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

04-18-2016 , 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
By the logic you use every case she doesn't take when first presented she must not believe in.
Lolololol no. Im sorry but this isnt how logic works. Not even close.

What it means is that she only takes cases where she values the rewards to be worth the time investment. Like all humans. The cases she doesnt take dont satisfy this internal mental calculation for her.

Im not going to bother with the rest of your post when you clearly dont understand anything.
04-19-2016 , 12:04 PM
Hilarious to know why the coroner was not allowed on the crime scene.
A cop ran over a victim of a hit and run and asked the coroner not to include it in her report and she refused....
04-19-2016 , 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Lolololol no. Im sorry but this isnt how logic works. Not even close.

What it means is that she only takes cases where she values the rewards to be worth the time investment. Like all humans. The cases she doesnt take dont satisfy this internal mental calculation for her.

Im not going to bother with the rest of your post when you clearly dont understand anything.
The problem is you fail to accept that equation can change over time based on other factors than just "lolpublicity".
04-19-2016 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
The problem is you fail to accept that equation can change over time based on other factors than just "lolpublicity".
Lol. I dont have the time nor the crayons to explain this to you adequately.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Not at all what I said.

Simple Q: what are the odds that she takes the case without the doc existing and/or being super popular.

The answer to that should tell you all you need to know.
04-19-2016 , 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer

Simple Q: what are the odds that she takes the case without the doc existing and/or being super popular.
About the same odds as you posting about the case.

In other words, who cares? Every case has to be worth the lawyer's time to a certain extent. One of the tradeoffs is publicity (for future earning potential) against the client's current ability to pay.

Suffice it to say, there is probably no "discovery" that caused her to re-evaluate whether she would take the case, it is clear the publicity of the case elevated the value of the case in not only her eye, but the public's as well.

Whether she had a belief that she could exonerate S.A. prior to the doc being released is not really that important (indeed, as I see it, exoneration cases are very difficult and no matter how strong the evidence would be for the exoneration, it will still be an uphill battle) - I am comfortable with accepting that for whatever reason, the case was not worthwhile to her as compared to her other endeavors.

Now it is.

Just like now it is apparently important enough to you to be posting about it.

Last edited by Oski; 04-19-2016 at 07:16 PM.
04-19-2016 , 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
About the same odds as you posting about the case.

In other words, who cares? Every case has to be worth the lawyer's time to a certain extent. One of the tradeoffs is publicity (for future earning potential) against the client's current ability to pay.

Suffice it to say, there is probably no "discovery" that caused her to re-evaluate whether she would take the case, it is clear the publicity of the case elevated the value of the case in not only her eye, but the public's as well.

Whether she had a belief that she could exonerate S.A. prior to the doc being released is not really that important (indeed, as I see it, exoneration cases are very difficult and no matter how strong the evidence would be for the exoneration, it will still be an uphill battle) - I am comfortable with accepting that for whatever reason, the case was not worthwhile to her as compared to her other endeavors.

Now it is.

Just like now it is apparently important enough to you to be posting about it.
Exactly. Now tell that to marksman and smacc saying that the popularity of the case wasnt a factor in her pursuing it. Apparently they care because they get super butthurt when people allude to this.

All I was saying is that the publicity is the not so small straw the broke the camels back. markksman was too busy riding the struggle bus to understand this. I never said she took a losing case for publicity, which somehow he still thinks is the case.
04-19-2016 , 08:58 PM
Not sure if this has been posted already - pretty good Rolling Stone article outlining the tactics Zellner would likely use to try and free SA, and what evidence she has spoken about so far:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/...trial-20160407
04-19-2016 , 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
About the same odds as you posting about the case.

In other words, who cares? Every case has to be worth the lawyer's time to a certain extent. One of the tradeoffs is publicity (for future earning potential) against the client's current ability to pay.

Suffice it to say, there is probably no "discovery" that caused her to re-evaluate whether she would take the case, it is clear the publicity of the case elevated the value of the case in not only her eye, but the public's as well.

Whether she had a belief that she could exonerate S.A. prior to the doc being released is not really that important (indeed, as I see it, exoneration cases are very difficult and no matter how strong the evidence would be for the exoneration, it will still be an uphill battle) - I am comfortable with accepting that for whatever reason, the case was not worthwhile to her as compared to her other endeavors.

Now it is.

Just like now it is apparently important enough to you to be posting about it.
A few of us have said this exact thing.
04-20-2016 , 04:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Lol. I dont have the time nor the crayons to explain this to you adequately.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. Not at all what I said.

Simple Q: what are the odds that she takes the case without the doc existing and/or being super popular.

The answer to that should tell you all you need to know.
Most of the cases she has taken didn't have a documentary attached. So I am not sure what your point is.
04-20-2016 , 08:37 AM
Lolol

She became more interested after the doc. Which is fine. Nothing wrong with that.
04-20-2016 , 10:23 AM
Yea i assume he is trolling at this point. Wp.
04-20-2016 , 10:49 AM
I think she is fos not just because her taking this case for publicity, I can understand how that could give her incentive to take a case for a man she believes is innocent.

Here is why I think she is ONLY doing this for publicity..

She made a tweet after first taking the case that was something like: "whoever killed her also deleted the voicemails" Paraphrasing here, she knows she has no evidence of any of that. She is just talking ****. That tweet has since been deleted by the way but I remember a lot of people talking about it in january.

Then she made a tweet implying she has scientific evidence showing that evidence was planted, what scientific testing has she done? Luminol testing showing lack of blood.. 11 years later! not only is that a complete waste of time considering multiple people have been in that trailer and garage since then. but it has nothing to do with evidence being planted.

