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

08-28-2016 , 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Couldn't they have just found a dead woman and took the opportunity to pin it on SA?
Wouldn't there be some sort of dispatch record of a car or body being found? Seems unlikely that their first instinct when finding a body/car would be to cover it up so they can plant everything at SA's. The logistics alone would be a nightmare.
08-28-2016 , 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Couldn't they have just found a dead woman and took the opportunity to pin it on SA?
The woman SA specifically requests to come to his house, and whose last known location was at his house, happens to be found dead elsewhere, killed by someone who has nothing to do with Avery or with any advance plot to frame Avery... and that woman's body and car just happens to be the one that is then planted at SA's house by the cops?

Seems like a pretty massive coincidence, even by this thread's standards.

I mean you guys are getting silly. At least the Dassey stuff makes some sense. I think you guys are so worked up over Zellner's tweets that you've convinced yourselves anything is possible as long as it doesn't involve SA killing TH.

Last edited by revots33; 08-28-2016 at 12:31 AM.
08-28-2016 , 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Nice strawman. I am simply asking whether it is your position that the document had a typo.

I also asked what support you have for that ... you provided none.

By the way, I already explained in an earlier post why your typo scenario where the reported missing date was used makes no sense.

Also, if the missing date was used, we would expect a number of similar typos for the other items collected that same day.
I need support to say that a date on a form could be a typo or just how it was entered? Sorry, I don't have the person who typed up that form on speed dial. All I'm going on is common sense.
08-28-2016 , 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
I need support to say that a date on a form could be a typo or just how it was entered? Sorry, I don't have the person who typed up that form on speed dial. All I'm going on is common sense.
Common sense would be that the form doesn't contain a typo.

Anyhow, I take it you have nothing to support your suspicion it is a typo. That is all I wanted to know - I wasn't sure if you actually had more information on it.
08-28-2016 , 01:31 AM
[QUOTE=revots33;50676588]
Quote:
The woman SA specifically requests to come to his house, and whose last known location was at his house,
Not accurate. Her last phone ping was 13 miles away. Who said this was last known location?

Quote:
happens to be found dead elsewhere, killed by someone who has nothing to do with Avery or with any advance plot to frame Avery... and that woman's body and car just happens to be the one that is then planted at SA's house by the cops?
What day, even by the state's evidence, was it concluded that bones (not a body) were found and the definitive link was made that it was TH? And there is agreement with all parties that bones have been moved. Just not sure to what extent and what % of the bones were recovered. One tooth made it. Which is usually the opposite in that you have full dental records only to identity people. Why so unique here?

Quote:
Seems like a pretty massive coincidence, even by this thread's standards.
You adding your own interpretation about her being killed outside the property and the police planted the body and the car. How about simplifying it. She wasn't killed on the property and there are many ways bones and her car could arrive later. Leave out the police planting, even though I know that sounds intriguing.


Quote:
I mean you guys are getting silly. At least the Dassey stuff makes some sense. I think you guys are so worked up over Zellner's tweets that you've convinced yourselves anything is possible as long as it doesn't involve SA killing TH.
I didn't like the tweets and felt this was all done originally for her own publicity. When she said she was joining, I thought it was over for SA and even the viewers. I expected her to make grand accusations solely to garner more interest in her. Fame. She is defending America's most divisive murderer that has been convicted in a case that is ten year's old. They won't take kindly to an out of state woman accusing local Law Enforcement of planting evidence. I couldn't believe she could write that and I was dubious she had any planting evidence proof. More sensationalism at work to get the attention she seeks. She would then lose and just say it was a rigged-system.

I have found her work in the short-time to be extremely professional. She brought up her own theories, but was waiting for evidence. Which she requested. I realized that she has staked her own personal reputation on this one case and this may define her career. She certainly was well-known and respected and didn't need this case as a "win" to market to future clients or validate her.

I have read far too many legal briefs and documents and I was expecting sub-standard work that pandered to not guilty without any real evidence and misdirection. There were a lot of stories in there, but she did not back down from the reasoning why she needed xyz tests. And she will pay for them all.

The public is dying for news by the minute, but she is going at the pace of the court. Which can be excruciatingly slow.

I hope the tests she ordered produce what she claims. It will be an interesting 3 months to wait. What happens if they do come back to him? What would inconclusive mean? What about another person? Will an insider talk during this testing period and provide a radically different narrative than presented by the state based on personal knowledge.
08-28-2016 , 01:56 AM
wow, i never realized that he called in on a personal line. i wonder if that was a common thing to do.
08-28-2016 , 02:02 AM
apparently it's very common when discussing personal information because the radio is not as secure.
08-28-2016 , 02:07 AM
And to sound super awkward and that you ****ed up when asked about it in court.
Nah nvm it's clever editing by the documentary and that pesky confusing music, I'm sure people that were in court that day saw a super professional Andy Colburn explain that silly interpretation from the defense in a convincing way.
08-28-2016 , 02:07 AM
also i remember now when avery was being interviewed by the police in the show - him saying that he heard a rumor that the car was planted.
08-28-2016 , 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmgGlutten! Making a Murderer
also i remember now when avery was being interviewed by the police in the show - him saying that he heard a rumor that the car was planted.
Ofc since he is the one that fabricated the impound document to frame the police obviously.
08-28-2016 , 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Ofc since he is the one that fabricated the impound document to frame the police obviously.
And he put a latent typo on it to throw everyone off the trail
08-28-2016 , 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
So basically Zellner makes a bunch of allegations and states them as fact without providing evidence to properly substantiate them (the same thing she's been doing for months in her tweets), but people are gobbling it up anyway (the same thing that's been happening for months here).

