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

08-28-2016 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
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.
Colburn can't keep anything straight, even one minute later.

They replay the phone call for him and he said she told him '99 RAV Toyota. In his own voice.

Let's just keep chalking every single thing up to error or it is really immaterial.
08-28-2016 , 05:59 PM
Yeah so cell tower ping is meaningless on its own without more info.
08-28-2016 , 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckproof Making a Murderer
Yeah so cell tower ping is meaningless on its own without more info.
Hope this help's......Wis. Stat. 802.05 Signing of pleadings, motions, and other papers; representations to court; sanctions. [See (2)(c)]

(1) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address and telephone number, and state bar number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.
(2) Representations to court. By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following:
(a) The paper is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
(b) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions stated in the paper are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.
(c) The allegations and other factual contentions stated in the paper have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
(d) The denials of factual contentions stated in the paper are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

SA's attorneys submitted a verified (i. e., signed) Brief means if anything in the Brief fails to meet the Statutory requirements in Chapter 802 - 802.05, they can be sanctioned by the court.

Last edited by smacc25; 08-28-2016 at 06:20 PM.
08-28-2016 , 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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...
Contentious, or not, KZ's claims in the motion for further testing seem to meet the burden of WI law. Presumably, the prosecution will disagree with my assessment and may even take KZ to task on some of the claims she presented in her motion. To refute KZ, the prosecution will have to present evidence not already available to her - not sure I'd want to put myself in the position of showing my hand to her, or of compromising the court by presenting evidence previously withheld from the defense


SA bears no burden to prove, or otherwise offer evidence, to show that any new testing will definitely result in his conviction being overturned - he merely needs to provide a valid argument that further testing is appropriate due to relevant advancements in the field.

Last edited by smacc25; 08-28-2016 at 07:09 PM.
08-28-2016 , 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJCX Making a Murderer
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
The documentary was biased. But that was more due to the other side being unlikable plus not giving their side of the story. Which is their right.

I doubt though that if it was so black and white that Avery killed her, the case would not be still discussed over 8 months after the release and 10 years after the actual trial. I would expect as well in a controversial case, the "sides of opinion" would be more evenly split.

Experts not involved in this case, like FBI and other state prosecutors, overwhelming agree that the investigation, pre-trial conduct and trial, were handled in an egregious manner. And they are the first ones to back their "own" because the last thing they want is their conduct ever questioned.

Calling BD a dullard made me actually laugh. He definitely appears that way. Recognize though those are the type of people we should go out of our way to protect in a just society.
08-28-2016 , 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
apparently it's very common when discussing personal information because the radio is not as secure.
This was an endangered missing persons report at the time. What personal information was he protecting? At that point, you would want as much publicity as possible, especially her license plates being known by every single person.
08-28-2016 , 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckproof Making a Murderer
Yeah so cell tower ping is meaningless on its own without more info.
I'm confident that K.Z. has the relevant data.
It seems from the search I done that there is 4 cell towers in whitelaw.....
http://find.mapmuse.com/map/cell-tow...r/WHITELAW,+WI
08-28-2016 , 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
The documentary was biased. But that was more due to the other side being unlikable plus not giving their side of the story. Which is their right.

I doubt though that if it was so black and white that Avery killed her, the case would not be still discussed over 8 months after the release and 10 years after the actual trial. I would expect as well in a controversial case, the "sides of opinion" would be more evenly split.

Experts not involved in this case, like FBI and other state prosecutors, overwhelming agree that the investigation, pre-trial conduct and trial, were handled in an egregious manner. And they are the first ones to back their "own" because the last thing they want is their conduct ever questioned.

Calling BD a dullard made me actually laugh. He definitely appears that way. Recognize though those are the type of people we should go out of our way to protect in a just society.
This is wrong. Because a large number of people were swayed by a biased documentary (and you admit yourself that it was biased) - is not any sort of proof that those people are more or less likely to be correct. The facts are what matter. Not how many people agree with your faulty reasoning. There are a lot of easily swayed people in America. So what? That's not news to anyone.
08-28-2016 , 09:55 PM
i mean, yeah, there are clearly hundreds of thousands of people who watched the documentary and concluded he is 100% innocent. and then there are probably tens of thousands more who read the 'HERE'S THE STUFF THE DOCUMENTARY LEFT OUT' article and concluded he is 100% guilty. and then there are a few thousand people who have spent a lot of time reading various things online about the case and have a more nuanced position.

everyone still reading this thread is in that last category. some think he's likely guilty, some thing he's likely innocent. it's pretty hilarious that you repeatedly paint the people in the latter category as 9/11 truthers / holocaust deniers / easily led morons, but whatever floats your boat.
08-28-2016 , 10:25 PM
There are very few people more than me that thought from the get go this documentary is a total joke and I don't really care about the trickery the defense employed to attempt to prove SAs innocence.

