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

08-24-2016 , 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Okay, there are legitimate discussions about the weight his police statements should have as evidence of Dassey's guilt, but to take them as evidence of his innocence (as the previous poster seemed to be doing) is just crazy. It makes no sense.

Yes, there are cases of false confessions - usually a result of high-pressure interrogation tactics, usually recanted very shortly afterwards. Dassey confessed to involvement on multiple occasions months apart. It's not a typical case of a coerced confession. Is it possible? Sure. Strange things happen. Is it likely? Not really.

Not to mention that there are also the statements he made to his Mom, to his cousin, his own admission to being with Avery the day the murder was committed, to being at the fire the night of the murder, his conflicting statements to police early in the investigation.

There is very strong evidence of his involvement, anyone claiming otherwise is not being intellectually honest.
I like how you don't address me directly, as if that will save you from a pwning. It won't save you.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=6167

Don't respond until you read all of that.
08-24-2016 , 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
There doesn't have to be any physical evidence that exonerates him. That's not how our law system works. Is there any physical evidence at the scene that exonerates you?
Well, lkasigh comes from Antarctica where they follow The Law Of The Snow.
08-24-2016 , 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Police first interrogated Brendan on November 6, 2005.

Kayla supposedly was telling her story in December, and wasn't interviewed until February 2006.

Your timeline is all messed up - unless you involve time travel.
Yes, it's been explained to him time and again.
08-24-2016 , 03:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Because he saw an SUV that he thought might have looked like TH's, driving in a direction away from the Avery residence. He didn't see the driver at all and was unsure of the model of the car. Not exactly iron-clad evidence, nor would his testimony be compelling television.

I know Occam's razor doesn't play well with most itt, but seeing as how her car, bones, blood, and keys were found on SA's property... it is far more likely that the driver just happened to see a random greenish car go by, that had nothing to do with anything.
Oh irony thy name is...

What does occam's razor say about planting evidence?
08-24-2016 , 03:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Lol come on man. Her burned body was found in the guy's yard, in the same place he just happened to be having a bonfire the night of the murder. In a place that was the victim's last known whereabouts. Owned by a creep who specifically requested she be the one sent to his house. On a lot where her car was found, covered up and obviously trying to be hidden from view.

If you honestly think she was killed somewhere else and then dumped in poor old Steve's yard, you should probably never serve on a jury.
Why are you doing this, revots? I'm srsly asking.
08-24-2016 , 05:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer


In some very important ways, this conviction in the Halbach case resembles the Beernsten case.

Yes, police did allow the real perpetrator to run around and victimize others for many years while an innocent man was in prison.
08-24-2016 , 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
I like how you don't address me directly, as if that will save you from a pwning. It won't save you.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=6167

Don't respond until you read all of that.
I don't think I was responding to you with my original post. I tried reading your link but it's honestly pretty incoherent. I guess where you're going is that there were discussions between Dassey and his family and the police that are unrecorded and it's possible that during those conversations maybe he was threatened or tortured or whatever to get him to confess. Okay, it's possible that this happened. But there's no evidence for it. Moreover, Dassey and his family have never claimed anything like this. So I would say the probability is very low.
08-24-2016 , 07:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
Oh irony thy name is...

What does occam's razor say about planting evidence?
Occam's razor says that you accept the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

The discussion you were quoting refers to a debate about whether a truck driver saw Halbach's car driving away from the Avery residence on the day she disappeared.

The two competing hypotheses are:
1. The driver was mistaken and Halbach was killed on the property (where her body, all her possessions, and her car were later found).
and
2. It was Halbach's car and she was killed somewhere else.

The first hypothesis requires only one assumption: the driver saw another car (or got the date wrong, etc.).

The second assumption requires many assumptions - she was killed somewhere else, everything was planted, Dassey made up a story about seeing Avery kill her, etc.
08-24-2016 , 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive Making a Murderer
Why are you doing this, revots? I'm srsly asking.
Not sure honestly. Certainly a waste of time as I've never seen anyone on 2p2 change their mind about anything, ever. Maybe just a quixotic belief that someone will come to their senses after impartially examining the overwhelming evidence. The guy is a killer, and it's obvious if you don't get sidetracked by completely irrelevant theories regarding lawsuits and police conspiracies.

