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

04-18-2016 , 12:26 PM
I agree those tweets are pretty bad overall but they seems pretty effective aswell so far.
Impressive how people are more willing to discuss some bad tweets than real unproffessional behaviors like breaking every rules of an investigation and prospection.
04-18-2016 , 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
This didn't answer my questions even the slightest bit. Maybe I went too far ahead. Do you know what blood spatter is? Do you know what happens when you stab someone in the places that Dassey said she was stabbed while that person is living?
What is your level of expertise on this subject?
04-18-2016 , 02:08 PM
We've discussed that stuff.

This is what's current. Nice back-tracking though.
04-18-2016 , 03:02 PM
Lol, there are actually people who think she took this case without factoring in the publicity she will get?

Lololol. She 100% only took this case because its high profile. I know this because she with out a doubt knew of the case and whatnot prior to the doc and didnt take it.

If she didnt know then she is not very good at her job considering how high profile it was in the innocence project world at the time.
04-18-2016 , 03:06 PM
Or just look at her tweets. So bad.
04-18-2016 , 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Absolutely incorrect.

I believe part of her motivation is to increase her profile. She believes she can get SA off. Even if she doesn't, there's a very good chance just trying will help her career. I believe she is smart enough and strategic enough to realize she may be helping herself even if all she accomplishes is more outrage and buzz about the case.

Again, unless she just botches this immensely, which is very unlikely, this will help her career.

What I have stated is that I am skeptical she actually has anything that will lead to an exoneration. All she has done so far is tweet about it in a very unprofessional way.
Increase her profile lOl

Do you think she wants a T.V. Career?

I'd say K.Z. would have enough cases to fight for as long as she live's before MaM, its interesting that ppl are attacking her as a publicity whore but not surprising.

K.Z. is an ANGEL sent from heaven for the 17 peeps she has gotten out of long sentences & imo she will continue to work in this field as it is a very rewarding area of criminal law.

#Pro Bono

If you want to continue to attack K.Z. AngerP then at least get some fact's correct about the Lady & her Law Firm.
You said earlier to Oski that you would do research into the case yet here you are itt calling K.Z. supporters Trolls.
04-18-2016 , 05:19 PM
So for people who think he is innocent, does the real killer have to be someone who has access to SA's blood? So basically someone in law enforcement.
04-18-2016 , 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Lol, there are actually people who think she took this case without factoring in the publicity she will get?

Lololol. She 100% only took this case because its high profile. I know this because she with out a doubt knew of the case and whatnot prior to the doc and didnt take it.

If she didnt know then she is not very good at her job considering how high profile it was in the innocence project world at the time.
More B.S. Again CCuster..........

K.Z. Took the case & ALL the other cases she has worked on because she & her team believe that they are innocent including S.A.

100% lOl get ****ing real. Are you in K.Z. head, No you are not so you do not Know This, now that's 100% true.

#Pro Bono.


Btw how dare you try & attack K.Z. the Angel of the Innocent wrongly convicted.
How much of your life have you dedicated to help the poor & unfortunate?

#K.Z. A true ANGEL.
04-18-2016 , 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckproof Making a Murderer
So for people who think he is innocent, does the real killer have to be someone who has access to SA's blood? So basically someone in law enforcement.
Why don't you answer this Q, huh.
04-18-2016 , 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
We've discussed that stuff.

This is what's current. Nice back-tracking though.
And we received No satisfactory Answers.

Why don't you enlighten us AngerPush with all the new research you said you were willing to do & tell us how.....

S.A Cleaned a garage so well that every piece of DUST/DIRT was never disturbed & how he managed to clean up all/any blood in the garage?

Plus how did S.A./B.D. get all the DNA evidence off of all there clothes/shoes?
After all they got the bleached Jeans, so why was there NO DNA on them?

Barb Clean them? lOl Behave.

And did he use this same method on the trailer?
04-18-2016 , 05:40 PM
Im convinced smacc is attempting satire. Its pretty brilliant.
04-18-2016 , 05:49 PM
K.Z. has 40 Days to file her brief after this if no extensions are asked for.....
04-18-2016 , 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Im convinced smacc is attempting satire. Its pretty brilliant.
ITT attacking my writing style again CCuster.

Anything to say about the actual case that is not speculation about K.Z. the Angel?
04-18-2016 , 05:55 PM
K.Z. the angel. lolol brilliant. wp man

Hey man, there are 24 more posts on the front page of makingamurderer reddit. Mine crossposting all of those over too? Or do you usually just slowly do it throughout the day?


Do you have anything to say on the case that isnt regurgitation of someones opinion on reddit?
04-18-2016 , 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Lol, there are actually people who think she took this case without factoring in the publicity she will get?

Lololol. She 100% only took this case because its high profile. I know this because she with out a doubt knew of the case and whatnot prior to the doc and didnt take it.

If she didnt know then she is not very good at her job considering how high profile it was in the innocence project world at the time.
Yeah no chance she didn't come across new information or other factors that would make her decide to take the case later on. Being as she has gotten more exonerations than any other lawyer in the country, isn't it likely she has a belief she can achieve that goal when taking on a case? What is the benefit of taking on a high profile case she knows she can't win? What she does is significantly different then just being a traditional criminal defense attorney.
04-18-2016 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Yeah no chance she didn't come across new information or other factors that would make her decide to take the case later on. Being as she has gotten more exonerations than any other lawyer in the country, isn't it likely she has a belief she can achieve that goal when taking on a case? What is the benefit of taking on a high profile case she knows she can't win? What she does is significantly different then just being a traditional criminal defense attorney.
I dont think you understand, I never once said she didnt believe he was innocent. I said she without a doubt knew of SAs case prior to the doc and did not take it. So unless, like you say, she somehow got handed a new piece of evidence out of thin air(aka if she chose to do more research into the case after the doc, you need to ask yourself why?), the publicity of the case was a large factor in her taking the case.