I love animals, especially cats, and the moment I heard that he killed a cat just goofing around, I thought good -- innocent or not I hope he lives a tortured life anyway. He has everything coming to him. Welcome to the world of karma -- kill something innocent and don't be surprised when your own innocence doesn't protect you. Sucks, doesn't it. Kill a cat for fun, and geez, you are having problems finding a non-biased jury? My heart aches.

Owning a lab, I knew that the hole in the top of the tube was a total misdirection by the defense. Nice try. Tubes often have holes. Anybody in the medical business knows this. It is not that big of deal to retest blood over and over. How do you do this? Punch a hole in the tube. But let's tie in the 1985 vial to planting blood in 2005 because it makes for great TV.

Having some previous experience in the post-production world as well, I was laughing at the creepy music trying to make certain people appear more guilty. And then at the end of episodes, we will do a dramatic cut so we trick the viewer into immediately wanting to watch the next episode. Always leave the reader or viewer wanting just a bit more.

I didn't buy much of the documentary and was turned off. Being in the entertainment business, I knew there were thousands of hours of video and they culled it into 10 entertaining hours to maximize views. Call me as cynical as they come. They kept saying he was in jail 18 years for a crime he didn't commit when he was actually in jail for a separate crime he did commit. Don't play total innocent card.

After seeing the "documentary" and thinking, nice try, I did read the entire transcripts and watch the entire video confessions. Desperately searching for material that was "inconveniently" left out because it didn't support the narrative we were all sold to make Netflix more valuable.

Also, despite really disliking SA for killing a cat and wanting him to suffer immensely and fully aware that much of this "documentary" was purely a snippet with a clear agenda, there is no question he was railroaded and the investigation was completely slanted. KK saying guilty people don't deserve the presumption of innocence is offensive. Every person, regardless of the state's feeling of guilt, deserves the presumption of innocence.

I was biased after episode 1 to the very end that I forced myself to finish. Every episode I was curious what trick will the defense use to raise reasonable doubt. Not even show him to be innocent.

I am the last person that would support SA. As painful as it is, I support him wholeheartedly. Not that he is necessarily guilty or not. More that he was not given a fair investigation/trial and no other suspects were seriously considered.

His rights, regardless of the scumbag he may be, were completely dismissed and trampled. And because of the shoddy handing, I am left frustrated because I want to know that he is guilty and deserves whatever penalty that comes his way. The State did not prove their case to me and they had an extremely low level to accomplish that given my prejudice against him.
08-28-2016 , 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
i mean, yeah, there are clearly hundreds of thousands of people who watched the documentary and concluded he is 100% innocent. and then there are probably tens of thousands more who read the 'HERE'S THE STUFF THE DOCUMENTARY LEFT OUT' article and concluded he is 100% guilty. and then there are a few thousand people who have spent a lot of time reading various things online about the case and have a more nuanced position.

everyone still reading this thread is in that last category. some think he's likely guilty, some thing he's likely innocent. it's pretty hilarious that you repeatedly paint the people in the latter category as 9/11 truthers / holocaust deniers / easily led morons, but whatever floats your boat.
I am not trying to paint anyone as anything. There are people itt who think the police arranged TH's murder, either doing it themselves or contracting it out to Tadych or some other killer for hire. IMO that is most definitely up there with 9/11 truthers in terms of believing completely ludicrous fabricated scenarios.

If you have reservations about how the case was prosecuted, or Kratz' ethics, or Dassey's interrogations, I can respect that. If you think the cops arranged a murder to frame the guy who was suing them, then yes I think you have an overactive imagination.
08-29-2016 , 12:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
I am not trying to paint anyone as anything. There are people itt who think the police arranged TH's murder, either doing it themselves or contracting it out to Tadych or some other killer for hire. IMO that is most definitely up there with 9/11 truthers in terms of believing completely ludicrous fabricated scenarios.

