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

09-06-2016 , 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Um yes if you want to let an accused killer go free based on a conspiracy, you do need to prove it. Which is exactly what Strang and Buting tried and failed to do in the trial.

I mean sure if we're all just sharing our favorite conspiracy theories for fun, then yeah I agree no one needs to prove anything.
Since you are still super dumb and people need to spell out everything for you, I will not let a killer go loose, i cannot i m a random on some internet forum,now the police prolly did let a killer go loose after letting a rapist go loose, and me i m only expressing the need to investigate the case to know what really happend , at worse nothing because the police was only super unproffessional and get a slap on the wrist while avery remain in jail, at best an innocent man get out of jail and some criminal cops and the real killer get in jail.
But your fantasy where you think you are keeping a killer in jail by spooting your nonsense here is pretty cute.
09-06-2016 , 02:57 PM
Oh no, Kratz deleted all of Zellner's tweets about Avery again!!!
09-06-2016 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Since you are still super dumb and people need to spell out everything for you, I will not let a killer go loose, i cannot i m a random on some internet forum,now the police prolly did let a killer go loose after letting a rapist go loose, and me i m only expressing the need to investigate the case to know what really happened , at worse nothing because the police was only super unprofessional and get a slap on the wrist while Avery remain in jail, at best an innocent man get out of jail and some criminal cops and the real killer get in jail.

But your fantasy where you think you are keeping a killer in jail by spouting your nonsense here is pretty cute.
I don't see any evidence that people whose opinion is that there is at the very least reasonable doubt in the case against Steven in crimes against Teresa Halbach think Steven is guilty. So no one is arguing 'let a killer go free'. They are standing up for that principle of justice that the accused is to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Zellner is able to show that police did frame Steven, obviously there's no logical or ethical reason to keep him in prison.

If Zellner is able to show evidence which points at the real killer, it will be good to keep that person off the streets - just like it would have been better for police to pursue the actual perpetrator in the Beerntsen case rather than focus their energies on making a case against an innocent man.

AFAICT no one is suggesting a conspiracy simply out of some desire to believe in conspiracies. They constantly point to evidence which indicates that is in fact the case.
09-06-2016 , 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Um yes if you want to let an accused killer go free based on a conspiracy, you do need to prove it. Which is exactly what Strang and Buting tried and failed to do in the trial.

I mean sure if we're all just sharing our favorite conspiracy theories for fun, then yeah I agree no one needs to prove anything.
How can I put this? Are you, um, mentally challenged? Have you had a serious brain injury recently?

In the United States, as in many countries, there is the presumption of innocence. This is not merely words we pay lip service to, but is truly the lynchpin of our justice system.

The police and prosecution must follow strict procedures to ensure that trials are fair. And they must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" since we would rather let 10 guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail.

You are either really really unintelligent or you are an annoying troll. In any event, you have contributed very very little to this thread. We all know the police version of events (however incomplete, incomprehensible, and likely falsified). We don't need some dingus on the internet to repeat their "side" of the story every five minutes.

When you accept anything the police say or do on face value, but reject anything anybody else says as "conspiracy lunacy", you are showing yourself to be very unaware of today's realities.

When you take the guilty verdict from a very tainted trial as evidence of guilt, you are showing yourself to be very naive.

When you take glee in the fact that a man now sits in jail for the rest of his life due to a very tainted trial, you are showing yourself to be a horse's ass.
09-06-2016 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext Making a Murderer
How can I put this? Are you, um, mentally challenged? Have you had a serious brain injury recently?

In the United States, as in many countries, there is the presumption of innocence. This is not merely words we pay lip service to, but is truly the lynchpin of our justice system.

The police and prosecution must follow strict procedures to ensure that trials are fair. And they must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" since we would rather let 10 guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail.

You are either really really unintelligent or you are an annoying troll. In any event, you have contributed very very little to this thread. We all know the police version of events (however incomplete, incomprehensible, and likely falsified). We don't need some dingus on the internet to repeat their "side" of the story every five minutes.

When you accept anything the police say or do on face value, but reject anything anybody else says as "conspiracy lunacy", you are showing yourself to be very unaware of today's realities.

When you take the guilty verdict from a very tainted trial as evidence of guilt, you are showing yourself to be very naive.