In essence the defense tried the usual misdirection tactics in the SA case, that all defense lawyers use when the evidence against their client is overwhelming. The jury didn't fall for it, but millions of armchair jurors who watched MaM obviously did.
08-24-2016 , 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Not sure honestly. Certainly a waste of time as I've never seen anyone on 2p2 change their mind about anything, ever. Maybe just a quixotic belief that someone will come to their senses after impartially examining the overwhelming evidence. The guy is a killer, and it's obvious if you don't get sidetracked by completely irrelevant theories regarding lawsuits and police conspiracies.

In essence the defense tried the usual misdirection tactics in the SA case, that all defense lawyers use when the evidence against their client is overwhelming. The jury didn't fall for it, but millions of armchair jurors who watched MaM obviously did.
http://wispd.org/attachments/article...NA%20Cases.pdf

Here are a few things I found noteworthy
Any Attempt by the government to characterize a purported mtDNA "match" as evidence of identity is scientifically unsupportable on the basis of its method of inheritance alone; and that fact should be spotlighted to any judge or jury considering such evidence.
Scientists are in Agreement that Mitochondrial DNA typing does not provide definitive identification & should not be used for forensic identification.
Most courts would balk at a prosecutor seeking to introduce mtDNA "match" evidence at a single genetic location, because the chance of two unrelated individuals matching by coincidence are exceedingly high.
The distribution of a given mtDNA sequence is a function of nothing more than the migration of women.
Many certain Haplogroups of mtDNA sequences exist only within certain geographic clusters
The defense should call on his own expert who is an expert on migration patterns.
Sampling of mtDNA profiles must take into account geographic heterogeneity and stratification in order to create representative databases for forensic typing.

Dem Bones....... This is the main reason I & many others disagree with you revots33, and since the FBI also did not identify T.H. from the charred remains I have a valid point.
If you or anyone else can confirm with DNA (not MtDna) that the charred remains were infact identified as T.H. then I will stop posting itt.
08-24-2016 , 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Occam's razor says that you accept the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

The discussion you were quoting refers to a debate about whether a truck driver saw Halbach's car driving away from the Avery residence on the day she disappeared.

The two competing hypotheses are:
1. The driver was mistaken and Halbach was killed on the property (where her body, all her possessions, and her car were later found).
and
2. It was Halbach's car and she was killed somewhere else.

The first hypothesis requires only one assumption: the driver saw another car (or got the date wrong, etc.).
I think if you want to use Occam's Razor you should be aware that concluding there being only one blue/green SUV in the neighborhood at that window of time is simpler than assuming there must be more than one.

Quote:
The second assumption requires many assumptions - she was killed somewhere else, everything was planted, Dassey made up a story about seeing Avery kill her, etc.
Since police searched the Avery property without finding anyplace where Teresa was killed (no blood, DNA, signs of struggle, etc) it's unlikely she was killed on the property. The police assume she was killed there without any convincing evidence this is so. Simpler to use Occam's Razor to eliminate this assumption.

We also know that the so-called Dassey 'confession' was coerced (per the court's recent finding), so it's no stretch at all to dismiss that story. It is not a fact the narrative the police foisted on Dassey is true, it is another assumption which we can use Occam's Razor to eliminate.
08-24-2016 , 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
I think if you want to use Occam's Razor you should be aware that concluding there being only one blue/green SUV in the neighborhood at that window of time is simpler than assuming there must be more than one.



Since police searched the Avery property without finding anyplace where Teresa was killed (no blood, DNA, signs of struggle, etc) it's unlikely she was killed on the property. The police assume she was killed there without any convincing evidence this is so. Simpler to use Occam's Razor to eliminate this assumption.

We also know that the so-called Dassey 'confession' was coerced (per the court's recent finding), so it's no stretch at all to dismiss that story. It is not a fact the narrative the police foisted on Dassey is true, it is another assumption which we can use Occam's Razor to eliminate.
This is Occam's razor in the basic form. Her car, body, and possessions were found on the Avery property. It's also the last place she was seen, the last place her cell phone pinged from. She had an appointment there the day she disappeared and she failed to make it to the next scheduled appointment. Yes, there are missing pieces surrounding the exact time and circumstances of the murder, but this narrative still has far fewer missing pieces (i.e., unproven assumptions) than the competing narrative. This is true even if you add in the assumption that the guy saying he saw her car driving away made a mistake (or saw a similar but unrelated car).

