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

03-07-2016 , 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8ce_story.html

I honestly don't even think Zellner has any legitimate cell tower evidence to begin with - she just needed to get people to stop talking about her deleted dumbass tweet calling out Strang and Buting.
surprise surprise lol
But y'all know that the bullet & EDTA are both scientifically sound. GTFOH

That report is regarding using A SINGLE TOWER. “It is useful and can be used. But in the hands of a novice, this is dangerous science.”
Larry Daniel.

Verizon, AT&T and Sprint all declined to answer questions about how their systems work or discuss what they share with law enforcement. Experts said the algorithms for routing calls are a trade secret that the wireless carriers are inclined to keep secret.

Last edited by smacc25; 03-07-2016 at 09:36 PM.
03-07-2016 , 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Its burden of proof. Jesus. You can reject one conclusion without drawing another. If it is up to you to prove I woke up at 6:09 am this morning and you do not meet that burden of proof I can reject your assertion without knowing what time I woke up.

It is up to the state to prove both counts, if they can not prove if she was shot or burned first then the jury has the duty to reach not guilty on count 2. Reaching not guilty on count 2 does not mean they have reached the conclusion that she was burned alive. It means they have not reached the conclusion that she was burned after she died. There is a subtle but important difference here.
Lol wat

So was she burned first or shot first? You mantiwoc 3s are confusing.

What do you think the lesser charge was for? Do you know why the DA chose to also charge Avery with this? Given the non-existiant understanding of the US Criminal Justice System, I assume no is the answer.

Do you think every time something is done to a murderer victim after they die they are charged with a similar statute?

Again you don't think the prosecution needs a coherent narrative of events to get a legitimate conviction? This is the same exact nonsense that poorskillz started this discussion with. You are telling a jury we don't know how she died or shy she died but this is our guy. That is not how it is SUPPOSED to work.

You guys continue this completely fictional narrative like this was a discussion that ever took place in that jury room.
03-07-2016 , 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Lol ok zellner.. Lets see where you're going with this considering cellphone towers were not that accurate back then. At least, they could show within a few miles of her location so unless she was in a different city or something..
Math and physics were not accurate back then? It is actually much harder to process today because cell phone companies redirect traffic to avoid congestion. (Although modern cell phones can report very accurate gps coordinates) Back then you basically got the closest tower and if you pinged two towers they could triangulate a location. Cell phone triangulation is accurate to within about 3/4th of a square mile. So no given the rural nature of the area she would not have likely been in another "city".
03-07-2016 , 11:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer

So was she burned first or shot first? You mantiwoc 3s are confusing.
She was shot first. This has not been disputed by anyone.

The way you seem to feel the system is SUPPOSED to work, is for the jury to acquit based on ludicrous defense conspiracy theories of bones, blood, and DNA being planted... all based on nothing other than some cops being deposed in a lawsuit.

Actually that is exactly how the system ISN'T supposed to work. The way it is SUPPOSED to work is for the jury to listen to testimony, examine evidence, and reach a verdict of guilty only if proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Exactly what happened in this case.
03-07-2016 , 11:10 PM
By the way I think it's fairly obvious SA was guilty of the mutilation charge as well. Perhaps some members of the jury simply felt that, unlike the murder, it could not be proven to their standards of reasonable doubt. Maybe they felt BD could have been the one who placed the body in the fire, with no help from SA. Maybe they felt it could not be proven she was clinically dead. Who knows exactly how their conversation went? Who cares? It has nothing to do with the prosecution's narrative so I'm not sure why you keep insisting it does.
03-08-2016 , 01:16 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...ell-the-police


Quote:
Rather than pinpoint a suspect’s whereabouts, cell-tower records can put someone within an area of several hundred square miles or, in a congested urban area, several square miles. Yet years of prosecutions and plea bargains have been based on a misunderstanding of how cell networks operate.

...

The paradigm is the assumption that, when you make a call on your cell phone, it automatically routes to the nearest cell tower, and that by capturing those records police can determine where you made a call—and thus where you were—at a particular time. That, he explained, is not how the system works.

When you hit “send” on your cell phone, a complicated series of events takes place that is governed by algorithms and proprietary software, not just by the location of the cell tower. First, your cell phone sends out a radio-frequency signal to the towers within a radius of up to roughly twenty miles—or fewer, in urban areas—depending on the topography and atmospheric conditions. A regional switching center detects the signal and determines whether to accept the call. There are hundreds of such regional centers across the country.

The switching center determines the destination of your call and connects to the land lines that will take it to cell towers near the destination. Almost simultaneously, the software “decides” which of half a dozen towers in your area you’ll connect with. The selection is determined by load-management software that incorporates dozens of factors, including signal strength, atmospheric conditions, and maintenance schedules. The system is so fluid that you could sit at your desk, make five successive cell calls and connect to five different towers. During a conversation, your signal could be switched from one tower to the next; you’ll also be “handed off” to another tower if you travel outside your coverage area while you’re speaking. Designed for business and not tracking, call-detail records provide the kind of information that helps cell companies manage their networks, not track phones.