Use occams razor.

Its very simple. There are a lot of false imprisonment cases that come across her desk, she takes the ones that serve her best. Right now that is SA. What she does is noble, but it is not without consideration of personal gain(whether directly monetary or through exposure). Need more proof, look at her website, she ranks all her cases by monetary value when it comes to "results".

Her tweets back up this by being the most click baity things ever.



You realize people do good deeds publicly all the time? A good deed doesnt have to be purely selfless.


Heres what happened:

1. She saw the public opinion of the doc.
2. She did more research on a case she previously chose not to accept
3. she found some stuff she thinks will change the courts decisions
4. she takes the case

Her number 2 step happens purely because of number 1.

Remember, I think avery is innocent. I also think smacc is the equivalent of a high functioning 7 year old girl who just learned the copy and paste command. I am embarrassed to be on the same side of the argument as him(and lost), but then again, both sides have embarrassing people on them so its a lose-lose.
04-18-2016 , 06:40 PM
Steven had been trying to get Zellner to take his case since 2011.
04-18-2016 , 06:52 PM
Random thoughts:

1. Who hear heard of Zellner before this? Not me. Whatever happens, huge profile increase for her.

2. Of the following possibilities, one is far more ridiculous of a belief than the other two.
A) Avery didn't kill her
B) Avery killed her but she was never in the garage or bedroom
C) Avery killed her in the garage but managed to clear it of all blood, hair, and other DNA
04-18-2016 , 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Why don't you answer this Q, huh.
Because I don't think he is innocent, you had one line to read, jesus man.
04-18-2016 , 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckproof Making a Murderer
Because I don't think he is innocent, you had one line to read, jesus man.
Sorry man I'm out of here(2p2) I can't take imo CCuster_911 personal attacks anymore or I may blow up & get banned.

You win CCuster_911, Congrats.

Bye.
04-18-2016 , 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Sorry man I'm out of here(2p2) I can't take imo CCuster_911 personal attacks anymore or I may blow up & get banned.

You win CCuster_911, Congrats.

Bye.
Smacc man don't take it personal. The question to you was whether you believe the cops planted Avery's blood. I assume you do since you think he's innocent. Which means you must think the police planted it because who else could have? Which means you must think they somehow got that evidence vial and put it in the car, no? Which means you must think the FBI's test on the blood was faulty. Anyone who thinks Avery is innocent must think all those things.
04-18-2016 , 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Random thoughts:

1. Who hear heard of Zellner before this? Not me. Whatever happens, huge profile increase for her.

2. Of the following possibilities, one is far more ridiculous of a belief than the other two.
A) Avery didn't kill her
B) Avery killed her but she was never in the garage or bedroom
C) Avery killed her in the garage but managed to clear it of all blood, hair, and other DNA
Well in a vacuum A is obviously the most likely. There are tons of other factors though. But I understand your point. I just think its unfair to look at this and ask that question without considering everything else.
04-18-2016 , 07:20 PM
You're sick of the attacks smacc? I have been nothing but attacked since entering the thread dude. Not from you necessarily but still. Get thicker skin imo.
04-18-2016 , 07:22 PM
So the dude who calls others psychopaths/sociopaths is tired of insults? Interesting.
04-18-2016 , 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
I dont think you understand, I never once said she didnt believe he was innocent. I said she without a doubt knew of SAs case prior to the doc and did not take it. So unless, like you say, she somehow got handed a new piece of evidence out of thin air(aka if she chose to do more research into the case after the doc, you need to ask yourself why?), the publicity of the case was a large factor in her taking the case.

Use occams razor.

Its very simple. There are a lot of false imprisonment cases that come across her desk, she takes the ones that serve her best. Right now that is SA. What she does is noble, but it is not without consideration of personal gain(whether directly monetary or through exposure). Need more proof, look at her website, she ranks all her cases by monetary value when it comes to "results".

Her tweets back up this by being the most click baity things ever.



You realize people do good deeds publicly all the time? A good deed doesnt have to be purely selfless.


Heres what happened:

1. She saw the public opinion of the doc.
2. She did more research on a case she previously chose not to accept
3. she found some stuff she thinks will change the courts decisions
4. she takes the case

Her number 2 step happens purely because of number 1.

Remember, I think avery is innocent. I also think smacc is the equivalent of a high functioning 7 year old girl who just learned the copy and paste command. I am embarrassed to be on the same side of the argument as him(and lost), but then again, both sides have embarrassing people on them so its a lose-lose.
You are any of the others who dare impune Angel Kathleen have failed to address how taking on a high profile case she thinks is not worthwhile in terms of getting an exoneration would be bad for her.

Publicity helps her cases, undoubtedly. Public sentiment can put pressure on authorities. Look at the West Memphis Three. However there is no evidence she is attention whoring for a personal spotlight.

Neither of us knows her process for taking on a case. We don't know what she knew when nor what her case load was at the time or anything else. All we really know is she has gotten more people exonerated than anyone else so she might have an idea of what she is doing. By the logic you use every case she doesn't take when first presented she must not believe in.

The innocence project gets 3000 requests a year for assistance. They have to do triage and pick and choose cases they can work at the time. The idea that circumstances can't change is silly. You know in multiple cases Zellner got people exonerated by getting someone else to confess? There is a reason the average length of time an exonerated person serves in prison is over 15 years. Because these things take time. It can take time before there is enough information to pursue. It seems people with a guilty conscious about what they might know plays a decent role in many cases.

Also I don't really take you seriously when you keep saying Avery is innocent.

      
m