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

06-12-2017 , 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Can I ask you something? Do you think the people who imply the parents of the sandy hook children were responsible for the sandy hook massacre are scumbags?
I think that you show again that you lack basic comprehension if you see any parallel there.
06-12-2017 , 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So you think he lied under oath? Got it.
AFAICT Brendan told the truth - the so-called 'confession' was garbage cooked up by the cops.
06-12-2017 , 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmgGlutten! Making a Murderer
eh, the one scumbag was still convinced it was avery even after the dna evidence proved he was not the rapist.
Evidence doesn't matter to the freaks who hate Avery.

That they worship a POS like Ken 'The Rapist' Kratz tells you all you need to know about their ethics.
06-12-2017 , 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
I think that you show again that you lack basic comprehension if you see any parallel there.
NO, there is def a parallel. KZ knows whether or not there is good evidence to suggest RH killed his sister.

p1) If there is no evidence to suggest RH killed his sister KZ should not implicate he did
p2) There is no evidence to suggest RH killed his sister
conclusion: KZ should not imply he did

IF p2 is true, kZ is just as immoral as the people who suggest the parents are responsible for sandy hook. Agree or disagree?
06-12-2017 , 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
AFAICT Brendan told the truth - the so-called 'confession' was garbage cooked up by the cops.
During the first and second interview, BD said there was no bonfire. This contradicts his testimoney under oath. He continued to do this, lied until evidence was presented to him that he was lying then hed change his story again.

You seem to think he was just lying because people were tricking him, I think he was lying because he couldn't trick anyone else. The latter is much more consistent with human behavior. The former we generally only see under lots of stress, like if they were interrogating him for hours and threatening him. Neither of which was the case.
06-12-2017 , 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
NO, there is def a parallel. KZ knows whether or not there is good evidence to suggest RH killed his sister.

p1) If there is no evidence to suggest RH killed his sister KZ should not implicate he did
p2) There is no evidence to suggest RH killed his sister
conclusion: KZ should not imply he did

IF p2 is true, kZ is just as immoral as the people who suggest the parents are responsible for sandy hook. Agree or disagree?
KZ does not need to prove he is the killer. She need to introduce a credible suspect. Your whole premise is flawed.
06-12-2017 , 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
During the first and second interview, BD said there was no bonfire. This contradicts his testimoney under oath. He continued to do this, lied until evidence was presented to him that he was lying then hed change his story again.

You seem to think he was just lying because people were tricking him, I think he was lying because he couldn't trick anyone else. The latter is much more consistent with human behavior. The former we generally only see under lots of stress, like if they were interrogating him for hours and threatening him. Neither of which was the case.
It was quite evident that Brendan didn't know anything about what happened to Teresa in the very first 'interview'. Immediately the police started to pressure this 'witness' to change his testimony. Rather than trying to discover the truth the cops were intent on suborning perjury.

Not cool.

I concur with the appeals judge Duffin who ruled that the statements cops subsequently managed to get him perform for them were coerced.
06-12-2017 , 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
KZ does not need to prove he is the killer. She need to introduce a credible suspect. Your whole premise is flawed.
You are correct - the premises are very flawed.

As someone upthread has stated, circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

There are plenty of circumstantial facts from which we can infer that Teresa's abusive and violent ex could very well be her killer.
06-12-2017 , 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
KZ does not need to prove he is the killer. She need to introduce a credible suspect. Your whole premise is flawed.
What are you talking about? We are not talking about her legal requirements, I am talkng about what is morally ok. The premises are not flawed, that is a valid syllogism, its whether or not you agree with p1 or p2 or if you reject them. You would presumably reject p2, only time will tell if that is true but as time goes by it becomes more and more likely.
06-12-2017 , 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
It was quite evident that Brendan didn't know anything about what happened to Teresa in the very first 'interview'. Immediately the police started to pressure this 'witness' to change his testimony. Rather than trying to discover the truth the cops were intent on suborning perjury.

Not cool.