If I make a cell call from Kenmore Square, in my home town of Boston, you might think that I’m connecting to a cell site a few hundred feet away. But, if I’m standing near Fenway Park during a Red Sox game, with thousands of fans making calls and sending texts, that tower may have reached its capacity. Hypothetically, the system might send me to the next site, which might also be at capacity or down for maintenance, or to the next site, or the next. The switching center may look for all sorts of factors, most of which are proprietary to the company’s software. The only thing that you can say with confidence is that I have connected to a cell site somewhere within a radius of roughly twenty miles.
03-08-2016 , 01:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
By the way I think it's fairly obvious SA was guilty of the mutilation charge as well. Perhaps some members of the jury simply felt that, unlike the murder, it could not be proven to their standards of reasonable doubt. Maybe they felt BD could have been the one who placed the body in the fire, with no help from SA. Maybe they felt it could not be proven she was clinically dead. Who knows exactly how their conversation went? Who cares? It has nothing to do with the prosecution's narrative so I'm not sure why you keep insisting it does.
Here's basically the great divide ITT and ultimately in civilized society as a whole.

Based on the bolded sentence revots clearly does not understand WHAT the crime of mutilation of a corpse IS and WHY it is a crime. And that's OK. It's also OK if the common sense alarm bells don't start ringing at any point.

What is not OK and is actually quite repugnant is that he didn't bother to google it and learn, when we are all on the internet right now with the knowledge a few keystrokes away, and even seems to be emboldened by this ignorance. I could only guess the specific motivation but ultimately there's no reason or excuse.

See, the story we tell ourselves in order to sleep at night is that this is all just Lol Internetz and that people like revots, when the time comes for important decisions about things That Really Matter, will buck up and bear down and won't wear their prideful ignorance like a badge of honor. But they don't, and it's a ****ing tragedy.

Threads like these are microcosms, and ignoring for a moment the murder of TH, SA's first conviction was the result of dozens of revotses all getting the chance to input their prideful ignorance.
03-08-2016 , 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Its burden of proof. Jesus. You can reject one conclusion without drawing another. If it is up to you to prove I woke up at 6:09 am this morning and you do not meet that burden of proof I can reject your assertion without knowing what time I woke up.

It is up to the state to prove both counts, if they can not prove if she was shot or burned first then the jury has the duty to reach not guilty on count 2. Reaching not guilty on count 2 does not mean they have reached the conclusion that she was burned alive. It means they have not reached the conclusion that she was burned after she died. There is a subtle but important difference here.
See my post above. I was making the assumption earlier that's there no way you people would actually not know what mutilation of a corpse is, that there's no way you'd run that wild.
03-08-2016 , 02:38 AM
5ive,

Nothing you bolded suggests he doesn't know what mutilating a corpse is. He is saying if the fire was the cause of death, her corpse wasn't mutilated. The testimony provided that skillz quoted explains why.
03-08-2016 , 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Lol wat

So was she burned first or shot first? You mantiwoc 3s are confusing.

What do you think the lesser charge was for? Do you know why the DA chose to also charge Avery with this? Given the non-existiant understanding of the US Criminal Justice System, I assume no is the answer.

Do you think every time something is done to a murderer victim after they die they are charged with a similar statute?

Again you don't think the prosecution needs a coherent narrative of events to get a legitimate conviction? This is the same exact nonsense that poorskillz started this discussion with. You are telling a jury we don't know how she died or shy she died but this is our guy. That is not how it is SUPPOSED to work.

You guys continue this completely fictional narrative like this was a discussion that ever took place in that jury room.
Lets look at it from the jury seat for a second...

The prosecution did a good job proving the following

A gun owned by SA shot TH in the head in his garage
SA bled inside TH vehicle
Her body was burned in SA's burnpit
Her items were burned outside of SA's door..
TH calls SA at 2:40, doesn't make another call after that.

Sitting in the jury box, there is one conclusion to make on count 1. and imo one conclusion to make on count 2. The jury only agrees with me on the murder charge though. And I can understand why. If a few of them felt that it wasn't proven how exactly she died it is understandable that they could still feel it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt SA killed her without knowing how.

A good analogy of this is the following.. Say you see a video of someone dragging a body to the victims car, The video then shows the person in the video dumping the body and victims car in a lake. Say just before this video there are several witnesses who see the person in the video go inside the victims house and come out with the victims body. There is no DNA evidence recovered for whatever reason. No body is ever recovered.. Do you need to know anything else to convict him of murder? Do you really need to know every detail on how the actual crime took place to reach the conclusion that he is the one that killed the person in question?