When you take glee in the fact that a man now sits in jail for the rest of his life due to a very tainted trial, you are showing yourself to be a horse's ass.
I think he is neither trolling not shilling, that's a sad statement
09-06-2016 , 03:59 PM
Here is the opinion of someone who worked for the FBI for 25 years. Fooled as well I suppose.

http://www.gmancasefile.com/moore-to-the-story.html

***CONCLUSIONS:

To be clear, I am certain about some things, because they are self-evident and do not require scientific confirmation. I believe that the evidence provided in the documentary is conclusive proof (at least in my professional opinion) that the prosecution of Steven Avery was conducted by an unscrupulous prosecutor more concerned about a conviction than he was the truth.

The episodes also provided sufficient evidence to prove to me, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Brendan Dassey’s ‘confession’ was absolute, police-fed, fantasy. My strong belief is that Brendan Dassey had nothing to do with the disappearance or murder of Teresa Halbach in any way, though I still want to confirm that with the evidence I have not yet seen.

I believe that from a professional and moral standpoint, Len Kachinsky stabbed Brendan Dassey in the back, and with the help of Michael O’Kelly, bears significant responsibility for the loss of a decade (and counting) of the life of Brendan Dassey.

I am convinced that evidence proves conclusively that Teresa Halbach was not murdered in Steven Avery’s garage or home.

I believe that the investigation conducted by Manitowoc and Calumet County Sheriff’s investigators, as well as Special Agent Fassbender from the Wisconsin Department of Justice was pathetic. It was the result of either gross incompetence or intentional (criminal) evidence planting—or both. I am not yet ready to say where I come down on that aspect.

The rulings and courtroom conduct of Judges Patrick Willis and Jerome Fox were appalling. I personally believe that both judges were strongly biased in favor of the prosecution. How could Judge Fox remove a defense attorney for allowing an unrepresented interrogation of a client, then allow the results of that interrogation to be admitted as evidence?


The following are just some of the items about which I have a very preliminary opinion, which I believe might well be influenced by more substantial evidence.


I have serious questions as to the behavior of certain officers during this investigation, among them Lt. Lenk and Sgt. Colburn.

The fact that people who reasonable investigators around the country would consider prime suspects (ex-boyfriend, male roommate, obsessive caller), were apparently ignored during the investigation is stupefying.***
09-06-2016 , 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext Making a Murderer
How can I put this? Are you, um, mentally challenged? Have you had a serious brain injury recently?

In the United States, as in many countries, there is the presumption of innocence. This is not merely words we pay lip service to, but is truly the lynchpin of our justice system.

The police and prosecution must follow strict procedures to ensure that trials are fair. And they must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" since we would rather let 10 guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail.

You are either really really unintelligent or you are an annoying troll. In any event, you have contributed very very little to this thread. We all know the police version of events (however incomplete, incomprehensible, and likely falsified). We don't need some dingus on the internet to repeat their "side" of the story every five minutes.

When you accept anything the police say or do on face value, but reject anything anybody else says as "conspiracy lunacy", you are showing yourself to be very unaware of today's realities.

When you take the guilty verdict from a very tainted trial as evidence of guilt, you are showing yourself to be very naive.

When you take glee in the fact that a man now sits in jail for the rest of his life due to a very tainted trial, you are showing yourself to be a horse's ass.
You are clearly convinced that Avery is innocent. I get it, so do a lot of other people. I am allowed to disagree. He had a trial, the evidence against him was presented, the defense presented their side, and a jury of his peers found him guilty. That is how our justice system works.

By the way I do not accept everything the police say at face value. We all know cops can lie or distort the truth. But most itt seem to think that because cops CAN lie, that is somehow proof that they DID lie, in this particular case. That is not how it works. Claims require proof. Strang and Buting spent the entire trial trying to prove the police lied, and that Avery was framed. They claimed the pinhole in the blood vial proved tampering (it didn't, turns out it is standard). They claimed the EDTA blood test would prove the blood came from the vial. It didn't. They cast suspicion on Lenk and Colburn and anyone else they could, but were unable to provide any proof to back up their theories of a police conspiracy to frame their client.

So the jury looked at the evidence against Avery, saw no proof that the evidence was planted, and found him guilty.

I'm not sure exactly what outcome you expected given the mountain of evidence pointing to Avery, and the lack of proof that there was any kind of conspiracy.

Since I am convinced the right man is in prison, and saw nothing tainted about the trial, yes I am glad he is there so he doesn't hurt anyone else.
09-06-2016 , 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
and saw nothing tainted about the trial
hard to pretend to not be blind when you say that . Even ken kratz wouldnt dare to make that statement public.
09-06-2016 , 04:59 PM
nvm even his closing argument kinda implied that some stuff where not on the up and up but whatever since avery is guilty
09-06-2016 , 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext

How can I put this? Are you, um, mentally challenged? Have you had a serious brain injury recently?
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
I think he is neither trolling not shilling, that's a sad statement
Maybe a little of all of these...?
09-06-2016 , 05:56 PM
revots33 is the only one truly attempting to argue guilt, albeit failing miserably. BrokeShillz is selling books, nothing more. Fraleyight jumped ship a while ago with a few others.