I concur with the appeals judge Duffin who ruled that the statements cops subsequently managed to get him perform for them were coerced.
No, this is not at all what happened. After the first interview they determined BD had inconsistencies in his story and was lying to them so they did a follow up interview where all of the sudden he said he saw SA burn her body, what are they supposed to do at that point? Pack up their stuff and go home?
06-12-2017 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
You are correct - the premises are very flawed.

As someone upthread has stated, circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

There are plenty of circumstantial facts from which we can infer that Teresa's abusive and violent ex could very well be her killer.
Any circumstantial evidence to suggest this is very weak and would not hold up in court.

Case against her ex,

"people said he was sometimes mean and obsessive over her"

case against SA

"last phone call from TH was to him, she was on her way to see him before her phone was no longer used, her remains were burned on his familys property, her personal items were found burned in a barrel outside his front door, a bullet with her dna was found fired from his gun, her key was found inside his trailer, her vehicle was found parked on his families property with his dna and blood inside the vehicle as well as her blood, his nephew said he helped him do it"

The cases are not even equivalent here.
06-12-2017 , 03:17 PM
Also, I have conversed with people who know TH and none of them I have spoken to say anything bad about her ex or her brother. They are all disgusted people are suggesting they had something to do with it.
06-12-2017 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
What are you talking about? We are not talking about her legal requirements, I am talkng about what is morally ok. The premises are not flawed, that is a valid syllogism, its whether or not you agree with p1 or p2 or if you reject them. You would presumably reject p2, only time will tell if that is true but as time goes by it becomes more and more likely.
Your conclusion doesn't bear any relationship to the premises:

p1) If there is no evidence to suggest RH killed his sister KZ should not implicate he did

Let this stand for now. Except I didn't know RH's sister had been killed. I thought this case was about Teresa Halbach.

p2) There is no evidence to suggest RH killed his sister

Zellner has laid out evidence that RH may have killed Teresa. So this 2nd premise is false, and the whole thing collapses.

conclusion: KZ should not imply he did

IF p2 is true, kZ is just as immoral as the people who suggest the parents are responsible for sandy hook. Agree or disagree?


There is no logical link between what is in bold here (the Sandy Hook attack) and the murder of a woman by her ex-boyfriend.
06-12-2017 , 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
No, this is not at all what happened. After the first interview they determined BD had inconsistencies in his story and was lying to them so they did a follow up interview where all of the sudden he said he saw SA burn her body, what are they supposed to do at that point? Pack up their stuff and go home?
That is exactly what happened - I listened to the tape and read the transcripts.

Brendan was supposedly being interviewed to find out what he might have witnessed.

Brendan reports (truthfully IMO) that he did not even see Teresa on that day.

The cops start in on calling Brendan a liar and pressuring him to change his testimony. Police are not supposed to be telling a witness what to say. They are suborning perjury.
06-12-2017 , 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Any circumstantial evidence to suggest this is very weak and would not hold up in court.

Case against her ex,

"people said he was sometimes mean and obsessive over her"
The case against RH was never investigated, so naturally there is less information there.

Abusive and violent ex also concealed from police his relationship with the victim, moved into her bedroom when she was only 'missing', injected himself into the investigation and led the civilian search which ultimately resulted in the miraculous discovery of the RAV4 among 4000 other vehicles in about the time it takes to walk directly to it. RH also had scratches consistent with a struggle on his hands. Apparently the ex was also responsible for deleting voicemails to the victim's phone - destroying evidence.

But the brief isn't a trial, these facts merely show a shocking case of tunnel vision in not even asking this creep absolutely festooned with red flags for an alibi.

Quote:
case against SA

"last phone call from TH was to him,
So what? The last call to Teresa pinged off a cell tower many miles away after she left ASY.

Quote:
she was on her way to see him before her phone was no longer used,
False. Teresa received a call after she left ASY which pinged off a tower many miles away.

Quote:
her remains were burned on his familys property,
No one knows where Teresa's body was burned.

Amazingly no dogs searching for human remains indicated anything about this fire pit. Nor did they track Teresa to Steven's trailer or garage.

The scent dogs instead tracked Teresa to a shallow grave south of Kuss Road cul-de-sac.

