dead, then the gunshots did not cause the death of the person, did they?



A That would be a correct assessment.



Q If the gunshots did not cause the death of the person, then, as we go back to manner of death as homicide, the evidence you have for homicide is the burning or destruction of the bones that you saw?



A That is correct.



....





Q All right. And the law in the state of Wisconsin includes, among other possible crimes, but two relevant here, first degree intentional homicide, that is, intentionally causing the death of a human being, you understand that?



A Yes.



Q And a crime called mutilation of a corpse, you understand that --



A Yes, I do.



Q -- as well? And if one is living, then the defendant or the person is incapable of mutilating a corpse, because it -- you know, if you're living, you're not a corpse; correct?



A Correct.



Q All right. So you understand, here, that these folks to your left will have to make a distinction between homicide on the one hand and mutilating a corpse on the other? You understand that?



A Yes, I do.

So, in your head, the jury believed they burned TH alive and therefore did not come back guilty on the mutilating a corpse count.
02-28-2016 , 07:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
So, in your head, the jury believed they burned TH alive and therefore did not come back guilty on the mutilating a corpse count.
No, you've misinterpreted me.

I'm not saying the jury believed TH was burned alive.

I'm saying the jury may have believed she was definitely murdered by Steven, but they still could have felt there was reasonable doubt about the cause of death - gunshots or fire (which is what Strang argues in the excerpt I provided).

This is a reasonable explanation for why the jury would vote "not guilty" on mutilation of a corpse (as Strang explained in the excerpt I provided).
02-28-2016 , 09:08 PM
Good stuff skillz. Lol at E's response to you. So ridiculous.
02-28-2016 , 09:09 PM
Its funny, they understand reasonable doubt (at least they pretend to) until it doesn't fit their unfair trial narrative.
02-29-2016 , 12:06 AM
Uh, no, not good stuff.

Either the jury traded votes, or they believed she was burned alive.

They convicted him of murder, but not mutilating a corpse. Ergo she was burned alive, and used for target practice after.

That should give you insight as to go stupid juries are.
02-29-2016 , 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Uh, no, not good stuff.

Either the jury traded votes, or they believed she was burned alive.

They convicted him of murder, but not mutilating a corpse. Ergo she was burned alive, and used for target practice after.

That should give you insight as to go stupid juries are.

No.

"Reasonable doubt".

I'm done discussing with you.

Perhaps marksmann will write you an essay.
02-29-2016 , 01:00 AM
What do you mean done discussing? There's no discussion to be had.

In order to mutilate a corpse, you first need a corpse. The jury didn't convict SA of mutilating a corpse. Just of her murder.

There are 3 possible inferences to draw from that information.

1) the jury believes that SA did not burn TH's body after he killed her

2) the jury believes SA burned TH alive

3) the jury lacks understanding and basic reasoning skills
02-29-2016 , 01:07 AM
4) the jury believes it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that TH was burned only after dying from the gunshot wounds (aka mutilating a corpse), and efrompegtown lacks understanding and basic reasoning skills
02-29-2016 , 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
4) the jury believes it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that TH was burned only after dying from the gunshot wounds (aka mutilating a corpse), and efrompegtown lacks understanding and basic reasoning skills

Isn't that #2?
02-29-2016 , 01:24 AM
No, the jury doesn't need to "believe SA burned TH alive" in order to believe it's a reasonable possibility.
02-29-2016 , 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
What do you mean done discussing? There's no discussion to be had.

In order to mutilate a corpse, you first need a corpse. The jury didn't convict SA of mutilating a corpse. Just of her murder.

There are 3 possible inferences to draw from that information.

1) the jury believes that SA did not burn TH's body after he killed her

2) the jury believes SA burned TH alive

3) the jury lacks understanding and basic reasoning skills
No dude, the jury doesn't have to believe any of that. They do not have to construct another scenario as to what happened to not accept beyond a reasonable doubt that her corpse was mutilated.

This is why I tried to paint the analogy of someone claiming the amount of stars in the universe equal an even number. I can reject that premise without arguing the number of stars in the universe equal an odd number. Since the state bears the burden of proof and that burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury can simply reach a verdict of not guilty without knowing what or reaching a conclusion on what happened.
02-29-2016 , 03:36 AM
Bones crushed, burnt, and spread across multiple sites -> reasonable doubt that mutilation occurred.

Evidence protocols ignored at every turn, shady tactics from prosecutor on down, and strong possibility evidence was planted -> that sumbitch is guilty.

More of the Manitowoc 3's excellent "logic"
02-29-2016 , 08:40 AM
Are you guys drunk?
02-29-2016 , 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackize5 Making a Murderer
Bones crushed, burnt, and spread across multiple sites -> reasonable doubt that mutilation occurred.
This has been explained. The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered her. They did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that she was definitely deceased when he put her body in the fire. It's really not that hard. You realize that a person can be shot, even in the head, and still be clinging to life for a while afterwards, right?
02-29-2016 , 06:12 PM
So they think he burned her alive.

Got it.

Thanks.
02-29-2016 , 06:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
This has been explained. The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered her. They did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that she was definitely deceased when he put her body in the fire. It's really not that hard. You realize that a person can be shot, even in the head, and still be clinging to life for a while afterwards, right?
Not without any blood they can't.

So pick a path, but it can't be both ways.
02-29-2016 , 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
No dude, the jury doesn't have to believe any of that. They do not have to construct another scenario as to what happened to not accept beyond a reasonable doubt that her corpse was mutilated.

This is why I tried to paint the analogy of someone claiming the amount of stars in the universe equal an even number. I can reject that premise without arguing the number of stars in the universe equal an odd number. Since the state bears the burden of proof and that burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury can simply reach a verdict of not guilty without knowing what or reaching a conclusion on what happened.
Finally you are right about something. All a jury needs to do is say "eh I don't buy it" in regards to the prosecution's case. Or they can say "I have too many questions about what they are claiming". These are both good examples of reasonable doubt.

Of course "holy crap the police might frame me too screw reasonable doubt" is a potential mitigating factor.
02-29-2016 , 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
4) the jury believes it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that TH was burned only after dying from the gunshot wounds (aka mutilating a corpse), and efrompegtown lacks understanding and basic reasoning skills
So when was she burned?

Are you guys really trying to apply logic to the split jury decision in this case lol.

You silly guys. We know why the jury split. Some of them were scared and all of them wanted to get out of there and they made a ridiculous compromise verdict.

Lol at jury finding murder beyond reasonable doubt during careful deliberation but not mutilation.
02-29-2016 , 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
No, you've misinterpreted me.

I'm not saying the jury believed TH was burned alive.

I'm saying the jury may have believed she was definitely murdered by Steven, but they still could have felt there was reasonable doubt about the cause of death - gunshots or fire (which is what Strang argues in the excerpt I provided).

This is a reasonable explanation for why the jury would vote "not guilty" on mutilation of a corpse (as Strang explained in the excerpt I provided).
Not knowing how she died SHOULD be problematic for any jury. Especially in a case with remains. That a jury would convict someone of murder without the prosecution presenting a coherent narrative of the crime is insane.

Lol Wisconsin

Your justification for the split verdict is some of your worst work yet.

      
m