The competing narratives require multiple unproven assumptions - her leaving the area, being killed somewhere else, then the car, body, and possessions being brought back, someone planting the blood and bullet, Dassey making up a story about seeing Avery kill her and burn her body, and so forth.
08-24-2016 , 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
This is Occam's razor in the basic form. Her car, body, and possessions were found on the Avery property. It's also the last place she was seen FALSE,
the last place her cell phone pinged from Also FALSE.
She had an appointment there the day she disappeared and she failed to make it to the next scheduled appointment. False
Yes, there are missing pieces surrounding the exact time and circumstances of the murder, but this narrative still has far fewer missing pieces (i.e., unproven assumptions) than the competing narrative. This is true even if you add in the assumption that the guy saying he saw her car driving away made a mistake (or saw a similar but unrelated car).

The competing narratives require multiple unproven assumptions - her leaving the area, being killed somewhere else, then the car, body, and possessions being brought back, someone planting the blood and bullet, Dassey making up a story about seeing Avery kill her and burn her body, and so forth. Finally some truth.
Yw
08-24-2016 , 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Lol come on man. Her burned body was found in the guy's yard...
Stop.

Her burned body was NOT found in his yard. Charred remains (of something) were found in a burn barrell in his yard. Unfortunately, just like every single piece of evidence "found" in this case, there is a heaping pile of controversy attached to these remains.
08-24-2016 , 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Her car, body, and possessions were found on the Avery property. It's also the last place she was seen, the last place her cell phone pinged from. She had an appointment there the day she disappeared and she failed to make it to the next scheduled appointment. Yes, there are missing pieces surrounding the exact time and circumstances of the murder, but this narrative still has far fewer missing pieces (i.e., unproven assumptions) than the competing narrative. This is true even if you add in the assumption that the guy saying he saw her car driving away made a mistake (or saw a similar but unrelated car).
One thing missing from the above narrative is that we are under no obligation to assume anything.

Quote:
The competing narratives require multiple unproven assumptions - her leaving the area, being killed somewhere else, then the car, body, and possessions being brought back, someone planting the blood and bullet, Dassey making up a story about seeing Avery kill her and burn her body, and so forth.
A competing narrative that includes Teresa leaving is verified by several witnesses. So even if it is true that she did not make her next appointment doesn't compel us to assume she was killed on the Avery property and assume the witnesses were lying or mistaken.

Teresa could very well have been killed elsewhere, and this is supported by the fact that no murder site was positively identified despite intensive efforts by police to locate one on the Avery property. Making the unsupported assumption that Teresa was killed there despite this evidence is a gross violation of Occam's Razor.

Of course, it appears to be assumed that somehow all the expected evidence of the binding, gang raping, stabbing and throat cutting, and shooting multiple times was somehow completely erased. Despite the fact that no evidence of any such cleanup was detected.

This was a place of business, and the crime is assumed to have begun during business hours. And several people also lived in proximity. Plus some friends arrived to pick up Brendan's brother that night.

The fact that no one heard any of this alleged screaming and shooting, and no one witnessed Steven and Brendan traipsing around the neighborhood carrying a corpse, or driving the RAV4 all over the property are also facts that under your scenario must be dealt with by further assumptions.

And while all this was supposed to be going on, the fact that the accused were fielding telephone calls all evening long must be accounted for. I suppose the assumption must be that the assumed assault and massive cleanup somehow fit in between all these telephone calls.

Dassey didn't make up the story - police fed it to him line by line (as evidenced in the interrogations that were recorded). That is a fact that must also be accounted for.

Quote:
This is Occam's razor in the basic form.
Occam's Razor is not a device to eliminate inconvenient facts. You are doing it wrong.
08-24-2016 , 09:21 PM
Add in the "coroner" on November 10th signing a certificate indicating death as a homicide with an autopsy performed with no "body". 100% apparent this was a rush to convict Avery and there was no investigation to discover the ''truth".

This is how you lose faith in our system.
08-24-2016 , 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
This is Occam's razor in the basic form. Her car, body, and possessions were found on the Avery property. It's also the last place she was seen, the last place her cell phone pinged from. She had an appointment there the day she disappeared and she failed to make it to the next scheduled appointment. Yes, there are missing pieces surrounding the exact time and circumstances of the murder, but this narrative still has far fewer missing pieces (i.e., unproven assumptions) than the competing narrative. This is true even if you add in the assumption that the guy saying he saw her car driving away made a mistake (or saw a similar but unrelated car).

