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

09-13-2016 , 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
So you admit that you have no idea whether the time of search is relevant to the issue of whether evidence was planted. This is great, we finally seem to be getting somewhere.
Yes, I admit that more than one data point is needed to establish whether there is a pattern.

So what?

In this case there are more data points than one, despite what you seem to believe.
09-13-2016 , 07:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Do you believe the time is an indication that anything wasn't planted? Do you have any empirical evidence that shows a correlation to how long it takes to find something and the chance that that evidence wasn't planted?
I have no idea if it's indicative of planting or not. As a rational person, unless I have reason to believe otherwise, my default position is that it is irrelevant.
09-13-2016 , 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, I admit that more than one data point is needed to establish whether there is a pattern.

So what?

In this case there are more data points than one, despite what you seem to believe.
What are your criteria for establishing whether something is a data point indicating planting?
09-13-2016 , 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Do you believe the time is an indication that anything wasn't planted? Do you have any empirical evidence that shows a correlation to how long it takes to find something and the chance that that evidence wasn't planted?
Of course he does!

Any minute now we'll see links to a slew of peer reviewed studies that support his contentions.

After all, lkasigh wouldn't hold others to a standard that he can't maintain himself! /s
09-13-2016 , 08:04 AM
You guys do realize that "Is search time correlated with planting?" and "Is search time correlated with not planting?" are the same question, right?

If there are times correlated with planting, there have to be times correlated with not planting.
09-13-2016 , 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
What are your criteria for establishing whether something is a data point indicating planting?
Take the lonely RAV4 key for example.

One thing that might indicate it was planted was that when the small bookshelf was emptied and searched no key was found.

On a subsequent search the same small piece of furniture is searched and supposedly the key is found.

What explanations could account for this?

One is that the key wasn't there at first, but was planted there.

But who could have put the incriminating key there?

Could it be one of the officers who was supposed to be banned from the investigation due to admitted appearance of a conflict of interest?

It turns out it was exactly a couple of officers (Lenk and Colburn) from the police department that had a conflict of interest who supposedly found the lonely key. These officers were so mistrusted that they had a minder from another department to babysit them - because as the Sheriff said they didn't want anyone to think evidence was planted.

Unfortunately their minder seems to have missed the key's actually somehow dropping out of the bookcase. It was only ever observed on the floor near the bookcase. Indeed, there is no one who reports actually seeing the key in the bookcase, only seeing it on the floor in plain sight.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Teresa ever possessed this particular key. Somehow her DNA didn't get on it. Maybe she kept in a plastic bag and only ever touched it wearing gloves. Or something. Moreover, the supposedly bleeding Steven never got any blood on it.

Kratz, in his closing statement, admitted that the key might have been planted (except for the honorable reputation of these fine police officers).

Now the Manitowoc law enforcement has already been implicated in shenanigans with regard to Steven before - this was the basis of the lawsuit which forced police to publicly admit it would look shady if Manitowoc police were involved in this investigation.

The other possible explanation is that a disinterested police officer on the previous examination of the 2 cubic foot space somehow missed the key on its bright blue lanyard and everything else is just a bunch of unconnected coincidences.

So it's much more than one data point that needs to be considered (a key that fit Teresa's RAV4 was photographed on the floor). Context is required. Means, motive, opportunity.
09-13-2016 , 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
You guys do realize that "Is search time correlated with planting?" and "Is search time correlated with not planting?" are the same question, right?

If there are times correlated with planting, there have to be times correlated with not planting.
...thats the point? Which I should have expected to go over your head.
09-13-2016 , 08:29 AM
Obviously, if we find someone is cheating once (like tracing Steven's mugshot in the 1985 case) we're less likely to be trusting of them in the future.

I wouldn't play poker with someone who was known to cheat.
09-13-2016 , 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Obviously, if we find someone is cheating once (like tracing Steven's mugshot in the 1985 case) we're less likely to be trusting of them in the future.

I wouldn't play poker with someone who was known to cheat.
Fine, but what do the peer-reviewed research studies say about the likelihood that someone who is known to cheat will try to cheat in a 3-handed pot on the river when there are 250 BBs in the middle and the dealer has been episodically sneezing due to allergies?
09-13-2016 , 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Obviously, if we find someone is cheating once (like tracing Steven's mugshot in the 1985 case) we're less likely to be trusting of them in the future.

I wouldn't play poker with someone who was known to cheat.
Who is "someone"? Most of the officers involved in the Halbach investigation had nothing to do with the 1985 rape case.