Thanks for keeping the thread alive revots33.
09-06-2016 , 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
revots33 is the only one truly attempting to argue guilt, albeit failing miserably. BrokeShillz is selling books, nothing more. Fraleyight jumped ship a while ago with a few others.

Thanks for keeping the thread alive revots33.
There's still a few things to keep bumping this thread.

The prosecution's decision whether to appeal the Dassey decision.

The court's decision regarding Zellner's submissions.

If the submissions are granted, then we might see Avery released, or given a new trial.

Possible lawsuit from Dassey regarding coercion and false imprisonment.

There could be years of material.
09-06-2016 , 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext Making a Murderer
How can I put this? Are you, um, mentally challenged? Have you had a serious brain injury recently?

In the United States, as in many countries, there is the presumption of innocence. This is not merely words we pay lip service to, but is truly the lynchpin of our justice system.

The police and prosecution must follow strict procedures to ensure that trials are fair. And they must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" since we would rather let 10 guilty men go free than put one innocent man in jail.

You are either really really unintelligent or you are an annoying troll. In any event, you have contributed very very little to this thread. We all know the police version of events (however incomplete, incomprehensible, and likely falsified). We don't need some dingus on the internet to repeat their "side" of the story every five minutes.

When you accept anything the police say or do on face value, but reject anything anybody else says as "conspiracy lunacy", you are showing yourself to be very unaware of today's realities.

When you take the guilty verdict from a very tainted trial as evidence of guilt, you are showing yourself to be very naive.

When you take glee in the fact that a man now sits in jail for the rest of his life due to a very tainted trial, you are showing yourself to be a horse's ass.
Very well written.
09-06-2016 , 06:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
revots33 Fraleyight jumped ship a while ago with a few others.

Thanks for keeping the thread alive revots33.
Fraleyight, I think is talking to K.Z. if ya know what I mean.
09-06-2016 , 06:56 PM
Oh well It appears that there is, wait for it 3 KEYS to the Rav4.....



Does this mean that its another mistake, in that the Key made to open the Rav4 was entered into evidence.
09-06-2016 , 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Oh well It appears that there is, wait for it 3 KEYS to the Rav4.....



Does this mean that its another mistake, in that the Key made to open the Rav4 was entered into evidence.
I'm sure the paperwork regarding who made the keys, when this was done, and who had possession of them will straighten everything out. /s

Last edited by proudfootz; 09-06-2016 at 07:26 PM.
09-06-2016 , 07:12 PM
Shaun Attwood.........

It's the one-year anniversary of Ken Kratz sending Steven Avery a letter asking Steven to help Kratz with his new book. With that in mind, I've sent Kratz a letter asking him to help with my book:
Kenneth R. Kratz
September 6, 2016 RE: I’m Appalled That You Framed Two Innocent People
Dear Mr Kratz,
I reference your letter dated September 6, 2015, wherein you attempted to lure Steven Avery into admitting guilt to crimes that originated in the depths of your depraved mind, in the greedy hope that Steven would contribute towards your book Avery: The Case Against Steven Avery and What “Making a Murderer” Gets Wrong.
If you are interested in being honest about what happened and finally telling the whole story of how you framed two innocent people, including an intellectually challenged teenager, I’m hoping that you might choose to tell me your story for inclusion in my book: The Framing of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey by Kratz and Other Miscreants.
Unfortunately, it is with an embarrassing narcissism that you have chosen to continue your charade even though anyone with a jot of common sense – with the exception of Nancy Grace – has seen through your pretence and views you with ridicule and contempt. I’m offering you ONE opportunity to come clean.
For your information, the difference between you and other circus ringleaders from days of old is that they promoted hoaxes before the advent of DNA testing, so that people were never privy to the truth. I am willing to put the truth out there for you, Ken, however if you are going to continue to lie about what happened in the face of Kathleen Zellner’s DNA evidence, I am not interested.
If you change your mind and you’d like the opportunity to tell your story someday, please contact me. I am not the douchebag you referred to me as on Facebook. Just be honest with me, Ken, I have your best interests at heart – just like your buddies Fassbender and Wiegert helped Brendan Dassey get back to school and home to watch WrestleMania. Come clean and bring down all of Manitowoc County with you. You’d better do it soon before they throw you under the bus. An admission of guilt with some feigned tears, remorse, blame-shifting to your Xanax addiction and Samuel Barber’s Adagio for Strings playing in the background might help mitigate your prison sentence.
If you do ever end up in an orange jumpsuit, Ken, hold onto that soap very carefully. In the event that it slips from your hand in the shower and you must bend over, try to remember the ordeals of your multiple sex-pest victims, including the vulnerable women you were meant to serve and protect.