Now as for why the state would charge him with the lesser count. Of course I understand. If they reached a not guilty verdict on count 1, there is still counts 2 and 3.. Sort of like a safety net. It is for this very reason why some states allow you to convict on lesser charges for the same crime.. In some states if the prosecution pushes for murder 1 they can still get a verdict of murder2 or even murder 3 in some cases. Even though it is impossible to commit murder 1,2 and 3 in the same crime.
03-08-2016 , 03:06 AM
Mutilating a corpse, as defined in Section 940.11 (1) of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, is violated by one who mutilates a corpse with intent to conceal a crime or avoid apprehension, prosecution, or conviction for a crime.

Before you may find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove, by evidence which satisfies you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the following two elements were present:

One, Steven Avery mutilated the corpse of Teresa Halbach.

Two, in mutilating the corpse of Teresa Halbach, Steven Avery acted with the intent to conceal a crime.

This requires that the defendant acted with the purpose to conceal a crime.

You cannot look into a person's mind to find out intent. Intent must be found, if found at all, from the defendant's acts, words and statements, if any, and from all the facts and circumstances in this case bearing upon intent.

If you are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that both elements of this offense have been proved, you should find the defendant guilty. If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.
03-08-2016 , 10:03 AM
Cell towers are pretty accurate I'd say, anyone with advanced caller ID can see the location of every incoming call they receive
03-08-2016 , 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
They do not have to reach the conclusion she was burned alive to reach the conclusion that they do not believe she was burned after she died.
03-08-2016 , 11:20 AM
Ya, there is that too. Intent needs to be demonstrated for mutilating a corpse in wisconsin.
03-08-2016 , 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Cell towers are pretty accurate I'd say, anyone with advanced caller ID can see the location of every incoming call they receive
From the article I posted: "The use of historical cell-site locator data is different than real-time triangulation of three cell towers to locate a phone, or GPS technology using satellites. The accuracy of those technologies is not in dispute, but phone companies do not save GPS or triangulation data for an individual phone — so that information is not used as evidence."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...8ce_story.html
03-08-2016 , 01:39 PM
I thought zellner knew who the other killer was anyway.. how can this prove anyone else did it? At best it could only prove it wasn't avery.
03-08-2016 , 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I thought zellner knew who the other killer was anyway.. how can this prove anyone else did it? At best it could only prove it wasn't avery.
I'd say at the very best this can prove that TH's phone left the property, but judging from the articles I've posted and based on previous tweets, I doubt Zellner even has evidence of that.
03-08-2016 , 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Ya, there is that too. Intent needs to be demonstrated for mutilating a corpse in wisconsin.
Do they need intent for murder 1?
03-08-2016 , 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Do they need intent for murder 1?
Yes,

Murder1= premeditated intent. This premeditation can be minutes before, it can be as simple as walking out to your car to get a gun to shoot someone for saying something to you in a bar for example.

murder 2= malice of some kind that leads to someones death. This could be going to confront someone then beating them to death..

murder 3= is basically a bad choice that leads to someones death. Like drunk driving.
03-08-2016 , 03:34 PM
By the way, if you conclude that SA killed TH premeditation is obvious. There is no way during all of what happened that he didn't intend on killing her. Even if you were to stretch the imagination and think he only decided this minutes before killing her.
03-08-2016 , 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
By the way, if you conclude that SA killed TH premeditation is obvious. There is no way during all of what happened that he didn't intend on killing her. Even if you were to stretch the imagination and think he only decided this minutes before killing her.
What do you mean during all of what happened? What evidence do you have of stuff happening other than her blood in the back of her car? There is zero evidence to any coherent sequence of events
03-08-2016 , 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
What do you mean during all of what happened? What evidence do you have of stuff happening other than her blood in the back of her car? There is zero evidence to any coherent sequence of events
Premeditation is easily proved with the specific request of TH and the blocked calls he made to her.

Again, this is only if you accept the evidence that he killed her. If you do, you have to accept that it was premeditated.
03-08-2016 , 04:17 PM
Also, regarding the mutilation of corpse charge, I think me, revots, fraley all believe Steven was guilty of that, and should have been found guilty.

We're just offering possible explanations for why a jury found Steven not guilty of mutilation but guilty of murder besides "we're hoping to send a secret message to the appeal courts".

I personally believe (and I think revots stated something similar) that it's likely the jury spent a long time deliberating the murder charge because of one or two jurors who it took a long time to convince, and then the jury didn't want to spend another 2 days going through the same process over the pointless mutilation charge. We'll never really know though.
03-08-2016 , 09:20 PM
If KZ has managed to get the cell tower data for the 4.40pm call that SA made to TH & it turns out that TH was located around the Zipperer's property does this prove SA innocence?

      
m