This is now two things she has claimed that she knows she has no evidence for and could only be saying this to cater to the public. Why does she want to cater to the public? Because she is going to be in a documentary about this man and most people who are tuning in to watch season 2 believe this man is innocent.

Now it turns out the only real evidence she has (which hasn't been provided to the public, not that I necessarily expect her to but we don't even know if it exists) is shady, unreliable tower data showing TH phone pinged off another tower.

Does she believe this man is innocent? Maybe, but its funny that she has had other clients take lie detector tests before representing them but not avery. Why is that? She just somehow KNEW he was innocent, coincidentally when this doc got popular. Somehow that is what "showed her the light".

The real question is does she think there is any evidence she can present that proves he is innocent? I think the answer to that question is obviously no.
04-20-2016 , 11:34 AM
While I believe taking the case for the publicity is a big part, I do think she thought she could win the case when she initially took it.

However, I believe this belief was mainly based on watching the show because she didn't think she would have time to do meticulous research (her early tweets expose this fact imo).

As a bumhunter, if an unknown player sat down at a high stakes table, I'm not waiting to see how he plays. I'm assuming he's a fish and taking a seat at the table immediately, or else I lose my opportunity.

MaM presented Avery's case as a huge whale.

In Zellner's mind, if she didn't take Steven's case, another lawyer would, and she would miss out on a big payday. I doubt she realized what she was getting herself into.

The publicity was of course a huge factor as well, and made taking the case an easy decision even without doing all the research.
04-22-2016 , 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I think she is fos not just because her taking this case for publicity, I can understand how that could give her incentive to take a case for a man she believes is innocent.

Here is why I think she is ONLY doing this for publicity..

She made a tweet after first taking the case that was something like: "whoever killed her also deleted the voicemails" Paraphrasing here, she knows she has no evidence of any of that. She is just talking ****. That tweet has since been deleted by the way but I remember a lot of people talking about it in january.

Then she made a tweet implying she has scientific evidence showing that evidence was planted, what scientific testing has she done? Luminol testing showing lack of blood.. 11 years later! not only is that a complete waste of time considering multiple people have been in that trailer and garage since then. but it has nothing to do with evidence being planted.

This is now two things she has claimed that she knows she has no evidence for and could only be saying this to cater to the public. Why does she want to cater to the public? Because she is going to be in a documentary about this man and most people who are tuning in to watch season 2 believe this man is innocent.

Now it turns out the only real evidence she has (which hasn't been provided to the public, not that I necessarily expect her to but we don't even know if it exists) is shady, unreliable tower data showing TH phone pinged off another tower.

Does she believe this man is innocent? Maybe, but its funny that she has had other clients take lie detector tests before representing them but not avery. Why is that? She just somehow KNEW he was innocent, coincidentally when this doc got popular. Somehow that is what "showed her the light".

The real question is does she think there is any evidence she can present that proves he is innocent? I think the answer to that question is obviously no.
So you are saying she is lying. Even though she is the most successful exoneration lawyer alive, you have decided she is lying.

Yet nobody has laid out any evidence as to why lying would be any way beneficial to her reputation.
04-22-2016 , 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Exactly. Now tell that to marksman and smacc saying that the popularity of the case wasnt a factor in her pursuing it. Apparently they care because they get super butthurt when people allude to this.

All I was saying is that the publicity is the not so small straw the broke the camels back. markksman was too busy riding the struggle bus to understand this. I never said she took a losing case for publicity, which somehow he still thinks is the case.
What some of you refuse to acknowledge is that nothing else possibly changed in her workload/responsibilities, the case itself, or information surfacing related to the case. You insist the only reason she could have changed her mind is publicity, which is silly.
04-22-2016 , 05:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Exactly. Now tell that to marksman and smacc saying that the popularity of the case wasnt a factor in her pursuing it. Apparently they care because they get super butthurt when people allude to this.

All I was saying is that the publicity is the not so small straw the broke the camels back. markksman was too busy riding the struggle bus to understand this. I never said she took a losing case for publicity, which somehow he still thinks is the case.
When you say the only reason she changed her mind is publicity you are just flat out wrong.
04-22-2016 , 07:52 AM
Lol. Keep trollin

Could have quoted oski too. He said the same thing
04-22-2016 , 09:44 AM
Markksman -

How can you possibly struggle this badly to comprehend what everyone is saying? No one, NO ONE, is saying that the only reason Zellner took this case is publicity.

Oski, Ccuster, Fraley, PoorSkillz and I are all pretty much saying the same thing. Go back and read our posts more carefully.
04-22-2016 , 09:49 AM
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.
No.

It's highly likely that if the blood was planted it was someone working in law enforcement. The murder could be anyone though (including Steven Avery) even if the blood is planted. The person(s) responsible for the murder and the persons(s) responsible for a possible framing do not have to be the same. They could be completely independent of one another.
04-22-2016 , 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
So you are saying she is lying. Even though she is the most successful exoneration lawyer alive, you have decided she is lying.

Yet nobody has laid out any evidence as to why lying would be any way beneficial to her reputation.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F09k5yf4
04-22-2016 , 10:07 AM
Actually, I think she is ONLY doing this for publicity AP.
04-22-2016 , 10:31 AM
Depends on what you mean by only. I think she took the case because she devoted resources to the case and found weaknesses that made her confident in getting SA out. But the only reason she devoted resources to the case is because of the publicity of it. So without the publicity she would have never taken the case so in a sense she only took the case because of it, because it caused the means to the end( end being taking the case).
04-22-2016 , 11:20 AM
Just when I thought this couldn't get any more AIDS....

Carry on.
04-22-2016 , 12:30 PM
You guys a clueless
04-22-2016 , 01:38 PM
You're a troll.

      
m