Sincerely yours, Shaun Attwood Author & Activist Email: If you have any info on Kratz or others for my book, please email me at attwood.shaun@hotmail.co.uk
09-06-2016 , 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
revots33 is the only one truly attempting to argue guilt, albeit failing miserably. BrokeShillz is selling books, nothing more. Fraleyight jumped ship a while ago with a few others.

Thanks for keeping the thread alive revots33.
I know, arguing guilt for the guy with all the evidence pointing to him is a novel idea in conspiracy-land.

Much more fun to speculate about the impossible odds of a woman finding a green RAV4 in 40 minutes. Or the odds of a guy calling just to check on a license plate #.

Of course, by themselves each of these things are ridiculous and stupid and you'd have to be pretty dumb to think they prove anything at all... but add them all together and they must point to SOMETHING, amirite?
09-06-2016 , 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
I'm sure the paperwork regarding who made the keys, when this was done, and who had possession of them will straighten everything out. /s
G L With that...

09-06-2016 , 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Of course, by themselves each of these things are ridiculous and stupid and you'd have to be pretty dumb to think they prove anything at all... but add them all together and they must point to SOMETHING, amirite?
Yes.... You did say that B.D. Was innocent, correct?

2/27...at school
F: All right, we got, we got a lot of important stuff out there now. Take a breath. Let’s go over the parts that you mentioned, OK, so you mentioned toes, fingers, parts of hand and feet and then what you thought maybe was stomach area or midsection or torso. Did you see any parts of the legs. . . .parts of the legs or arms. You sure you didn’t see her, her, now this is very hard, it’s easy, not easy but it easier to say your saw a toe or a finger, but when you start saying to me or I saw a head or a face or hair or you know stuff like that, that’s when it hurts though but I find it very hard that you didn’t see a skull or the head. Did you see part of the head or face or skull?
B: somewhat....
W: OK, now you said before you saw something in the fire. What did you see?
B: Her foot, her, her, her toes.
F: Describe where you saw them.
B: Like on the side of the fire...Under some tires and some branches...
2/27 at station....
F: You know we found some flesh in that fire too. We know you saw some flesh. We found it after all that burned. I know you saw it . . .Tell us. You don’t have to worry about you won’t have to prove that in court, (phone rings) Tell us what you saw. You saw some body parts. . . You’re shaking your head. . . tell us what you saw. .
B:........... (no answer, thinking!!!)
F: You all right? You all right? What other parts did you see?
B: Toes
F: ...part of a foot too? What other parts of the body . . . Did you see part of the arm, the legs? I know. It’s all right . . . Did you see part of her head? Skull?
BRENDAN: I seen............(thinking!!!!!!!!!!!)
09-06-2016 , 08:17 PM
This police department already has two strikes against it in the Beerntsen case and the coerced statements from Dassey.

If Manitowoc is conspiracy land, they only have themselves to blame.
09-06-2016 , 09:42 PM
revots,

are you willing to tell us what your IQ is? i am really keen to understand the intelligence levels of the most active posters in this debate. poorskillz refused, but maybe you won't. feel free to PM me!
09-06-2016 , 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
revots,

are you willing to tell us what your IQ is? i am really keen to understand the intelligence levels of the most active posters in this debate. poorskillz refused, but maybe you won't. feel free to PM me!
Why are you so obsessed with IQ? I take it you see a positive correlation between willingness to believe outrageous conspiracy theories, and intelligence?

Do you assume the OJ jurors were geniuses, since they were smart enough to disregard the mountain of physical and circumstantial evidence, and see it was all planted by racist cops?
09-06-2016 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
revots,

are you willing to tell us what your IQ is? i am really keen to understand the intelligence levels of the most active posters in this debate. poorskillz refused, but maybe you won't. feel free to PM me!

What is your obsession with IQ scores?

I personally have not taken an IQ test in many years, nor do I know when (if ever) I have taken an official one, and I certainly haven't memorized the results.

Do you also accept scores on SAT/GMAT/etc?
09-06-2016 , 10:52 PM
So did the cops burn the body? Did they just find a pile of bones and decide to dump it at SA's and get lucky with the fact that she was actually (possibly) last seen there?

      
m