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

11-24-2016 , 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Do you think it's correct to keep him incarcerated while the state appeals, due to Duffin's ruling being provisional and subject to appeal?
That's an interesting turn of phrase.

Since the lower court's conviction was subject to appeal, should Steven and Brendan be free until a final decision is reached?

11-24-2016 , 10:09 AM
Quote:
Quote:
...[Steven Avery] was released from prison after serving years for a crime he didn't do
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer

Concurrently served with crimes he did do, one of which had circumstances similar to Ms Halbach's murder.
Apparently you have convicted Steven in your mind of some previous luring-kidnapping-chaining-to-a-bed-torture-gangrape-murder-by stabbing-stangling-shooting-disposing-of-a-corpse scenario that eerily parallels one of Ken Kratz's fantasies dreamed up for the Halbach case.

Which crime was Steven ever convicted for that resembles this scenario?

Spoiler:
Even money this involves a cat.

What are the odds corpus will dodge this one altogether?
11-24-2016 , 03:35 PM
Spoiler:
Sandra-running her mouth off-Morris


Spoiler:
11-24-2016 , 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Apparently you have convicted Steven in your mind of some previous luring-kidnapping-chaining-to-a-bed-torture-gangrape-murder-by stabbing-stangling-shooting-disposing-of-a-corpse scenario that eerily parallels one of Ken Kratz's fantasies dreamed up for the Halbach case.

Which crime was Steven ever convicted for that resembles this scenario?

Spoiler:
Even money this involves a cat.

What are the odds corpus will dodge this one altogether?
What is interesting is that SA was found not guilty of mutilating a corpse. Which means the jury thought TH was burned alive or they didn't find beyond a reasonable doubt that the events the state presented actually transpired.
11-25-2016 , 04:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
What is interesting is that SA was found not guilty of mutilating a corpse. Which means the jury thought TH was burned alive or they didn't find beyond a reasonable doubt that the events the state presented actually transpired.
Another curious thing is that charges against Steven for kidnapping and rape were completely dropped.

I suppose we can expect people to stop yammering on about those elements of Ken 'The Pervert' Kratz's narrative.

"Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Patrick Willis dismisses two of the criminal charges against Avery, first-degree sexual assault and kidnapping."

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...line/79450680/

I guess the evidence was too overwhelming to get a foot inside the courtroom.

Of course, that punches a huge hole in the alleged 'motive' Steven might have had to murder some random person.
11-25-2016 , 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
"Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Patrick Willis dismisses two of the criminal charges against Avery, first-degree sexual assault and kidnapping."
Yes, but the thing is that Brendan Dassey said that Steven did it and according to CV, this is rock solid proof.

It doesn't matter that there was not enough evidence to bring kidnapping and sexual assault charges on SA. Absence of evidence = he's guilty.
11-25-2016 , 07:13 AM
I just visited the Placing Meredith First site, where corpus vile is at home among his trollish friends.

He posted a link to this article, which is hilariously wrong on the facts. Which is ironic, as it is going after the documentary film Making a Murderer for playing fast and loose with the facts:

"Damning evidence with the purchase of leg irons, harassing phone calls to the victim backed up with irrefutable evidence..."

http://horrorfuel.com/horror/movies/making-a-killing/

Since there wasn't evidence sufficient to present in court that Steven ever used any kind of restraint on Teresa, and zero evidence Steven was the person harassing her over the phone (that is actually more Ken 'The Creeper' Kratz's schtick), it would appear the author of the piece doesn't know the meaning of 'irrefutable'.

Unless he means never argued, therefore never refuted. Or something.

Last edited by proudfootz; 11-25-2016 at 07:28 AM.
11-25-2016 , 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
I just visited the Placing Meredith First site, where corpus vile is at home among his trollish friends.

He posted a link to this article, which is hilariously wrong on the facts. Which is ironic, as it is going after the documentary film Making a Murderer for playing fast and loose with the facts:

"Damning evidence with the purchase of leg irons, harassing phone calls to the victim backed up with irrefutable evidence..."

http://horrorfuel.com/horror/movies/making-a-killing/

Since there wasn't evidence sufficient to present in court that Steven ever used any kind of restraint on Teresa, and zero evidence Steven was the person harassing her over the phone (that is actually more Ken 'The Creeper' Kratz's schtick), it would appear the author of the piece doesn't know the meaning of 'irrefutable'.