The competing narratives require multiple unproven assumptions - her leaving the area, being killed somewhere else, then the car, body, and possessions being brought back, someone planting the blood and bullet, Dassey making up a story about seeing Avery kill her and burn her body, and so forth.
You are 100% correct but proudfootz will never get it and clearly does not understand the concept.

Like, he is tossing out random irrelevant questions like "so why didn't anyone hear her scream?", or "why would he do this during business hours?", as if they somehow prove his elaborate "drove-away-unharmed-abducted-by-someone-else-killed-elsewhere-and-brought-back-to-Avery's-house" theory is somehow more likely than Avery simply killing her while she was on his own property.
08-24-2016 , 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
You are 100% correct but proudfootz will never get it and clearly does not understand the concept.
Occam's Razor is a tool for evaluating hypotheses which most elegantly account for all the facts.

Occam's Razor isn't about trying to construct the most simple-minded explanation.

Otherwise, Occam's Razor would 'prove' that the scientific theory of evolution is false because it is so complicated in comparison to Creationism.




Quote:
Like, he is tossing out random irrelevant questions like "so why didn't anyone hear her scream?", or "why would he do this during business hours?", as if they somehow prove his elaborate "drove-away-unharmed-abducted-by-someone-else-killed-elsewhere-and-brought-back-to-Avery's-house" theory is somehow more likely than Avery simply killing her while she was on his own property.
It's also very odd that rather than quote what I actually wrote you choose to put your own strawman versions in quotation marks as if that is what I wrote.

I haven't put forward any elaborate scenario. I simply showed some of the many hidden assumptions involved in lkasigh's narrative, and demonstrated how it blatantly violates Occam's razor at every turn.

You guys are doing it all wrong.
08-25-2016 , 04:06 AM
Motive is usually an important part of the prosecution. Out of all the suspects, SA and BD were extremely low on the motivation scale to gang-rape and murder and then burn a victim he barely knew.

Why was there zero photographs taken of the bones in the burn pit? Or...were there pictures taken and they removed them from evidence because it didn't match.

The prosecution has not convinced me that TH was murdered the day, time, place or circumstance that was presented. Of course SA and BD could be guilty. If people don't think it matters how it was done and all that matters that we have the right two people in jail, then so be it. But don't argue that evidence is clear and procedures were followed. If it was clear and rules followed, there would be no discussion 10 years later. It wouldn't be a big deal.
08-25-2016 , 06:17 AM
We should have some new info within 24h , zellner is supposed to have filed yesterday, and as soon as they process it, Everything will be availaible online so we can prepare some pop corn and expect some new info
08-25-2016 , 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Occam's Razor is a tool for evaluating hypotheses which most elegantly account for all the facts.

Occam's Razor isn't about trying to construct the most simple-minded explanation.

Otherwise, Occam's Razor would 'prove' that the scientific theory of evolution is false because it is so complicated in comparison to Creationism.
Okay, but this is the whole point. You haven't proposed an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all the facts, you've just introduced a whole mass of unknowns.

We're talking about the testimony of one witness who claimed he saw a car like Halbach's driving away from the Avery property on the day she disappeared. The scenario that this gentleman was mistaken introduces exactly one new unknown - why he was mistaken (did he see a different car, did he get the date wrong, did he imagine it, did he mix up the directions and actually see the car when she was driving to the residence?)

Your scenario with Avery and Dassey being innocent adds a bunch of other unknowns. Where did she go after she left? Don't know. When was she attacked and killed? Don't know. By who? Don't know. How and when did her body, car, and possessions get back to the Avery property? Don't know. How the bullet get into Avery's garage and Avery's DNA into her car? Don't know. And so on and so on.

You can say that there are loose ends in the prosecution narrative, and there are. But your scenario doesn't tie any of those loose ends up (except arguably the testimony of one witness) and just adds a bunch more.

I actually read an article once addressing the point you make about Occam's razor and evolution vs. creation. Here it is http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/.
08-25-2016 , 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Okay, but this is the whole point. You haven't proposed an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all the facts, you've just introduced a whole mass of unknowns.
Who says there must be an alternative theory?