Quote:
her personal items were found burned in a barrel outside his front door,
Something that could easily be planted. Especially interesting that these items were not found when the barrels were first inspected.

Quote:
a bullet with her dna was found fired from his gun,
The alleged 'murder bullet' has been shown to have wood particles in it, not bone. Unless you're arguing Teresa had a wooden head?

The DNA test on this item was screwed up - Culhane's dirty lab was rife with poor discipline and contamination.

Quote:
her key was found inside his trailer,
Yes, after 7 searches, where investigators would have to practically step over the key every time they entered the bedroom, the 'magic key' appears to cops who were supposed to be barred due to their conflict of interest investigating a citizen involved in a lawsuit against their department.

Quote:
her vehicle was found parked on his families property with his dna and blood inside the vehicle as well as her blood,
Yes, Steven's DNA was found on a swab that apparently was never in contact with the hood latch it supposedly came from. Some of Steven's blood appears to have been applied with a Q-tip.

The miracle of finding the RAV4 which witnesses said wasn't there before the search has already been discussed.

Quote:
his nephew said he helped him do it"
Yes, a sixteen year old with learning disabilities was coerced into repeating 'facts' supplied to him by unscrupulous cops.

If that's what the case rests on, it should never have seen the inside of a courtroom.

Quote:
The cases are not even equivalent here.
The 'information' in the alleged case against Steven is dubious at best.
06-12-2017 , 06:05 PM
Please tell me where all this evidence came from and who was all involved with this conspiracy. How deep does it go?

Let say RH killed TH, he then does what? Plants the remains in SA fire pit, moves TH vehicle to SA's property.

Then the police plant blood in TH vehicle after finding it using a qtip, then plant blood in SA own car, or mimick the blood stains from SA car to fool the blood spatter experts? And who planted the blood and why?

The key is the only thing here that could have possibly been planted, not because its likely to have been planted but because its the only thing that is even feasible. HOwever, one must accept if the key was planted and the blood was planted we have at least 2 different officers working with RH to frame steven. (most likely more because who planted to blood in avery's vehicle?)

The bullet that was matched to SA gun had TH dna on it. Idk what you mean by wood, nor do I think its relevant considering SA defense didn't bring it up (assuming its true)

TH did not answer or make any phone calls before calling SA, that is the last time her phone was used. That is a fact. You don't get your own facts.
06-12-2017 , 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Your conclusion doesn't bear any relationship to the premises:

p1) If there is no evidence to suggest RH killed his sister KZ should not implicate he did

Let this stand for now. Except I didn't know RH's sister had been killed. I thought this case was about Teresa Halbach.

p2) There is no evidence to suggest RH killed his sister

Zellner has laid out evidence that RH may have killed Teresa. So this 2nd premise is false, and the whole thing collapses.

conclusion: KZ should not imply he did

IF p2 is true, kZ is just as immoral as the people who suggest the parents are responsible for sandy hook. Agree or disagree?


There is no logical link between what is in bold here (the Sandy Hook attack) and the murder of a woman by her ex-boyfriend.
I thought RH was TH brother, we are talking about ryan now I get it. I got the names confused because its been a while since I talked about this.

You don't understand how logic works clearly, if p1 and p2 are true the conclusion is true, the formation of this argument is completely valid. If you don't think p2 is true surely you have evidence that outweighs what we have against sa to implicate RH? A few scratches on his body and supposedly being a bit of a hot head doesn't cut it.

Yes there is indeed a linke between the two cases. Both cases result and a tragic end and there are people going to extreme lengths in both cases to blame the tragedy on someone who was close to the victim/s.
06-12-2017 , 07:12 PM
saw this thread was bumped and figured I'd check in to see if there were any new developments. Sadly, same old same old about the "miraculous" discovery of the Rav4. You might want to look up the definition of the word "miraculous". Note: finding a green RAV4 after a half-hour or so of looking in a salvage lot is not a miracle.