Unless he means never argued, therefore never refuted. Or something.
They just love to cite Occam's Razor. And of course, Occam's Razor works utterly against guilter's theories, unless of course you purposely leave out relevant information to the problem you are trying to solve. Occam's Razor only works to find the simplest solution to the problem you are trying to solve if your problem contains relevant and complete information. While the solution can be simple according to Occam's Razor, it says nothing of the problem. And in the case of 2 people being framed for kidnapping, rape, mutilation and murder the problem can be very complex. So if the problem you are trying to solve is not valid or missing information, then the solution you get will not be valid or will be missing information.

For instance:

Situation/Problem: The key to Teresa's car was found in SA's bedroom.

Simplest Solution: SA had the key and access to her vehicle which was found on his property with her blood inside demonstrating a high degree of guilt.

Well, of course that is the simplest solution if you simply dismiss agreed upon facts and circumstances. The solution you are looking for now applies to a problem that does not exist. Now lets look at the real Situation/Problem:

Situation/Problem: The key was not able to be found on 5 previous searches by trained (but self-removed) investigators but was then located in plain site on the 6th search, the reported circumstances of which do not seem physically possible due photographic evidence taken just before and after the discovery of the key.

Simplest solution: The key was placed in its reported location by someone present during it's discovery.

If you apply Occam's Razor like guilters do, then police corruption is totally impossible. Situation: He admitted it. Solution: He's guilty. Sound familiar?

Real situation: He involuntarily guessed as to what happened multiple times until his story fit the police narrative, never once originating any facts surrounding the known evidence, only agreeing with what was suggested or simply guessing until approval was gotten from police. Additionally, no physical proof of involvement has been located and circumstantial evidence indicates a total removal from the crime scene.

Solution: He was not present during the crime and knows no details of what happened.
11-25-2016 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
They just love to cite Occam's Razor. And of course, Occam's Razor works utterly against guilter's theories, unless of course you purposely leave out relevant information to the problem you are trying to solve.
Occam's Razor states that 'When advancing any argument, one should not multiply propositions needlessly.' It is taken to mean that the simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is most likely to be the correct one.

The known facts indicate that Steven Avery is the murderer. The defence / media explanation / excuse is baroque and implausible and assumes facts not in evidence. It also fails to identify any alternative suspect and therefore falls into the unfortunate category of 'unfalsifiable propositions.'
11-25-2016 , 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red Making a Murderer

The known facts indicate that Steven Avery is the murderer. The defence / media explanation / excuse is baroque and implausible and assumes facts not in evidence. It also fails to identify any alternative suspect and therefore falls into the unfortunate category of 'unfalsifiable propositions.'
Known facts presented by a very biased prosecutor/department. And all "facts" were not supported, like rape and mutilation of a corpse.

The defense does not require presentation of an alternative suspect. And they were expressly forbidden legally anyway in this case.
11-25-2016 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red Making a Murderer
Occam's Razor states that 'When advancing any argument, one should not multiply propositions needlessly.' It is taken to mean that the simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is most likely to be the correct one.

The known facts indicate that Steven Avery is the murderer. The defence / media explanation / excuse is baroque and implausible and assumes facts not in evidence. It also fails to identify any alternative suspect and therefore falls into the unfortunate category of 'unfalsifiable propositions.'
First of all, the key word that needs to be defined here and applied correctly is "needlessly".

Now:

Let's list some "known facts" shall we?

