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

08-31-2016 , 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
The "war" lol.

Seems a bit 9/11 truther tbh.
Yip, I wonder why A.C. did not say" we welcome any & all new test's so as to finally put this solid conviction to bed"

And IF there is a "war on police" the civilian population certainly did not start it or participate in it.
08-31-2016 , 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
He does lose a lot of sympathy votes, right or wrong, from domesticated animal lovers.
Hmmm, I think not, ffs did you see reddiit's 1st MaM page lOl 65,000 subscribers & most were stay at home mum's loving there cats.

Spoiler:
08-31-2016 , 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Yip, I wonder why A.C. did not say" we welcome any & all new test's so as to finally put this solid conviction to bed"

And IF there is a "war on police" the civilian population certainly did not start it or participate in it.
AC should stop making statements.
08-31-2016 , 07:25 PM
jfc this cat obsession lol

WHO GIVES A ****
08-31-2016 , 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
jfc this cat obsession lol

WHO GIVES A ****
SOCIETY!

Just like it appears we care more about single, Caucasian, female murder/missing person cases than other cases.
08-31-2016 , 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
SOCIETY!

Just like it appears we care more about single, Caucasian, female murder/missing person cases than other cases.
obligatory:

08-31-2016 , 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, someone was claiming the mountains of assumptions regarding the prosecution case was 'simple' and I was pointing out many unstated and unsubstantiated assumptions therein.



Assuming this cut was obtained on the 31st - unproven.

Assuming he left blood somewhere from the cut, which is an unproven assumption.

Assuming he drove the car. Unproven.

Assuming he left blood from his wounded finger without leaving fingerprints in the car.

I guess we assume he was wearing gloves.

Then we have to assume the gloves had a hole or leaked blood somehow.



Assuming the car was actually 'found' on the 5th (contra Colburn's calling in the license plate and police documentation of the car being seized as evidence on the 3rd).



See above.



Why assume this was a necessary step?



Who says all evidence of 'the real killer' was cleared away?



True, we don't know how she died, where she died, or when she died. All matters of unstated assumption.



Since we have good evidence that the Manitowoc crew already hatched a conspiracy against Steven in the past (hence the lawsuit) this is not as unrealistic as it might seem.



You are assuming a 'bunch' would need to be recruited. We already know that police are all too often willing to 'go along to get along' with the questionable activities of their 'brothers in blue'.



That would be very difficult, wouldn't it? It's not like anyone actually observed Steven or held a conversation with him during the relevant time period...



Police were already in Steven's home on November 5th - not even sneaking!

Assuming the blood came from inside his home.



Not sure why you are assuming this is a necessary step - I guess to make it seem more complex?



Assuming blood smears said to belong to Steven were in the car before car was 'found'. Not reported by anyone on the scene on Nov 5th.

Mysteriously, when lab techs examine the car after it's arrival at the garage the door is unlocked.

The key isn't supposedly 'found' until Nov 8th.

Who unlocked the car between its 'discovery' on Saturday and examination on Sunday?

I suppose we'll have to assume overnight someone had a key made and helpfully unlocked the door? Quite innocently, no doubt?



Which cops are going to 'rat' on their fellow cops (even if they are observed)?



Obviously, this is your theory and includes elements which I've never heard anyone claim.
I guess I'm assuming that if you're going to frame someone you need to make sure that there aren't any uncomfortable facts that are going to come back to bite you. I mean if you plant someone's blood in the car and they turn out to have an ironclad alibi, that's pretty bad. Or if the rest of the car is covered with the fingerprints of Johnny Serial-killer and there are witnesses placing the victim with Johnny Serial-killer. So you'd have to be pretty sure you knew and were confident you could cover up what really happened before you embarked on your framing mission.

Under your insane theory, the cops would have had to launch a frame job within hours after Halbach was reported missing, before there was any way anyone could have known how the investigation would develop. I mean okay, I guess you're assuming they found the body with the car. How could they have known right after finding the body that forensic testing wouldn't point to Avery? And even if they somehow did figure it out, don't you think they would have had some interest in catching the real killer? Okay, you can keep going down the rabbit hole - maybe they caught the real killer in the act and killed him, maybe Halbach committed suicide, maybe she died of natural causes - but it's all madness.