It seems pretty clear that, since Avery was wrongly convicted in 1985 you think that gives him a get out of jail free card for the rest of his life. The fact that he happened to be wrongly convicted decades earlier has zero to do with his guilt or innocence in this case.

Last edited by revots33; 09-13-2016 at 01:43 PM.
09-13-2016 , 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Who is "someone"? Most of the officers involved in the Halbach investigation had nothing to do with the 1985 rape case.

It seems pretty clear that, since Avery was wrongly convicted in 1985 you think that gives him a get out of jail free card for the rest of his life. The fact that he happened to be wrongly convicted decades earlier has zero to do with his guilt or innocence in this case.
IIRC, only three people in MCSD in 1985 were still there in 2005.
09-13-2016 , 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Who is "someone"? Most of the officers involved in the Halbach investigation had nothing to do with the 1985 rape case.

It seems pretty clear that, since Avery was wrongly convicted in 1985 you think that gives him a get out of jail free card for the rest of his life. The fact that he happened to be wrongly convicted decades earlier has zero to do with his guilt or innocence in this case.
Except for the fact the sheriff said at the outset Manitoc police participating in the investigation would appear to be a conflict of interest due to the lawsuit.
09-13-2016 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
IIRC, only three people in MCSD in 1985 were still there in 2005.

One of them was Sherry Culhane - the one who received instructions to 'put Teresa in Steven's house or garage'.
09-13-2016 , 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChesspain Making a Murderer
Fine, but what do the peer-reviewed research studies say about the likelihood that someone who is known to cheat will try to cheat in a 3-handed pot on the river when there are 250 BBs in the middle and the dealer has been episodically sneezing due to allergies?
It depends a lot on whether it is a Wednesday or a Saturday.
09-13-2016 , 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Take the lonely RAV4 key for example.

One thing that might indicate it was planted was that when the small bookshelf was emptied and searched no key was found.

On a subsequent search the same small piece of furniture is searched and supposedly the key is found.

What explanations could account for this?

One is that the key wasn't there at first, but was planted there.

But who could have put the incriminating key there?

Could it be one of the officers who was supposed to be banned from the investigation due to admitted appearance of a conflict of interest?

It turns out it was exactly a couple of officers (Lenk and Colburn) from the police department that had a conflict of interest who supposedly found the lonely key. These officers were so mistrusted that they had a minder from another department to babysit them - because as the Sheriff said they didn't want anyone to think evidence was planted.

Unfortunately their minder seems to have missed the key's actually somehow dropping out of the bookcase. It was only ever observed on the floor near the bookcase. Indeed, there is no one who reports actually seeing the key in the bookcase, only seeing it on the floor in plain sight.

Moreover, there is no evidence that Teresa ever possessed this particular key. Somehow her DNA didn't get on it. Maybe she kept in a plastic bag and only ever touched it wearing gloves. Or something. Moreover, the supposedly bleeding Steven never got any blood on it.

Kratz, in his closing statement, admitted that the key might have been planted (except for the honorable reputation of these fine police officers).

Now the Manitowoc law enforcement has already been implicated in shenanigans with regard to Steven before - this was the basis of the lawsuit which forced police to publicly admit it would look shady if Manitowoc police were involved in this investigation.

The other possible explanation is that a disinterested police officer on the previous examination of the 2 cubic foot space somehow missed the key on its bright blue lanyard and everything else is just a bunch of unconnected coincidences.

So it's much more than one data point that needs to be considered (a key that fit Teresa's RAV4 was photographed on the floor). Context is required. Means, motive, opportunity.
I'm not asking you for a list of the items you consider to be evidence of planting. I'm asking you to explain what criteria you use to decide whether you consider something evidence of planting.

Okay, you mention the lack of Halbach's DNA on the key. You believe that not finding her DNA on the key is evidence of planting and that finding her DNA on the key would have been evidence of no planting. I'm asking you to explain to me the reasoning that you used to arrive at this conclusion.

If you don't like this example, pick another of your "data points."
09-13-2016 , 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
...thats the point? Which I should have expected to go over your head.
I don't know why you assume it would have gone over my head when it's a point I've been making for the last ten posts. You believe that there is a correlation between search time and likelihood of planting. Therefore you also believe there is a correlation between search time and likelihood of non-planting. I've asked you and Proudfoot repeatedly to give me a hypothetical range of search times that you would consider to be evidence of non-planting, and to explain why you picked that particular range. For some reason neither of you has given me a straight answer.

