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

08-29-2016 , 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
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.
You are arguing that nobody investigated how the car/body was found, based on a completely unsubstantiated theory that it was planted. Back here in the real world, the car was found on Avery's property, immediately making him a prime suspect. Then the blood, DNA, remains, key, bullet, etc.

Like, why would the cops investigate where the car was found, and who found it - if they already know it was found by a search volunteer, on Avery's property?

All of your "why didn't the cops check this" and "why didn't the cops check that" are based on an alternate universe version of events, where the evidence was all planted, and nothing was as it seemed. The problem with that line of thinking occurs when everything actually is as it seems. They followed where the overwhelming amount of physical evidence led them.
08-29-2016 , 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
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.
Here is my guess (I will keep it brief for now):

Ryan killed T.H and was basically caught red-handed by Colburn or someone working for Colburn.

Colburn hatched the idea that this was a lottery ticket if they could pin this on Avery. Colburn discusses this with Lenk and they make Ryan an offer he can't refuse.

So, the three of them work to pin this on Avery.
08-29-2016 , 02:00 PM
that sound too cold for me , i dont believe they would go that far as covering ryan after catching him , like i dont believe they would kill her.

It s possible ryan is the killer , it s possible it was an accident and that he talked them into making avery the scapegoat and that they didnt care much who was the killer, or possibly really thought he was and pushed for the conviction.

But it s a bit stupid to extrapolate from nothing tbh
08-29-2016 , 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, it was the control that is obviously contaminated, which pretty much invalidates the whole thing.
I agree.
08-29-2016 , 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Here is my guess (I will keep it brief for now):

Ryan killed T.H and was basically caught red-handed by Colburn or someone working for Colburn.

Colburn hatched the idea that this was a lottery ticket if they could pin this on Avery. Colburn discusses this with Lenk and they make Ryan an offer he can't refuse.

So, the three of them work to pin this on Avery.
And I assume you disagree that this pet theory of yours has a rather large element of 9/11 truthiness to it? Because it does. Quite frankly, it's ridiculous.
08-29-2016 , 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
that sound too cold for me , i dont believe they would go that far as covering ryan after catching him , like i dont believe they would kill her.

It s possible ryan is the killer , it s possible it was an accident and that he talked them into making avery the scapegoat and that they didnt care much who was the killer, or possibly really thought he was and pushed for the conviction.

But it s a bit stupid to extrapolate from nothing tbh
That's the game - people beg you to speculate, then start carping about how you are speculating.

Looks like Zellner has a scenario in mind regarding a possible frame job and a suspect for the killing.

It's only a matter of time before we learn what her investigation has turned up.
08-29-2016 , 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
I agree.
Culhane should be flipping burgers, not running a forensic lab.

That is, if we can trust her to wash her hands after using the toilet.
08-29-2016 , 02:28 PM
This is why I lean towards guilty. The set of circumstances that need to occur would be too unbelievable for even a movie. Doesn't mean it can't happen, I just need a lot more to make that jump.
08-29-2016 , 02:36 PM
Since the official version is super unlikely to be real , you can find 30 theory more reasonnable than the official one.

And your mistake is to think he is guilty , while your default should be innocent untill proven guilty.

you can dig 6 months of reddit extrapolating , and some theory are kinda cool:

The famous serial killer specialised in framing other people that an FBI agent thought might be the killer was living not far and allegedly spotted on some pictures.
08-29-2016 , 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Since the official version is super unlikely to be real, you can find 30 theory more reasonable than the official one.

And your mistake is to think he is guilty , while your default should be innocent until proven guilty.


you can dig 6 months of reddit extrapolating , and some theory are kinda cool:

The famous serial killer specialised in framing other people that an FBI agent thought might be the killer was living not far and allegedly spotted on some pictures.
There's still some who are dumb enough to believe Steven was guilty in the Beernsten case from 1985.

You can't fix that level of stupid cop worship.
08-29-2016 , 03:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
And I assume you disagree that this pet theory of yours has a rather large element of 9/11 truthiness to it? Because it does. Quite frankly, it's ridiculous.
It's not a "pet theory" it is a guess.

1. The question was asked about how the car would be in LE's possession on Nov. 3. Because you have tunnel vision, you cannot appreciate that we are working on a base hypothetical.

2. The "guess" (as clearly stated), is based on that hypothetical.

3. Here are some things that may have been in play:

a. SA is under constant watch due to the ongoing civil case. LE is looking for some way to attack his case. Perhaps if he slips up (and he has a history of doing illegal or unsavory things) they can use it against him. So, on that day, perhaps LE was either in the area or already watching the property and they happened upon Ryan after he killed T.H.

b. We know Ryan had personally met with TH that Sunday. It is reasonable to believe he was still involved in her life and was hanging around because he wanted to get back together. If not, it would be very strange for him to be keeping such close tabs on her.

c. Zellner claims she can prove TH left the Avery property.

d. Zellner claims she can prove there were 22 call between Ryan and LE on Tuesday.

e. The evidence intake indicates the car was taken into police custody on Nov. 3.