Key not found until 6th search - fact.
No DNA of Teresa Halbach OR Brendan Dassey anywhere on property - fact
BD confession ruled involuntary and therefore false - fact
No pictures taken of fire pit alleged to have contained bones - fact
Crime Lab lead scientist admits to being ordered to provide results - fact
Crime Lab lead scientist contaminates tests but submits results - fact
Crime Lab lead scientist breaks protocol to allow results - fact
No blood mixtures of DNA ever found, only separate locations - fact
AC called in license plates 2 days before vehicle found - fact
MC announces no participation because of conflict of interest - fact
MC lead investigators present at every major evidence finding - fact
Scott Tadych had means and opportunity to commit crime - fact
Bobby dassey had means and opportunity to commit crime - fact
RH has no solid alibi for time frame of murder - fact
Sheriff herman had means, motive and opportunity to commit crime - fact
Sheriff herman had means, motive and opportunity to conspire to commit crime - fact
SA had no established motive to commit crime - fact
Judge dismissed SA rape and mutilation charges due to lack of evidence - fact
Judge allowed rape and mutilation charges against BD due to his own defense attorney's constitutional rights violating interviewed and coerced confession - fact

This could go on for a long time...

What you call "known facts" once again are plain and simple myopic adherences to anything that allows the jury's conclusion to be correct while purposely omitting the actual known facts which would be contrary to those which resulted in the conviction.

Example: The key was not found until the 6th search because it was not until the 6th search that AC decided to very forcefully twist and turn and pull and shake and bodyslam the bookshelf needlessly during a civil rights violating 6th search warrant. It is due to the twisting and turning and pulling and drop kicking and violently shaking the book case for no reason at all that the key fell out. Yet, despite being in plain view, it still it was not seen until somewhere between 15 and 45 minutes after the violent bookshelf interaction. And that, your honor, is how the key was discovered.

These are not needless propositions, these are known facts backed by witness testimony in court and something the jury should take into consideration.

That is not a simple solution.

If it is AC's testimony that it must be the absolute mayhem he caused on the bookshelf that caused a key to be dislodged and fall into plain site yet we have before and after pictures of the bookshelf and it's undisturbed contents, then the simple solution is that AC is not being truthful about his actions and therefor it is extremely unlikely to be cause of the magical key appearance.
11-25-2016 , 07:45 PM
Yes, Occam's Razor isn't very useful for dealing with complex behaviors such as human beings are apt to engage in.
11-25-2016 , 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red Making a Murderer
Occam's Razor states that 'When advancing any argument, one should not multiply propositions needlessly.' It is taken to mean that the simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is most likely to be the correct one.

The known facts indicate that Steven Avery is the murderer. The defence / media explanation / excuse is baroque and implausible and assumes facts not in evidence. It also fails to identify any alternative suspect and therefore falls into the unfortunate category of 'unfalsifiable propositions.'
As I pointed out in the blog post above - the poor fellow isn't working from 'irrefutable facts' or 'damning evidence' at all.

Using Occam's Razor on a pile of crap isn't going to accomplish anything useful except generate some traffic to the guy's site and generate buzz about what a 'straight shooter' he is.

Also ironic since Harrison Smith is exploiting Teresa's murder to have something to write about that week, so he complains about people supposedly 'using Teresa's murder' to generate controversy and make money.
11-25-2016 , 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Known facts presented by a very biased prosecutor/department. And all "facts" were not supported, like rape and mutilation of a corpse.

The defense does not require presentation of an alternative suspect. And they were expressly forbidden legally anyway in this case.
What does Occam's Razor suggest for corpus vile's absence in this thread? He's active of this site and on the PMF site, so it's not like he's taking a break from online forums...
11-25-2016 , 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
What does Occam's Razor suggest for corpus vile's absence in this thread? He's active of this site and on the PMF site, so it's not like he's taking a break from online forums...
OK - it seems rather than give his stirring speech about leaving this thread in this thread, he went ahead and posted it on his home murder junkie site.

I don't know about the ethics of quoting or linking to it, but suffice to say that corpus vile is a goddam martyr (if you believe even 1/4 of what he says about himself and his noble sufferings).

Naturally, he didn't seem to mention in his 1000 word monologue anything about the false 'facts' in the article by the horror script writer he praised.

Which is odd, since didn't he say something earlier about how easy it was to defend the truth and also how invigorating it was to defend it?