Sorry, your theory is complete idiocy.
08-31-2016 , 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
The "war" lol.

Seems a bit 9/11 truther tbh.
Sure the term war is a little hyperbolic, but I'll cut the guy some slack since he's basically been called everything from a dirty cop to a murderer, for absolutely no reason, by mobs of conspiracy wackos. Can't imagine the threatening emails and calls this guy gets from lunatics on a regular basis.
08-31-2016 , 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Why are you trying so hard to explain away all of the evidence?
Because you literally asked me for a theory
08-31-2016 , 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
I guess I'm assuming that if you're going to frame someone you need to make sure that there aren't any uncomfortable facts that are going to come back to bite you. I mean if you plant someone's blood in the car and they turn out to have an ironclad alibi, that's pretty bad. Or if the rest of the car is covered with the fingerprints of Johnny Serial-killer and there are witnesses placing the victim with Johnny Serial-killer. So you'd have to be pretty sure you knew and were confident you could cover up what really happened before you embarked on your framing mission.

Under your insane theory, the cops would have had to launch a frame job within hours after Halbach was reported missing, before there was any way anyone could have known how the investigation would develop. I mean okay, I guess you're assuming they found the body with the car. How could they have known right after finding the body that forensic testing wouldn't point to Avery? And even if they somehow did figure it out, don't you think they would have had some interest in catching the real killer? Okay, you can keep going down the rabbit hole - maybe they caught the real killer in the act and killed him, maybe Halbach committed suicide, maybe she died of natural causes - but it's all madness.

Sorry, your theory is complete idiocy.
It was very likely the cops were already keeping close tabs on SA - so, there's that.

They already knew he remained on his property that day.
09-01-2016 , 12:00 AM
Didn't he have an ironclad alibi in 1985? They still managed to convict him then
09-01-2016 , 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Because you literally asked me for a theory
Where did "I literally ask you for a theory"?

Where did you provide one?


Regardless, my point is that you're trying so hard to explain away all of the evidence, yet you still can't.

Why do you search for doubt instead of searching for the truth?
09-01-2016 , 04:25 AM
Okay, I know it's the Daily Mail, but still... this is amazing LMAO


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gone-head.html
09-01-2016 , 05:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
I guess I'm assuming that if you're going to frame someone you need to make sure that there aren't any uncomfortable facts that are going to come back to bite you. I mean if you plant someone's blood in the car and they turn out to have an ironclad alibi, that's pretty bad. Or if the rest of the car is covered with the fingerprints of Johnny Serial-killer and there are witnesses placing the victim with Johnny Serial-killer. So you'd have to be pretty sure you knew and were confident you could cover up what really happened before you embarked on your framing mission.

Under your insane theory, the cops would have had to launch a frame job within hours after Halbach was reported missing, before there was any way anyone could have known how the investigation would develop. I mean okay, I guess you're assuming they found the body with the car. How could they have known right after finding the body that forensic testing wouldn't point to Avery? And even if they somehow did figure it out, don't you think they would have had some interest in catching the real killer? Okay, you can keep going down the rabbit hole - maybe they caught the real killer in the act and killed him, maybe Halbach committed suicide, maybe she died of natural causes - but it's all madness.

Sorry, your theory is complete idiocy.
A lot of what you write here would seem reasonable, if we didn't have strong evidence the same police department has a grudge against Steven which lead to their framing of him in the 1985 rape case. They obviously don't give a **** about the victim, or finding the real rapist (allowing Gregory Allen to commit further crimes and victimize more women). Avery's iron clad alibi didn't help him then.

That Steven was exonerated gave them even more reasons to hate him - the exposure of their corruption plus the likely financial ruin and perhaps even some criminal charges on the horizon.

Since the so-called 'investigation' is conducted by these police, it's obviously very easy to control what evidence is 'found' and what evidence is ignored. Which leads they follow (or manufacture by coercing statements from witnesses) and which leads are never pursued.

Any rational person can see this was at best a slipshod investigation where hardly any of the evidence collection was handled in a professional manner. I have the feeling they didn't think Steven would have good representation, and probably thought he'd end up with someone like Len 'My Client is Guilty' Kachinsky as his lawyer.

