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

06-13-2017 , 10:09 PM
Avery has never been convicted of rape yet you have the primary law enforcement people on this case going around to conferences proclaiming as fact that he raped her.

It is one thing for the general public to voice their opinions which is to be expected.

How about if anyone of us was accused of a crime, went through a trial and was found not guilty, yet the prosecution continues going around saying you did the crime and was profiting? You would rightfully go crazy and sue them and win. And show extreme bias.

Avery may be guilty. This was in no way an impartial investigation or trial or aftermath.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-13-2017 , 10:16 PM
Those BD tapes were the worst...for the prosecution. It took all of 10 minutes of watching those to discount anything he said at all. He said 2,000 different things and perhaps 100 turned out to be true due to obvious leading discussion and just guessing.

Anyone could have gotten him to admit to anything. And his own lawyer and own investigator were used against him, but somehow there are people ok with that too.

A 16-year old with limited intelligence shackled and told, a) admit it and you are sorry, or b) admit it and you are not sorry. He tried to say c) nothing happened. His own investigator said that isn't an option.

This is ok how?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-13-2017 , 10:37 PM
They let an ex-bf who was leading the search party for her sign into a secured homicide crime.

Statistically speaking, he is by far the #1 suspect. At that point nobody has any clue what happened. We don't find out until months later there was even an additional suspect.

There is not one law enforcement agency that would say that is ok to let a civilian walk around that is a suspect/witness.

What purpose did his presence serve?

He wasn't even her current boyfriend!!!

Could all ex-boyfriends check-in and waltz around an active homicide investigation?

This is ok how?







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-14-2017 , 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Why do officers need to be working with RH or other unknown killer?

Isn't it possible RH kills TH, plants car. That's all RH does and never discusses anything with anyone.

RH leads search. Car miraculously found like a needle in a haystack. Cops go hmmmm. Avery may have done it, but there's not enough evidence here. In fact there's no evidence at all other than a car on his lot. Let's plant some stuff so that a**hole Avery gets charged and needs money to hire a defense lawyer.
No, someone would have to plant the body too. And that person would have to be the killer. Then the person who planted the blood in the car would have done so in a matter that fooled the blood spatter expert.

Also, the person who was first on the scene to the car (the one who would have had to plant the blood) was not the one who found the key, the bullet, or the body. So we have at least a handful of cops working together and a killer who burns a body then plants the body in someones fire pit, it defies any logic to assume that is more probable or even reasonable to doubt SA didn't just kill her and burn her.

What does adding DNA of x have to do with finding DNA of y? You said the bullet was contaminated, so what? That doesn't explain how TH DNA got on the bullet because her DNA was not on the control sample. If her DNA was on the control sample then I would agree with you, but its not.
06-14-2017 , 05:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Those BD tapes were the worst...for the prosecution. It took all of 10 minutes of watching those to discount anything he said at all. He said 2,000 different things and perhaps 100 turned out to be true due to obvious leading discussion and just guessing.

Anyone could have gotten him to admit to anything. And his own lawyer and own investigator were used against him, but somehow there are people ok with that too.

A 16-year old with limited intelligence shackled and told, a) admit it and you are sorry, or b) admit it and you are not sorry. He tried to say c) nothing happened. His own investigator said that isn't an option.

This is ok how?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't understand how anyone can review these coaching sessions with BD and not grasp that they are watching him being fed information by the cops.

In that same sorry/not sorry session when the investigator told Brendan exactly what to draw it should have been obvious BD was being railroaded.
06-14-2017 , 06:54 AM
Either he sees what he wants to see or he is a shill/troll.
People who want avery to be innocent will be biased on some details aswell.
06-14-2017 , 07:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
They let an ex-bf who was leading the search party for her sign into a secured homicide crime.

Statistically speaking, he is by far the #1 suspect. At that point nobody has any clue what happened. We don't find out until months later there was even an additional suspect.

There is not one law enforcement agency that would say that is ok to let a civilian walk around that is a suspect/witness.

What purpose did his presence serve?

He wasn't even her current boyfriend!!!

Could all ex-boyfriends check-in and waltz around an active homicide investigation?

This is ok how?
Don't forget that when they asked him on the stand about why he didn't mention his past relationship with TH, he said something like, "I didn't think it was important."
06-14-2017 , 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
I don't understand how anyone can review these coaching sessions with BD and not grasp that they are watching him being fed information by the cops.