"Because the truth is easy to defend and indeed invigorating. " - corpus vile
11-26-2016 , 04:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Interesting article giving some good information on Griesbach, the fellow who's written three books now capitalizing on Steven Avery.

Among points of interest is this bit:

"Discovery for the lawsuit was proving to be a problem for the county and the sheriff's department. The county insurer was denying coverage for the behaviors of former Sheriff Koucerek and others. And, the discovery process uncovered subsequent misdeeds such as the above mentioned Coburn's failure to write a timely report. Coburn, Lenk, and Peterson now faced the possibility of inclusion in the lawsuit."

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/gries...ds-part-1.html

That's a pretty good reason for several people, all friends and colleagues, to pray for a miracle to shut down the lawsuit ASAP.
But people itt said they had no potential liability or involvement with the lawsuit at all.
11-26-2016 , 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
But people itt said they had no potential liability or involvement with the lawsuit at all.
It would appear those people were misinformed.

We know that the Sheriff in charge of the investigation publicly announced that persons connected to the department involved in the lawsuit would not participate in any criminal investigation involving the man (Steven Avery) who was suing them, and that some of the officers who found several of the key bits of evidence had already been deposed.
11-26-2016 , 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
But people itt said they had no potential liability or involvement with the lawsuit at all.
We'll never know. But logically, no insurance company would ever simply cut a check for high 7 or low 8 figures simply because the county had a "policy". This would have been an unheard of amount of money even if it was settled outside of court. The depositions were clearly not going well for MC as evidenced in the doc.

It's perfectly logical to me that the insurance company would have sent their strongest claims adjusters to adjust this sh*t out of this claim to find out what exactly is covered and not covered and then explain WHY they are not covering certain aspects of the settlement.

It's an astonishing coincidence that this murder took place days before the undeniably MOST CULPABLE and responsible single individual was to be deposed in this lawsuit. In fact, it's literally unbelievable.
11-26-2016 , 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
We'll never know. But logically, no insurance company would ever simply cut a check for high 7 or low 8 figures simply because the county had a "policy". This would have been an unheard of amount of money even if it was settled outside of court. The depositions were clearly not going well for MC as evidenced in the doc.

It's perfectly logical to me that the insurance company would have sent their strongest claims adjusters to adjust this sh*t out of this claim to find out what exactly is covered and not covered and then explain WHY they are not covering certain aspects of the settlement.

It's an astonishing coincidence that this murder took place days before the undeniably MOST CULPABLE and responsible single individual was to be deposed in this lawsuit. In fact, it's literally unbelievable.
Yes, it would appear that the timing of this new accusation against Steven about a rape (and this time with a murder for a bit of spice) was very conveniently timed.

Because of the frame up, Steven is forced to settle for about 1% on what he was asking in the lawsuit.

Aside from any more damaging information emerging from the discovery process.
11-26-2016 , 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, it would appear that the timing of this new accusation against Steven about a rape (and this time with a murder for a bit of spice) was very conveniently timed.

Because of the frame up, Steven is forced to settle for about 1% on what he was asking in the lawsuit.

Aside from any more damaging information emerging from the discovery process.
After S.A. settled is that when they upped the pressure? I guess hiring DS/JB got KK mad, and decided to go tell some folks to up their game, imagine the **** show if a P.D. had the case.
11-27-2016 , 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
After S.A. settled is that when they upped the pressure? I guess hiring DS/JB got KK mad, and decided to go tell some folks to up their game, imagine the **** show if a P.D. had the case.
Yes, I'm finding myself leaning toward the idea that Manitowoc was caught out on the wrong foot when Steven was able to bring in some credible legal representation.

They also had no idea a couple of documentary film makers were going to turn up. Kratz actually tried to seize the footage Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos shot, so it looks like he was rattled. Or maybe he was just paranoid because of the drugs he was abusing. Or afraid his proclivity for stalking and raping women caught up in the coils of the justice system would come to light. Who knows?