Good to see she's finally planning to test the evidence though.
Here's a post from Skipptopp (the guy who obtained all the documents pertaining to the Avery case) breaking down the claims Zellner made in her recent motion and the (lack of) evidence she cites to back it up.

tl;dr: pretty much all of the claims she made are still unsubstantiated...
08-28-2016 , 07:08 AM
I wonder if I should put more weight in the opinion of a high profile lawyer with a proven track record and a team of people going over all the facts/details of the case or that of some random person on the Internet.
08-28-2016 , 07:20 AM
i think this exchange sums up that post nicely:

08-28-2016 , 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
i think this exchange sums up that post nicely:


Lol, I hope you side with Skipptopp in that exchange...

Anyway, my point is there is no new (or old) evidence of Avery's innocence provided in this motion; it's the same unsubstantiated allegations we've been seeing from her in tweets for months.

Actually, it's even worse than that, because in this motion she cites evidence to her claims, but the evidence she cites doesn't actually back up her claims at all!

p.s. you never answered my question regarding the RAV4 log scenarios
08-28-2016 , 08:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I wonder if I should put more weight in the opinion of a high profile lawyer with a proven track record and a team of people going over all the facts/details of the case or that of some random person on the Internet.
You have to remember that you should trust dirty law enforcement with a history of proven wrongfull conviction over a lawyer with a history of getting innocent people out of jail.
So obviously Zellner is bluffing to get a murderer out of jail and has absolutely nothing in her file to prove anything. I m sure she built a Carreer randomly spending possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars asking for random testing hoping to get lucky results that might suit her.
08-28-2016 , 08:11 AM
Poorskillz never understood why they killed the hero in die hard that Hans Grubber seemed like a good fella that was missed in the following sequels to fight the evil mclane.
08-28-2016 , 09:27 AM
revotts33 keep explaining reason and facts

LOL@ Avery not killing her. You people were suckered by a totally biased documentary.

The dullard also had a hand in it
08-28-2016 , 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJCX Making a Murderer

The dullard also had a hand in it

Are you confessing?
08-28-2016 , 12:18 PM
"The phone pinging a tower 13 miles away" means nothing by itself unless you can show that there were towers closer to SA's. The guy lives in the country. Im sure there are people who live 13+ miles away from cell towers. Also the murder could of taken place elsewhere. She might have left and been followed, clearly the prosecution has no idea how it went down.
08-28-2016 , 12:47 PM
it doesnt work like that , it s not a the tower at 13 miles , it s the phone that was 13 miles away, they triangulate the position
08-28-2016 , 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer



You adding your own interpretation about her being killed outside the property and the police planted the body and the car. How about simplifying it. She wasn't killed on the property and there are many ways bones and her car could arrive later. Leave out the police planting, even though I know that sounds intriguing.
Hasn't this thread spent like 100 pages discussing Colburn's phone call, and how zomg this proves he was LOOKING at the car 2 days before it was supposedly found? And the intake report supposedly provides more evidence that the cops had the car already?

Zellner is simply listing her own pet theories (most of which are just variations of viewer theories you could get on reddit), and stating them in her filings as if they are fact. People are reading them and thinking because she's a famous lawyer, and they are in a legal filing, they must be factual.

The only thing that could prove anything is some sort of concrete scientific finding. She is requesting a bunch of new testing so we will see what it finds. My guess is that it will be as disappointing as the edta test Strang and Buting were so breathlessly awaiting.
08-28-2016 , 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
it doesnt work like that , it s not a the tower at 13 miles , it s the phone that was 13 miles away, they triangulate the position
Are you sure? That seems like a bad way to phrase it then. Why not just give the location where the phone last pinged. Smacc probably knows, but please don't answer in the form of a gif. 😉
08-28-2016 , 02:38 PM
the principe of pinging is to know the distance from cell tower not the closest cell tower, so at worse they know the distance from one cell tower that indicate that she was at least 12 miles away, at best they have 3 cell towers and can know exactly where she was.

I think it s the latter option , but dont want to dig deep to verify
08-28-2016 , 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckproof Making a Murderer
Are you sure? That seems like a bad way to phrase it then. Why not just give the location where the phone last pinged. Smacc probably knows, but please don't answer in the form of a gif. ��


K.Z. has not released the data for the location of T.H. last ping of her cell phone, as far as I know.
Unlike what some say she does not need to do so yet as this is a motion to test/retest evidence, that will appear in S.A. brief once all relevant test's are completed. (if allowed to do so by the state courts) but the state cannot simple say NO as this motion was attached to S.A. conviction.

And why should K.Z. say what she's got until the brief is filed lOl.


      
m