Anyway keep on fighting the good fight fellas. They are not going to change their minds. Find me one conspiracy theorist who ever admitted they were wrong. It doesn't happen.
06-12-2017 , 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Please tell me where all this evidence came from and who was all involved with this conspiracy. How deep does it go?
That's all stuff that will have to await a criminal investigation. But if anyone is sincerely interested in the outlines of a theory in the case they could read Zellner's brief.

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...on+Relief2.pdf

Quote:
Let say RH killed TH, he then does what? Plants the remains in SA fire pit, moves TH vehicle to SA's property.

Then the police plant blood in TH vehicle after finding it using a qtip, then plant blood in SA own car, or mimick the blood stains from SA car to fool the blood spatter experts? And who planted the blood and why?
That's your theory?

Quote:
The key is the only thing here that could have possibly been planted, not because its likely to have been planted but because its the only thing that is even feasible.
False. The RAV4 has wheels, and can easily moved from one place to another. People often use motor vehicles as a means of moving from one place to another. Look it up!

A pile of human cremains can also be moved from where they burned - a funeral home, for example - to another location - the loved one's home stored in an urn, or deposited on a favorite beach.

I gave blood samples at the hospital. My blood is in a laboratory in which I never set foot.

A melted telephone is not too large or heavy to be moved.

Quote:
HOwever, one must accept if the key was planted and the blood was planted we have at least 2 different officers working with RH to frame Steven. (most likely more because who planted to blood in Avery's vehicle?)
It is your theory that someone planted Steven's blood in his own car. Not sure who besides yourself has made any such claim or argued for any such thing.

There is nothing fantastic about cops working in concert with one another. In the countless cases of police corruption and cover-ups, it is not the least bit unusual for more than one to cooperate in the criminal acts.

Quote:
The bullet that was matched to SA gun had TH dna on it.
The test of the bullet was contaminated by Sherry Culhane (the state's forensic scientist who received instructions from detectives to 'put Steven in either the house or the garage'). At best the test was scientifically meaningless. At worst it was deliberate framing.

Quote:
Idk what you mean by wood, nor do I think its relevant considering SA defense didn't bring it up (assuming its true)
If you ever get around to reading about the new evidence uncovered by Zellner's team, you'll learn that the so-called 'murder bullet' was microscopically examined and found to have wood debris and not human bone embedded in it. Therefore most likely just a bullet fired at a wooden target and certainly never shot through any human skull as the prosecution claimed.

Quote:
TH did not answer or make any phone calls before calling SA, that is the last time her phone was used. That is a fact. You don't get your own facts.
The fact is Teresa's phone pinged many miles away from the Avery property.

"...the last call received before her phone was turned off and/or destroyed was at 2:41:59, from an unknown caller who appears to have been manually forwarded to voicemail and left a 60-second message starting at 2:43. The content of that VM is unknown. The next call she received was from Avery, lasting 13 seconds, at 4:35 p.m. – but because the phone was not on, there’s no cell tower data..."

http://crimefeed.com/2016/03/kathlee...irtight-alibi/

It would appear this mysterious voice mail message was among the recordings Ryan Hillegas erased from Teresa's account.

Why he was destroying evidence relating to his ex's disappearance is a question suggests some very incriminating answers.
06-12-2017 , 07:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I thought RH was TH brother, we are talking about ryan now I get it. I got the names confused because its been a while since I talked about this.

You don't understand how logic works clearly, if p1 and p2 are true the conclusion is true, the formation of this argument is completely valid. If you don't think p2 is true surely you have evidence that outweighs what we have against sa to implicate RH? A few scratches on his body and supposedly being a bit of a hot head doesn't cut it.

Yes there is indeed a linke between the two cases. Both cases result and a tragic end and there are people going to extreme lengths in both cases to blame the tragedy on someone who was close to the victim/s.
I do understand how logic works. There is no logical connection in your little syllogism between the Halbach murder and a terrorist act.

You'll need p3, p4, p5 etc to get from that case to another unrelated case.
06-12-2017 , 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
saw this thread was bumped and figured I'd check in to see if there were any new developments. Sadly, same old same old about the "miraculous" discovery of the Rav4.
You seem to be unaware that the defense has submitted a motion in the past few days citing grounds for a new trial. Among these grounds are new evidence.