Ah, okay, I get it, you thought I was arguing that the time of finding the car in the Avery case is evidence that it wasn't planted. That's not what I was doing. I'm saying that I don't know whether it is evidence of planting or not. I don't see any good reason to believe that there is a relationship between search time and likelihood of planting, so my default position is that they are not related, making the search time irrelevant to the question of whether the car was planted.
09-13-2016 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrChesspain Making a Murderer
Fine, but what do the peer-reviewed research studies say about the likelihood that someone who is known to cheat will try to cheat in a 3-handed pot on the river when there are 250 BBs in the middle and the dealer has been episodically sneezing due to allergies?
What do you think about this example:

A: "That guy cheated me in a poker game."

B: "How do you know he was cheating?"

A: "He was fidgeting alot while he played."

B: "What makes you so sure that that's indicative of cheating."

A: "He's Russian and he beat me with quads over my full-house."
09-13-2016 , 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
I don't know why you assume it would have gone over my head when it's a point I've been making for the last ten posts. You believe that there is a correlation between search time and likelihood of planting. Therefore you also believe there is a correlation between search time and likelihood of non-planting. I've asked you and Proudfoot repeatedly to give me a hypothetical range of search times that you would consider to be evidence of non-planting, and to explain why you picked that particular range. For some reason neither of you has given me a straight answer.

Ah, okay, I get it, you thought I was arguing that the time of finding the car in the Avery case is evidence that it wasn't planted. That's not what I was doing. I'm saying that I don't know whether it is evidence of planting or not. I don't see any good reason to believe that there is a relationship between search time and likelihood of planting, so my default position is that they are not related, making the search time irrelevant to the question of whether the car was planted.
WTF is going on here? These posts make no sense, are total JAQ offs and derailments. Just stop responding. These questions are just stupidly simplistic and irrelevant.

Quote:
You believe that there is a correlation between search time and likelihood of planting. Therefore you also believe there is a correlation between search time and likelihood of non-planting. I've asked you and Proudfoot repeatedly to give me a hypothetical range of search times that you would consider to be evidence of non-planting
LOL don't JAQ this dude off anymore please.
09-13-2016 , 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
I'm not asking you for a list of the items you consider to be evidence of planting. I'm asking you to explain what criteria you use to decide whether you consider something evidence of planting.

Okay, you mention the lack of Halbach's DNA on the key. You believe that not finding her DNA on the key is evidence of planting and that finding her DNA on the key would have been evidence of no planting. I'm asking you to explain to me the reasoning that you used to arrive at this conclusion.

If you don't like this example, pick another of your "data points."
It's the context.

Just like how in this case some data points are considered evidence of murder:

Using *67
Having the weekly bonfire
getting a cut on your hand
having porn in the house
having bleach in your house
09-13-2016 , 07:44 PM
I hope they don't look into me, because I have all of those thing, except *67 because it's 2016 and I don't call people
09-13-2016 , 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
What do you think about this example:

A: "That guy cheated me in a poker game."

B: "How do you know he was cheating?"

A: "He was fidgeting alot while he played."

B: "What makes you so sure that that's indicative of cheating."

A: "He's Russian and he beat me with quads over my full-house."
09-13-2016 , 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer

Okay, you mention the lack of Halbach's DNA on the key. You believe that not finding her DNA on the key is evidence of planting and that finding her DNA on the key would have been evidence of no planting. I'm asking you to explain to me the reasoning that you used to arrive at this conclusion.
1) SA could have washed the key completely and used it himself.
2) It could have been a spare key in her car she never used.

The problem is the person who "discovered it" considering:
1) He received the only call in his life from another detective informing him that SA may be innocent of the crime he was currently in jail and didn't do anything.
2) Was deposed the week prior.
3) Was not supposed to be actively investigating.
4) Hard to believe story about shaking a cabinet and everything stays in place, except for a key that appears.
09-13-2016 , 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
It's the context.

Just like how in this case some data points are considered evidence of murder:

Using *67
Having the weekly bonfire
getting a cut on your hand
having porn in the house
having bleach in your house
Let me try again. What are the criteria that you use to evaluate a particular fact in context to determine whether it is evidence of planting or of not planting?

For instance, you believe that in the context that the car key was found in, not finding the victim's DNA on it was evidence that it was planted and finding her DNA on it would have been evidence that it wasn't planted. What specifically about the context leads you to this conclusion?
09-13-2016 , 09:05 PM
Well, if someone owns something, especially something they handle everyday, you know, with their hands, you'd expect there to be some DNA on that.

Add to that the fact that the key was found suspiciously, and that leads me to find the key suspicious
09-13-2016 , 09:37 PM







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elRxbGJuCw8

Last edited by smacc25; 09-13-2016 at 09:43 PM.

      
m