If you have reservations about how the case was prosecuted, or Kratz' ethics, or Dassey's interrogations, I can respect that. If you think the cops arranged a murder to frame the guy who was suing them, then yes I think you have an overactive imagination.
so a guy commits a murder & you revots don't like someone & help pin that murder on someone, you should walk because that someone live's his life different from you?
Because justice & all?
08-29-2016 , 12:42 AM
^^And when the gang's running around town bulling,committing petty robbery, kidnapping & accusations of murder, we know who's back you got.
08-29-2016 , 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer

If you have reservations about how the case was prosecuted, or Kratz' ethics, or Dassey's interrogations, I can respect that. If you think the cops arranged a murder to frame the guy who was suing them, then yes I think you have an overactive imagination.
It was the complete lack of investigating the crime scene in a biased manner. There are/were multiple potential suspects. Many with a significantly higher motive and statistically speaking, far great likelihood of being the perpetrator. Not only were these other suspects ignored, they were allowed to somehow become part of the active investigation.

When you have police personnel on sight that have been expressly forbidden from not only being part of the investigation, but actually discovering the key pieces of evidence, the "planting" scenario seems much more likely than any average case.

Key statistical dates don't match. The coroner is a nurse that declares it is a homicide without any proof. The magic bullet DNA test not only was a cluster with the tester's DNA ending up on the bullet, it also can never be tested again! One shot and they messed it up and the defense wasn't even allowed to be present.

Biggest cases of their life and protocol thrown out the window. I want him to be found guilty and all other suspects cleared.
08-29-2016 , 02:49 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.
Yeah tbh, I'm a lurker in this thread with more of a neutral position reading along for entertainment... but after watching that interview/press conference of zellner it kinda puts in perspective that the Revots/PoorSkills of this thread are just low hanging fruit droolers basically. Meanwhile there's actually professionals in this field with a long track record and history that are working on the case night and day combing through all the evidence. Not that this wasn't the case prior to the video clip... it's just that going from hearing her perspective on the case and then reading posts from the guilty camp was a huge disparity.
08-29-2016 , 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
everyone still reading this thread is in that last category.
I disagree.

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti discussing Loose Change in 9/11 thread Making a Murderer
i mean, yeah, there are clearly hundreds of thousands of people who watched the documentary and concluded 9/11 was an inside job. and then there are probably tens of thousands more who read the 'HERE'S THE STUFF THE DOCUMENTARY LEFT OUT' article and concluded it wasn't. and then there are a few thousand people who have spent a lot of time reading various things online about the case and have a more nuanced position.

everyone still reading this thread is in that last category. some think it likely wasn't an inside job, some thing it likely was an inside job. it's pretty hilarious that you repeatedly paint the people in the latter category as conspiracy theorists / holocaust deniers / easily led morons, but whatever floats your boat.
08-29-2016 , 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
i mean, yeah, there are clearly hundreds of thousands of people who watched the documentary and concluded he is 100% innocent. and then there are probably tens of thousands more who read the 'HERE'S THE STUFF THE DOCUMENTARY LEFT OUT' article and concluded he is 100% guilty. and then there are a few thousand people who have spent a lot of time reading various things online about the case and have a more nuanced position.

everyone still reading this thread is in that last category. some think he's likely guilty, some thing he's likely innocent. it's pretty hilarious that you repeatedly paint the people in the latter category as 9/11 truthers / holocaust deniers / easily led morons, but whatever floats your boat.
I think it's fair to say that there are people in this thread from column A and people from column B (as well as a few straight up trolls). I mean you'd have to admit that claims that the bones were not Halbach's are pretty La-la-land stuff. Claims about planting of the car after clearing up the evidence of the real killer and replacing it with Avery's blood are not far off.

Pro-Avery posters with a degree of critical thinking skills do exist (although in my opinion are making some important errors in their thinking), but they are being drowned out by the conspiracy whack-jobs.
08-29-2016 , 07:50 AM
Meanwhile, in the real world, Dassey's so-called 'confession' looks like it will be thrown out per the recent court ruling - so there goes one conspiracy theory right there. Sure, there may be a few whack jobs who think the spoon-fed story is still true, even though it was coerced by police.