***
Obviously, I don't know if any of that is true, but for the exercise of explaining how the car would have been in police custody on Nov. 3 and then "discovered" on SA's property later in the week, we would have to speculate as of now (of course, unless it is your position that we should all stop talking about the case and just pretend that there are no new developments - such as BD's confession being ruled improper).

Colburn who doesn't strike me as the smartest guy (no offense to anyone) could have thought he happened upon an opportunity. Whether you want to acknowledge it, or not, the SA civil lawsuit was a big deal and depositions had just begun. I am sure there was a lot of talk about these things in the police dept. and that the stakes would have been in the millions (I know you will discount that because you have read some opinions after the fact from insurance adjusters and lawyers that would state the exposure would be far less - however, you discount how office gossip works and that nobody involved would have been privy to a proper analysis of the exposure; they would have just understood the county was being sued for 33mm).

Under this hypo, one such solution to the problem would be to put the murder on SA and make the civil case go away. In reality, regardless of how it came to be, SA was charged with the murder and the civil case went away.

Regardless of how this shakes out, if LE called Ryan 22 times on Nov. 3 - there is something up.

If the evidence intake for the car is correct, there is something up.

If TH was 13 miles off the Avery property after her meeting, then something is up.

*** Anyhow, under this "guess" only 3 people were (knowingly) involved: Ryan, Colburn, and Lenk. Given the accusations of planting and how that may have been achieved, only 3 people would be necessary: Ryan, Colburn and Lenk.

Given the peculiar events of the investigation, only 3 people seem to have acted in a strange manner: Ryan (hanging around T.H., accessing her phone, deleting v.m.'s, accessing the property) Colburn and Lenk (discovering key evidence when they were to be excluded from the the investigation.

All the key evidence was discovered by Ryan (through his "search party"), Colburn and Lenk (through investigation - an investigation they were supposed to be excluded from).
08-29-2016 , 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
There's still some who are dumb enough to believe Steven was guilty in the Beernsten case from 1985.

You can't fix that level of stupid cop worship.
Yeah people who think he did in 1985 are incredible, most likely they think he deserved going 18 year in jail because he killed a cat anyway and instead of saying they think he is an awfull human beeing which could be a reasonnable opinion they transform that in their head as he was guilty of the first crime and that he is of the 2nd aswell for sure.
08-29-2016 , 04:25 PM
Yeah and no cop would think he did it in 1985... Oh except the sheriff
08-29-2016 , 04:39 PM
Im just glad we no longer have Oski acting like he doesnt have an opinion on the guilt/innocence of SA.
08-29-2016 , 04:44 PM
You are speculating (baselessly, of course), that Colburn knew the identity of the man who butchered a young woman. But rather than arrest him as any cop in the real world would do, he conspired with him to frame the plaintiff in a civil suit, a suit that Colburn had almost nothing to do with. In doing so he allows a murderer to go free, endangers his own career, and risks prison if anyone else finds out he is helping a murderer evade arrest. He is also assuming no one else will find any evidence that leads to RH, that he will be able to plant the car/remains/blood/DNA without getting caught, and that SA doesn't have an alibi. All because of a civil suit.

Seems legit. Hey as long as we're tossing out theories that require no proof, maybe Jodi arranged with a prison guard to kill TH because she was jealous. WHO KNOWS? Just throwing it out there.
08-29-2016 , 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
And I assume you disagree that this pet theory of yours has a rather large element of 9/11 truthiness to it? Because it does. Quite frankly, it's ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Im just glad we no longer have Oski acting like he doesnt have an opinion on the guilt/innocence of SA.

LMAO I might have to start reading Oski's posts again.


08-29-2016 , 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Im just glad we no longer have Oski acting like he doesnt have an opinion on the guilt/innocence of SA.
I guess you still don't know how to read.
08-29-2016 , 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
You are speculating (baselessly, of course), that Colburn knew the identity of the man who butchered a young woman. But rather than arrest him as any cop in the real world would do, he conspired with him to frame the plaintiff in a civil suit, a suit that Colburn had almost nothing to do with. In doing so he allows a murderer to go free, endangers his own career, and risks prison if anyone else finds out he is helping a murderer evade arrest. He is also assuming no one else will find any evidence that leads to RH, that he will be able to plant the car/remains/blood/DNA without getting caught, and that SA doesn't have an alibi. All because of a civil suit.

Seems legit. Hey as long as we're tossing out theories that require no proof, maybe Jodi arranged with a prison guard to kill TH because she was jealous. WHO KNOWS? Just throwing it out there.
Under the hypothetical which asks how did the police take possession of the car on Nov. 3, what is your guess?

Like, Custer, do you also not understand what a hypothetical is?

If you need an example, look no further than Kratz' press conference.
08-29-2016 , 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Yeah and no cop would think he did it in 1985... Oh except the sheriff
Especially since there was good evidence Steven had nothing to do with it - more than a dozen witnesses for his alibi and receipt tapes showing he was somewhere else.
08-29-2016 , 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer

Like, why would the cops investigate where the car was found, and who found it - if they already know it was found by a search volunteer, on Avery's property?
Because you don't take ANYTHING at face value while conducting an investigation.