"It has since emerged that the people investigating the Teresa Halbach case - the trial at the centre of the 10-part series - attempted to shut down the filmmakers by serving them a subpoena, urging them to present evidence against Steven Avery in court. "

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a6807281.html

It appears they never expected their ****ty 'investigation' would see the light of day.
11-28-2016 , 06:51 AM
Kids maybe a little concerned about their uncle being railroaded again for another crime he didn't commit - cops intent of trying to turn normal human emotions into 'incriminating evidence'.

Quote:

Fassbender: Did you Ďum. Wha-what did you all tell Blaine about this? Cuz, Blaine is, I, Iím, Mark and I have both heard from a previous source that Blaine is kinda hurting right now, kinda like you were. Depressed.

Wiegert: Losing weight.

Fassbender: Losing weight, stuff like that, somethingís bothering him. Ah, man, and we, we, we wanna know was he involved in, ta any amount or degree, cuz then he needs help. Or did you tell him some of these things, that thatís bothering him, that he knows in the back of his mind you had told him and, and thatís bothering him, thatís hurting him? He canít get in trouble for that, per se. He shoulda told us that he knows and he could get, get in some trouble for that but he wasnít involved. Again, that you donít have ta think about that. Did you, did you tell Blaine some things? Cus, we want ta number one try and get him some help.

Brendan: No. (Shakes head ďnoĒ)
11-28-2016 , 08:21 AM
Haven't bothered reading any more of this thread after being asked about a Bobcat digger and haven't read any posts after that, nor do I intend to.

I'm only posting on this thread now as I just wish to predict that Duffin will not be upheld.
He will be overturned, due his citations not being aptly comparable, evident personal bias, inconsistency and flawed reasoning and misinterpretation of the law and facts wrt Dassey.
In a nutshell as I said to Goater, he comes across as arbitrary to me as he has not provided valid citations to support his reasoning and decision and has not supported his ruling of coercion, or false promises of leniency. He seems to ultimately simply not like the appellate court's decision against Dassey, ultimately, which is another reason why I find him irresponsible.
If I'm wrong then so be it, I'll suck it in and take any flaming on the chin, like I've taken bad court decisions on the chin before- I'm merely a layperson after all and to err is human.
But imo- my non professional layperson average bloke opinion- Duffin will be overturned as if he seems biased, arbitrary, inconsistent and basically all over the camp to even me, a layperson then I'll be interested to see what an actual appellate court makes of his ruling.
I'll be interested if anyone who agrees with him is confident in his ruling and feel that I'm full of bs and Duffin will be totally upheld due to his sound reasoning, utter consistency, proper interpretation of the law and facts, valid citations to justify his decision and complete impartiality.
We'll see who's shown to be right and again if I'm wrong then so be it.
But we'll see. We'll see who's right.

Last edited by corpus vile; 11-28-2016 at 08:29 AM.
11-28-2016 , 09:24 AM
And I just wish to also answer to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Known facts presented by a very biased prosecutor/department. And all "facts" were not supported, like rape and mutilation of a corpse.

The defense does not require presentation of an alternative suspect. And they were expressly forbidden legally anyway in this case.
Yeah because yet again a hypothesis does not trump submitted evidence, meaning that the defence don't get to point their finger at Tom Dick & Harry and opine that hey maybe it was them who did it, without having the evidence to support it and expect that hypothesis to supersede the actual evidence and acquit Avery.
Let's take that to its illogical conclusion- the hypothesis acquits Avery as a hypothesis trumps evidence and therefore supersedes the evidence that he did it. Avery is promptly re-arrested while leaving court and charged with 28 various murders that occurred in WI while he was incarcerated and is convicted as a hypothesis trumps evidence ergo trumps the evidence that Avery couldn't have done it due to his incarceration...That crosses beyond the mere absurd and into outright immorality as that's the epitome of selfishness and among the worst forms of whimsy to expect such a premise. It's abandoning any sense of structure, rules or standard criteria simply to run with one's feelings, just replace the imperfect system (rather than try reform it viably) with some topsy turvy exercise in sheer arbitrariness.

It was absolutely 100% right to legally forbid them to opine other suspects without anything to support it. Except in Netflixland apparently.

Last edited by corpus vile; 11-28-2016 at 09:35 AM.

      
m