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

03-08-2016 , 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
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?
Lol no. Thats not how proof of innocence works.

It definitely increases the doubt of his guilt but inprobability isnt a proof.
03-09-2016 , 10:59 AM
hmm, idk.. People have been exonerated on less. See Anthony Porter.
03-09-2016 , 01:41 PM
good read with a few cool informations
http://gmancasefile.com/moore-to-the...-6-part-1-of-3
03-09-2016 , 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
good read with a few cool informations
http://gmancasefile.com/moore-to-the...-6-part-1-of-3
Yeah the more it's discussed the more I think that press conference should have led to a mistrial. Of course the judge was incompetent so it's not really surprising.
03-09-2016 , 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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
ITT poorskillz defends ebdta test by FBI to the death, then attacks the same FBI for how they use cellphone data.

That article is not 11 years old. A lot has changed in the way cell phone usage is managed. I am sure I noted this in my post. Congestion management wasn't in widespread use then and certainly did not start in rural Wisconsin.
03-09-2016 , 05:28 PM
I just wanted to say that the FBI guy still holds the Thin blue line as he states at the start of hos blog that he believe's SA is guilty but believe's that he should have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.(correct me if I'm wrong).
But he finds SO SO many mistakes BUT you know he can't go against the uniform. lol
He believe's that he will find out that the bullet will not match, no blood from TH anywhere on SA property None, just like me he believes that EVERY piece of evidence is tainted including police log's. So **** him, until he starts to be honest with himself.
And here's more lies......

Eisenberg sends the bone-with-tissue sample to the FBI and explicitly states it never went to the crime lab (Sherry). This bone-with-tissue sample was labeled "exhibit 385" in SA's trial and "150" in BD's trial.
KK presents and Sherry testifies saying she tested that bone-with-tissue sample, referring to it as item "BZ". The evidence log, however, shows that "BZ" is simply "charred material." Also, the photo of item "BZ" in SA's trial is a zoomed in/cropped/rotated image of "Exhibit 385" (AKA, 150).
What this suggests...
Sherry never tested the bone with tissue. (Eisenburg said it went straight to FBI)
KK and Sherry misrepresent the bone with tissue as item "BZ" in SA's trial.
So the chain of custody is:
Bones discovered at Avery property (Nov 8th)
Bones shoveled into a box at Avery property (Nov 8th)
Bones left at Eisenberg's office (Nov 9th)
Box of bones opened at Dane County Morgue (Nov 10th)
Bones transferred to FBI lab (EDIT: Nov 16th)
FBI DNA report (Dec 5th)
When would Sherry have had the opportunity to cut a sample?



Lets just hope that justice will be served by KZ....Zellner TWEET Fact: one person actually gave cops fake name to access property to help in TH search. #MakingAMurderer #The StrangerBesideMe #Checkaduhid
1 fake Name.
1 Ex boyfriend.
1 Family member.
+50 conflict's of interest MCSD.
2 Sheriff's
1 Prosecutor(2 sheriff's & a Prosecutor who likely have never again joined in on a search of a property except for a presser).

#Tictokmantiowoc

Last edited by smacc25; 03-09-2016 at 05:41 PM.
03-09-2016 , 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
ITT poorskillz defends ebdta test by FBI to the death, then attacks the same FBI for how they use cellphone data.

That article is not 11 years old. A lot has changed in the way cell phone usage is managed. I am sure I noted this in my post. Congestion management wasn't in widespread use then and certainly did not start in rural Wisconsin.
Correct Mark it is easier to get a location due to Cell towers not routing calls in 2005, Shhh it's a trade secret. The company's don't even tell the FBI how they work btw. That article is all B.S
But he will defend the BULLET to the hilt lol when anyone who has worked with metal will tell you that its impossible to match metal to metal after degradation to a degree of scientific certainty.
03-09-2016 , 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
From the article I posted....Mr Greeseback's special offer.
03-09-2016 , 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.
Sweet merciful tasty christ, all you have to do is read literally the next few questions, the next half a page of testimony, after what was quoted to get it.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jury-trial-index/

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...8.pdf#page=174

03-09-2016 , 06:38 PM
The Thread That Never Stops Giving
03-09-2016 , 06:57 PM
5ive,

You are missing the point raised by Skillz and revolts. We are not asserting that her body was burned before she died. We are just saying that if the Jury thought the mutilation of a corpse charge required her to be dead when the burning started then it is reasonable they would just agree to let that one go. Especially if he didn't mutilate the corpse with the intent of hiding evidence.