If I am conducting an investigation and I ask a search volunteer why he/she was able to find something so quickly and they answered that "God showed me the way", I would become even more suspicious. Not to doubt the existence of God and/or his power, but why would God guide someone to evidence vs. completing saving the victim from ever dying. Yes, we all know God works in mysterious ways. Don't get up on the witness stand and use that to refute statistical analysis...unless you are playing to a jury that loves that type of stuff.
08-29-2016 , 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
You are speculating (baselessly, of course), that Colburn knew the identity of the man who butchered a young woman. But rather than arrest him as any cop in the real world would do, he conspired with him to frame the plaintiff in a civil suit, a suit that Colburn had almost nothing to do with. In doing so he allows a murderer to go free, endangers his own career, and risks prison if anyone else finds out he is helping a murderer evade arrest. He is also assuming no one else will find any evidence that leads to RH, that he will be able to plant the car/remains/blood/DNA without getting caught, and that SA doesn't have an alibi. All because of a civil suit.

Seems legit. Hey as long as we're tossing out theories that require no proof, maybe Jodi arranged with a prison guard to kill TH because she was jealous. WHO KNOWS? Just throwing it out there.
I don't believe Colburn had to know anything about Ryan other than he was involved in a murder of a woman that just left Avery's property.

Also, as I anticipated, you hand wave away the civil lawsuit as of nobody cared about it. That is your opinion, but I dont think your basis for that opinion is very compelling.

Anyhow, as stated, Zellner makes some claims - and if they are proven, then one should wonder how the police got the car on Nov. 3 and why there were 22 calls between Ryan and the police before that.

If your position is, "well, none of that happened, so there is no point in discussing these hypotheticals," then maybe you should refrain from commenting. As of now, Zellner has put some factual theories in play and is requesting further testing, I think it is fair to discuss the imitations of her contentions.

Of course, you do not appreciate that everyone here is not as biased or one-note as you, and that the mere discussion of a hypothetical does not mean in any way that anything is being asserted as true.
08-29-2016 , 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Yeah people who think he did in 1985 are incredible, most likely they think he deserved going 18 year in jail because he killed a cat anyway and instead of saying they think he is an awfull human beeing which could be a reasonnable opinion they transform that in their head as he was guilty of the first crime and that he is of the 2nd aswell for sure.
He did deserve 6 years in jail and served it. He wasn't a completely innocent man jailed. It does irk me a bit that it is thrown around that he served 18 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.

As the sheriff said in the depo, he knows that evidence has been planted to exonerate people as well. Don't believe everything you read in the media.

And count me as one of those people that thinks he does deserve jail for killing a cat. Once I heard that, I had very little sympathy for him.

Yet, I will say there was a gross miscarriage of justice and conduct in regards to Teresa Halbach. Shockingly. And this is for a person I hope is guilty. I would have been the dream juror candidate for the prosecution. Love cats and will believe the police over the arrested. I knew that blood-planting from the 1985 case was pure theatrics. Weak distraction.
08-29-2016 , 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Because you don't take ANYTHING at face value while conducting an investigation.

If I am conducting an investigation and I ask a search volunteer why he/she was able to find something so quickly and they answered that "God showed me the way", I would become even more suspicious. Not to doubt the existence of God and/or his power, but why would God guide someone to evidence vs. completing saving the victim from ever dying. Yes, we all know God works in mysterious ways. Don't get up on the witness stand and use that to refute statistical analysis...unless you are playing to a jury that loves that type of stuff.
This is just wrong, I'm sorry. You don't investigate random unfounded theories. If you did, every investigation would be endless, limited only by people's ability to imagine conspiracies and possible suspects with possible motives. In the real world cops collect evidence, and identify suspects based on the evidence they find.

And now you are speculating that the woman on the search party was in on the conspiracy. No reason to think so, but hey who knows, right? Tell me, did she plant the car herself or did the cops just tell her where to look? Maybe she was with Colburn when he made that infamous phone call where he was LOOKING AT THE LICENSE PLATE.

You guys are hilarious. Suspects everywhere. Except SA, of course. The violent creep with the dead woman's remains in his yard.
08-29-2016 , 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Since the official version is super unlikely to be real , you can find 30 theory more reasonnable than the official one.

And your mistake is to think he is guilty , while your default should be innocent untill proven guilty.

you can dig 6 months of reddit extrapolating , and some theory are kinda cool:

The famous serial killer specialised in framing other people that an FBI agent thought might be the killer was living not far and allegedly spotted on some pictures.
My default was innocent, not sure why you assumed it wasn't. I don't believe the official story. I've read about the serial killer theory, it is definitely interesting.
08-29-2016 , 07:32 PM
revots33, PoorSkillz,

Have you ever had your IQ tested? I am genuinely curious.

      
m