Quote:
You might want to look up the definition of the word "miraculous". Note: finding a green RAV4 after a half-hour or so of looking in a salvage lot is not a miracle.
Pam Sturm attributed the finding to God. That sounds like the definition of a miracle.

Quote:
Anyway keep on fighting the good fight fellas. They are not going to change their minds. Find me one conspiracy theorist who ever admitted they were wrong. It doesn't happen.
We have laws on the books criminalizing conspiracies, and people are convicted in court every day for being engaged in conspiracies.

Your being in denial of the possibility of a conspiracy is no more worthy of note than the opinion of someone who doubts evolution or denies the Holocaust.
06-12-2017 , 08:02 PM
Quote:
alse. The RAV4 has wheels, and can easily moved from one place to another. People often use motor vehicles as a means of moving from one place to another. Look it up!

A pile of human cremains can also be moved from where they burned - a funeral home, for example - to another location - the loved one's home stored in an urn, or deposited on a favorite beach.

I gave blood samples at the hospital. My blood is in a laboratory in which I never set foot.

A melted telephone is not too large or heavy to be moved.
Lol, yes, these things are small enough to be easily moved undetected. :P. Not to mention, what kind of criminal kills a woman then thinks to risk getting seen to plant this stuff. Its totally ridiculous. Not to mention, moving remains and making it appear as if a body was burned somewhere it wasn't would be next to impossible.

Quote:
It is your theory that someone planted Steven's blood in his own car. Not sure who besides yourself has made any such claim or argued for any such thing.

There is nothing fantastic about cops working in concert with one another. In the countless cases of police corruption and cover-ups, it is not the least bit unusual for more than one to cooperate in the criminal acts.
I offered an alternative, they planted the blood and matched patterns to avery's car. Those are the only two options because I think we can safely assume they didn't get lucky matching these patterns.

Most of what you said is nothing new, for example. The jury knew she contaminated the control sample, that doesn't explain how her dna got on his bullet.

Quote:
"...the last call received before her phone was turned off and/or destroyed was at 2:41:59, from an unknown caller who appears to have been manually forwarded to voicemail and left a 60-second message starting at 2:43. The content of that VM is unknown. The next call she received was from Avery, lasting 13 seconds, at 4:35 p.m. – but because the phone was not on, there’s no cell tower data..."
She saw SA after 2:43, so this is irrelevant.

Quote:
You'll need p3, p4, p5 etc to get from that case to another unrelated case.
No, because my point was not that they were related specifically, my point was that the people who are accusing her brother and ex boyfriend are scumbags.
06-12-2017 , 08:04 PM
Quote:
Pam Sturm attributed the finding to God. That sounds like the definition of a miracle.
IM getting tired of this being brought up, the void of logic is amazing. Just because SHE thinks it was a miracle doesn't mean we have to think its one to accept that it happened. She thinks it was a miracle because she is a christian and christians will often attribute good fortune to gods handy work.

Your argument is essentially we must accept its a miracle to accept it happened. nonsense.
06-12-2017 , 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer

Pam Sturm attributed the finding to God. That sounds like the definition of a miracle.
ok then well there you have it, case closed. My bad, it was a miracle.


Quote:
We have laws on the books criminalizing conspiracies, and people are convicted in court every day for being engaged in conspiracies.

Your being in denial of the possibility of a conspiracy is no more worthy of note than the opinion of someone who doubts evolution or denies the Holocaust.
Um no. The people who deny the Holocaust are the conspiracy theorists. Do you see why?
06-12-2017 , 08:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
IM getting tired of this being brought up, the void of logic is amazing. Just because SHE thinks it was a miracle doesn't mean we have to think its one to accept that it happened. She thinks it was a miracle because she is a christian and christians will often attribute good fortune to gods handy work.

Your argument is essentially we must accept its a miracle to accept it happened. nonsense.
No obviously he is suggesting that she must have (cue dramatic music): KNOWN WHERE THE CAR WAS!!!!

      
m