I do not agree with the jurys decision but I can see how after debating count 1 for 3 days they wouldn't bother with the irrelevant count 2. Perhaps one person brought up this argument and the other 11 were like **** it. That is much more reasonable then this "trading votes" theory which makes no sense what so ever.
03-09-2016 , 07:00 PM
Guys, what is the range of opinions in the thread of the likelihood this guy is guilty? e.g everyone thinks it's 10%, half thinks it's 100% half think it's 0% etc. Cheers.
03-09-2016 , 07:06 PM
Lostinthesaus has said he is 100% innocent.

I think there are a couple people who have said he is guilty with 95-99% confidence.

Oski by the power of pure mental fortitude has remained completely unbiased and isnt leaning either way at all on SAs guilt or innocence.


The rest are somewhere in the middle with a vast vocal majority thinking he is innocent.
03-09-2016 , 07:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PartyGirlUK Making a Murderer
Guys, what is the range of opinions in the thread of the likelihood this guy is guilty? e.g everyone thinks it's 10%, half thinks it's 100% half think it's 0% etc. Cheers.
Lost
5ive
smacc

are all arguing he is innocent

there are a bunch of others arguing he didn't get a fair trial. I would say the majority of people who post itt are of this opinion. Not necessarily that they think he is innocent but that he deserves another trial.

Me
Skillz
revolts
and angerpush think he is guilty and that the trial was fair.
03-09-2016 , 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Lostinthesaus has said he is 100% innocent.

I think there are a couple people who have said he is guilty with 95-99% confidence.

Oski by the power of pure mental fortitude has remained completely unbiased and isnt leaning either way at all on SAs guilt or innocence.


The rest are somewhere in the middle with a vast vocal majority thinking he is innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Lost
5ive
smacc

are all arguing he is innocent

there are a bunch of others arguing he didn't get a fair trial. I would say the majority of people who post itt are of this opinion. Not necessarily that they think he is innocent but that he deserves another trial.

Me
Skillz
revolts
and angerpush think he is guilty and that the trial was fair.

Pretty much this.

I'd just like to add that after first watching the show, we all (even those of us like myself who are now certain of his guilt and believe the trial was fair) thought he had an unfair trial and weren't sure of his guilt.

It's from researching the facts of the case outside the show that fraley, revots, etc. and I came to the conclusion that he's guilty.

The show distorted the facts of the case heavily IMO.
03-09-2016 , 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
5ive,

You are missing the point raised by Skillz and revolts. We are not asserting that her body was burned before she died. We are just saying that if the Jury thought the mutilation of a corpse charge required her to be dead when the burning started then it is reasonable they would just agree to let that one go. Especially if he didn't mutilate the corpse with the intent of hiding evidence.

I do not agree with the jurys decision but I can see how after debating count 1 for 3 days they wouldn't bother with the irrelevant count 2. Perhaps one person brought up this argument and the other 11 were like **** it. That is much more reasonable then this "trading votes" theory which makes no sense what so ever.
So we're saying the jury is dumb... Fine, I raised this point as well as a few before me.

That doesn't change your post that I quoted in my reply, nor revots and pshillz, where you people clearly didn't understand what mutilation of a corpse even is.

It seems like you might understand now but are too proud to walk it back. W/e, IDGAF, at this point I feel like a goddam bully anyhow.
03-09-2016 , 07:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
...

It's from researching the facts of the case outside the show that fraley, revots, etc. and I came to the conclusion that he's guilty.

The show distorted the facts of the case heavily IMO.
Through the looking glass ITT
03-09-2016 , 07:28 PM
5ive,

It is you that doesn't understand what mutilating a corpse is. According to wisconsin law the intent of hiding evidence is required to be convicted of mutilating a corpse. If SA was burning her alive, he didn't burn her with the intention of hiding evidence.