I don't think they imagined some dedicated documentary film makers would bring a white hot spotlight of publicity onto their methods.

Steven's lawyer Zellner is pretty confident that he is innocent, the police did frame him, and that she has good leads on a better suspect.

Zellner also has a good record of backing up her claims, freeing her clients, and sometimes identifying the actual perpetrators.
09-01-2016 , 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Where did "I literally ask you for a theory"?

Where did you provide one?


Regardless, my point is that you're trying so hard to explain away all of the evidence, yet you still can't.

Why do you search for doubt instead of searching for the truth?
Wouldn't a search for the truth actually require questioning things instead of blindly accepting as you have done?
09-01-2016 , 05:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
It was very likely the cops were already keeping close tabs on SA - so, there's that.

They already knew he remained on his property that day.
From what I understand Jodi was meant to be released on that very day to attend some sort of alcohol diversion class and Steven was supposed to take her there.

For some unknown reason her release was cancelled.
09-01-2016 , 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Wouldn't a search for the truth actually require questioning things instead of blindly accepting as you have done?
I did early on, and I found the answers.

I think you have found the answer too (there is no reasonable explanation for Steven's blood being in the Rav4 if he's innocent), but you refuse to accept it.
09-01-2016 , 06:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Wouldn't a search for the truth actually require questioning things instead of blindly accepting as you have done?
Naw, much easier to twist yourself in knots defending the cops who are capable of framing Avery for a rape he didn't commit and allowed the perpetrator to escape justice and commit more crimes.

PoorSkillz doesn't seem to care much one way or the other about what the truth is.
09-01-2016 , 07:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
It was very likely the cops were already keeping close tabs on SA - so, there's that.

They already knew he remained on his property that day.
This is what I meant by going down the rabbit hole. It's typical conspiracy stuff - your theory makes no sense so you just add on hypotheticals hoping to make it fit.

Based on what evidence is it likely that the cops were keeping tabs on Avery?

But okay, even if they were, were they keeping tabs on Halbach too? So let's say (because they had Avery under 24/7 surveillance) they had seen Halbach leaving his house. 3 days later she is reported missing. A few hours after she is reported missing, Colborn finds the car with her body. Obviously the order has already come from above that they're looking for ways to frame Avery, and like a good cop, Colborn is ready and willing to comply. But is he really going to launch a frame up this early, before any investigation has been done? For all he knows there could be 50 witnesses seeing Halbach after she left Avery's. For all he knows her boyfriend may be overwhelmed with guilt and on his way to turn himself in. For all he knows, the car could be full of forensic evidence of a serial killer. It makes zero sense.
09-01-2016 , 07:45 AM
The 1985 wrongful conviction made zero sense either. Despite an ironclad alibi they managed to railroad Steven to serve time while the real perpetrator, who left forensic evidence behind, was allowed roam free to rape and assault other women.
09-01-2016 , 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
The 1985 wrongful conviction made zero sense either. Despite an ironclad alibi they managed to railroad Steven to serve time while the real perpetrator, who left forensic evidence behind, was allowed roam free to rape and assault other women.
Way to not address anything lkasigh posted about how crazy your police conspiracy theory is. Of course the whole theory is so ridiculous there really is no way to defend it.

There was no conspiracy to convict SA in the earlier case. That case was based on eyewitness testimony from the victim and (faulty, it turned out) hair sample evidence.
09-01-2016 , 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
jfc this cat obsession lol

WHO GIVES A ****
Of course it doesn't prove anything by itself, other than the fact that SA is a violent, effed-up human being.

Added to running his cousin off the road and pointing a gun at her, raping his niece, etc., it paints a portrait of his character.

Not to mention his version of the cat story as he told it in the TV series was a complete and outright fabrication. If nothing else it showed how he could lie right to your face and appear very believable.
09-01-2016 , 10:44 AM
You understand there's a reason courts don't allow past acts to be entered as evidence at trials right?
09-01-2016 , 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
There was no conspiracy to convict SA in the earlier case. That case was based on eyewitness testimony from the victim and (faulty, it turned out) hair sample evidence.
Riiiiiiiiiiight....


      
m