Zellner has a track record of showing incompetence, corruption, and malfeasance by police and prosecutors against her clients, so there's good reason to have confidence that she has the goods in this case as well. Sure, there are always going to be a few whack jobs who think Zellner is only in this for the lulz. But such people are pretty easy to spot.
08-29-2016 , 08:04 AM
That s the fun part of this thread , january avery was super ****ed and people had some opinion on him from watching the documentary: murderer not murderer , maybe murderer but still railroaded by the system unfairly.
Since then we had a **** ton of info that tend to confirm that the investigation was at best super sketchy and some that confirm that avery was not a good guy, a lawyer specialist in that kind of cases that say she believes he is innocent and that the police massively ****ed up and that she can prove it. And yet some people still are sure that every thing was fine and that avery belong in jail and that she's bluffing and just beeing a media whore.

Zellner is not saul goodman as far as I know, both avery's previous lawyer arent either, so that would be great that the people pretending she is give us a bit more details about it.
08-29-2016 , 08:45 AM
Can we get some theories from the innocent camp as to how the police came across TH's body/car in order to plant it? Smacc you seem to think her ex was also involved along with the police correct? How do they both tie in to the crime?
08-29-2016 , 08:56 AM
That wasnt investigated by anyone so hard to guess, the police didnt investigate it so obviously 10 years later nobody have a clue how they would have done it , like nobody can tell you how avery would have done it either since the official story makes no sense.

The ex and brother seems super involved in the planting process, that doesnt mean they killed her either, could be helping the police to get the suspected murderer in jail.
08-29-2016 , 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckproof Making a Murderer
Can we get some theories from the innocent camp as to how the police came across TH's body/car in order to plant it? Smacc you seem to think her ex was also involved along with the police correct? How do they both tie in to the crime?
I'm at basically what eddymitchel say's above....

At 1st I thought it must have been the cops, then I moved to an accident in or around the Zipperers, Now I need more information but 1 thing stands out in all this, Just how badly the body was burned with 1 tooth remaining imo thats a professional job.
And because of that I believe the evidence says that T.H. was not place back in the Rav4 after her demise.( wrong blood splatter & no hairs mixed in).

Ryan is a dumb ass who got mixed up in something he will wish he never did & told Mike about Big bad S.A. murdering his sister.
08-29-2016 , 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
It was the complete lack of investigating the crime scene in a biased manner. There are/were multiple potential suspects. Many with a significantly higher motive and statistically speaking, far great likelihood of being the perpetrator. Not only were these other suspects ignored, they were allowed to somehow become part of the active investigation.

When you have police personnel on sight that have been expressly forbidden from not only being part of the investigation, but actually discovering the key pieces of evidence, the "planting" scenario seems much more likely than any average case.

Key statistical dates don't match. The coroner is a nurse that declares it is a homicide without any proof. The magic bullet DNA test not only was a cluster with the tester's DNA ending up on the bullet, it also can never be tested again! One shot and they messed it up and the defense wasn't even allowed to be present.

Biggest cases of their life and protocol thrown out the window. I want him to be found guilty and all other suspects cleared.
I believe her DNA didn't up on the bullet, but rather the negative control.
08-29-2016 , 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
I believe her DNA didn't up on the bullet, but rather the negative control.
Yes, it was the control that is obviously contaminated, which pretty much invalidates the whole thing.
08-29-2016 , 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
That s the fun part of this thread , january avery was super ****ed and people had some opinion on him from watching the documentary: murderer not murderer , maybe murderer but still railroaded by the system unfairly.
Since then we had a **** ton of info that tend to confirm that the investigation was at best super sketchy and some that confirm that avery was not a good guy, a lawyer specialist in that kind of cases that say she believes he is innocent and that the police massively ****ed up and that she can prove it. And yet some people still are sure that every thing was fine and that avery belong in jail and that she's bluffing and just beeing a media whore.

Zellner is not saul goodman as far as I know, both avery's previous lawyer arent either, so that would be great that the people pretending she is give us a bit more details about it.
Clearly the judges that freed all of Zellner's previous clients are also attention whores, falling all over themselves to exonerate her clients.


      
m