In other words, he can not be convicted of both murder and mutilating a corpse if he burned her alive. he can however, be convicted of both if he burned her after he died.
03-09-2016 , 07:29 PM
And this does not mean it is required to reach the conclusion she was burned alive. This just means it is legally required to feel that burden of proof that she wasn't was not meant.
03-09-2016 , 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Lost
5ive
smacc

are all arguing he is innocent

there are a bunch of others arguing he didn't get a fair trial. I would say the majority of people who post itt are of this opinion. Not necessarily that they think he is innocent but that he deserves another trial.

Me
Skillz
revolts
and angerpush think he is guilty and that the trial was fair.

I believe and feel SA is innocent and have not hid that fact, but I haven't actually argued that point as the vast majority of my posts have been about BD and his interrogation/confession. That you can't make this distinction is, while not wholly surprising, almost too perfectly thematic to be real.
03-09-2016 , 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
5ive,

It is you that doesn't understand what mutilating a corpse is. According to wisconsin law the intent of hiding evidence is required to be convicted of mutilating a corpse. If SA was burning her alive, he didn't burn her with the intention of hiding evidence.

In other words, he can not be convicted of both murder and mutilating a corpse if he burned her alive. he can however, be convicted of both if he burned her after he died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
And this does not mean it is required to reach the conclusion she was burned alive. This just means it is legally required to feel that burden of proof that she wasn't was not meant.
Why do you people insist on me being a bully?

WHY DO U MAKE ME DO IT?!
03-09-2016 , 08:10 PM
I believe that SA/BD are innocent & KK has no respect for the Halbach family who lost a daughter/sister & friend, the cops did worse by IF they dug up TH with a Digger (IF the bones were even there.) and could have actually aided either a rouge cop or criminal to commit murder to frame an innocent man or moved & maybe cremated TH.

Oh really you say?

Well they let G.Allen to continue to violently rape someone's Wife, daughter, sister & friend. just think about that for 5 min, let it sink in.
But na cops don't kill people lol'
Well then did you all see the Tamir Rice video, that KID was 12 years old, no warning, 2 SEC Dead. I don't want to go into the TR case but if I ever kill a 12y OLD then I'd do the time myself, no judge/jury required.
Any person that can shoot at a kid without hesitation needs to have a good look at them self's & the training they receive.
03-09-2016 , 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
I believe and feel SA is innocent and have not hid that fact, but I haven't actually argued that point as the vast majority of my posts have been about BD and his interrogation/confession. That you can't make this distinction is, while not wholly surprising, almost too perfectly thematic to be real.
Lol. Wtf? Do you think people read the majority of your posts? I have seen you say that you are part of "team innocent". That is where I drew that conclusion. And you just confirmed it for me.
03-09-2016 , 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
I just wanted to say that the FBI guy still holds the Thin blue line as he states at the start of hos blog that he believe's SA is guilty but believe's that he should have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.(correct me if I'm wrong).
But he finds SO SO many mistakes BUT you know he can't go against the
I didn't get that at all.

I think he couched his opinion based on "only what he had seen in the first two episodes" and further explains that because of the formula of a doc., he expected it to be that way - that the evidence would pile up against S.A. (so that the rest of the doc. could knock it down).

I believe he gives his thoughts and impressions contemporaneously with this viewing and when he states that the evidence against S.A. is "overwhelming" that it only so, if it is "legitimate." (or something to that effect).

From reading his posts, he seems to zero right in on Hillegas and adds to the many questions of Hillegas that we already identified in this thread.

I am very interested in what he says going forward as he will provide his conclusion based on the doc. and then he will do his own research and follow up.
03-09-2016 , 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
I believe and feel SA is innocent and have not hid that fact, but I haven't actually argued that point as the vast majority of my posts have been about BD and his interrogation/confession. That you can't make this distinction is, while not wholly surprising, almost too perfectly thematic to be real.
You haven't hidden your opinion but you haven't argued it

LOL

Of course no one can make that distinction, bc it makes no sense

      
m