We are not obligated to assume anything (other than the presumption of innocence until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

The fact that there are so many unknowns in this case is why reasonable people have reasonable doubt.

FFS even the prosecution doubts its own case - one time speculating the murder occurred in the bedroom, another time speculating it took place in the garage.

One time speculating one and only one person committed the crime, another time speculating it was a conspiracy.

Quote:
We're talking about the testimony of one witness who claimed he saw a car like Halbach's driving away from the Avery property on the day she disappeared. The scenario that this gentleman was mistaken introduces exactly one new unknown - why he was mistaken (did he see a different car, did he get the date wrong, did he imagine it, did he mix up the directions and actually see the car when she was driving to the residence?)
How is assuming all three witnesses saw the same car at that time and place 'more complex' than your assuming that two of the witnesses were lying and that there must have been a similar car observed by the third witness (or any of the half dozen other speculations to try to explain away what he saw)?

Quote:
Your scenario with Avery and Dassey being innocent adds a bunch of other unknowns. Where did she go after she left? Don't know. When was she attacked and killed? Don't know. By who? Don't know. How and when did her body, car, and possessions get back to the Avery property? Don't know. How the bullet get into Avery's garage and Avery's DNA into her car? Don't know. And so on and so on.
Yes, in the real world there are things we don't know.

A much more rational way to approach life than simply speculating and assuming things must be true because you can't stand the thought of admitting the fact that you don't know everything.

Quote:
You can say that there are loose ends in the prosecution narrative, and there are. But your scenario doesn't tie any of those loose ends up (except arguably the testimony of one witness) and just adds a bunch more.
Facts that your scenario cannot explain are not just 'loose ends' - they are evidence your hypothesis fails.

Quote:
I actually read an article once addressing the point you make about Occam's razor and evolution vs. creation. Here it is http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/.
Yes, a very interesting piece which supports my contention that the scenario I am critiquing is chock full of unsupported assumptions and is in fact very complex, while at the same time omitting facts which tend to show the hypothesis is incorrect.
08-25-2016 , 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Motive is usually an important part of the prosecution. Out of all the suspects, SA and BD were extremely low on the motivation scale to gang-rape and murder and then burn a victim he barely knew.
Additionally, framing Avery again (even if it included murder and coercing and imprisoning an innocent 16 year old) by significant investigation participants was extremely high on the motivational scale.

Quote:
Why was there zero photographs taken of the bones in the burn pit? Or...were there pictures taken and they removed them from evidence because it didn't match.
Similarly, the interior of the vehicle was not photographed until it reached the now infamous crime lab. They did not even know there was actual blood in the car until it reached the Crime Lab. This seems like such an egregious error. This is a far more likely murder scene than anywhere else ever proposed yet they decide to haul it away and keep it over night before anyone (that we know of) even decides to open the vehicle.

Quote:
The prosecution has not convinced me that TH was murdered the day, time, place or circumstance that was presented. Of course SA and BD could be guilty. If people don't think it matters how it was done and all that matters that we have the right two people in jail, then so be it. But don't argue that evidence is clear and procedures were followed. If it was clear and rules followed, there would be no discussion 10 years later. It wouldn't be a big deal.
I know what you meant in this last paragraph, but herein the bolded lies the problem. "People" don't get to simply decide who are the "right two people" and it absolutely does matter how it was done. Correctly obtained and processed evidence through proper procedure must clearly prove beyond a reasonable doubt who the right people actually are. These statements may sound painfully obvious but here we are...

Quote:
If it was clear and rules followed, there would be no discussion 10 years later. It wouldn't be a big deal.
This is also a really obvious statement but really good point that deserves repeating. The guilters ITT (who aren't obviously book salesman) seem to think that 2 documentarians chose some case at random that was an open and shut case with evil murderers caught red handed and sent away for life. And for some inexplicable reason, these 2 women decided they should actually put their own biased twist in their documentary to make it seem like SA and BD were actually innocent so that the raping, murdering, mutilating wisconsinites would get a shot at going free and their documentary would be a success.

Obviously the controversy existed well before the documentary was being produced or they wouldn't have chosen it as their subject and it wouldn't be the success it is.
08-25-2016 , 05:27 PM
[IMG] [/IMG]

      
m