In that same sorry/not sorry session when the investigator told Brendan exactly what to draw it should have been obvious BD was being railroaded.
Its easy to quote mine stuff and take little snips of video to make things appear a certian way. The video where BD is drawing what happened he is just drawing what he told that guy happened the day before. The guy is giving him direction on what to draw but he didn't feed the details to him. BD did it on his own the previous day.
06-14-2017 , 08:26 PM
i have no idea about the second case but if you think the police just screwed up the first time around without malicious intent you are ****ing insane.
06-14-2017 , 10:43 PM
Are the burned bones confirmed TH? I'm not too caught up and forgotten what I may have known a year ago.
06-14-2017 , 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Are the burned bones confirmed TH? I'm not too caught up and forgotten what I may have known a year ago.
Yes they are hers, we get wild stories from Smacc like the bones were later replaced or some nonsense but yes they are her bones.
06-14-2017 , 11:36 PM
I have been thinking about this car thing, how many people were searching?
06-14-2017 , 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I have been thinking about this car thing, how many people were searching?
Many were searching but I think Pam of God was only one on lot.
06-14-2017 , 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Many were searching but I think Pam of God was only one on lot.


Wasn't Pam also the only one given a camera or something as well?
06-15-2017 , 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmgGlutten! Making a Murderer
i have no idea about the second case but if you think the police just screwed up the first time around without malicious intent you are ****ing insane.

You mean like all alibis and he even had a receipt at a store an hour away? Or them ignoring a serial predator in their own neighborhood? Or not allowing him a phone call? Or the hundreds of other things that were so out of line that they created a Steve Avery bill solely because of that case.
06-15-2017 , 12:24 AM
Circumstantial evidence is allowed but what may also be noted is the Avery is only person freed from innocence project to ever commit a major crime. Doesn't mean he is innocent or can't commit a crime, but it should be looked at that he would be an unusual suspect compared to others. Yet, he was the only serious subject from moment one and they discarded all other much higher probability suspects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-15-2017 , 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdub72 Making a Murderer
Don't forget that when they asked him on the stand about why he didn't mention his past relationship with TH, he said something like, "I didn't think it was important."
Don't forget that he informed the detectives of his past relationship with TH on the morning of November 4th, less than 24 hours into the investigation. (source)

Don't forget that they broke up 4 years prior and remained friends.

Please stop forgetting these things.
06-15-2017 , 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
By 'she' you mean Pam of God?

I'd estimate long odds against her being involved in the murder.

Much better odds for her being a witting helper in a frame up (her being a private investigator and a relative of Teresa's).

Could also be an unwitting helper in the frame up.

There's also the chance she just got lucky.
You seem to have missed the point of my question. You're claiming that the short search time is indicative of a frame up based on the a priori low probability of the car being found in 15 minutes or less (which you estimate as between 1/4000 and 1/4). The point you're overlooking is that the a priori probability of a frame up - let alone of this particular private investigator being involved in it - is much lower. I don't know if you've heard the old riddle about a medical test with a 1% false positive rate for a disease with a 1/1000 incidence in the population - only ~10% of people who test positive actually have the disease. Here your false positive rate may be 1/4000, but what is your incidence rate (i.e., the prior likelihood of a massive frame-up)?

You also haven't provided any reason why a short search time should be considered evidence of framing. Assuming your 1/4000 probability - that 1/4000 shot might hit totally by chance in the case of a frame-up or in the case of an honest investigation. For it to serve as evidence of a frame-up you have to show why it is substantially more likely in the case of a frame-up than in the case of an honest investigation. So to return to the medical example - the test is 100% likely to be positive if you have the disease and only 1% likely if you don't, making it pretty powerful evidence, though not conclusive. How likely is a short search time in the case of a frame-up? You haven't shown this.

In fact, in the case of the key found in Avery's home, you consider the long search time as evidence of framing. You are assuming a very strange relationship between search time and framing, for which you have not provided any support.
06-15-2017 , 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
a priori a priori.

Blah, blah, blah.

It is not proving his was framed to show not guilty.

This was an abysmal investigation and prosecution of two individuals that left a lot of people questioning our justice system.

If you do want to talk about being framed, SA was framed for rape. He was found not guilty, but LEO still go around claiming he raped her.
06-15-2017 , 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer

Don't forget that they broke up 4 years prior and remained friends.

Please stop forgetting these things.

That is so touching that they remained friends.

Can all friends just enter secured crime scene areas that are actively being investigated?
06-15-2017 , 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
You seem to have missed the point of my question. You're claiming that the short search time is indicative of a frame up based on the a priori low probability of the car being found in 15 minutes or less (which you estimate as between 1/4000 and 1/4).
I'm just pointing up the relative difficulty in finding one particular car among 4000 in what appears to me to be a very short time frame. You do notice that I mention that there is a real possibility that it was pure chance.

On the other hand if she was clued in where to look, that would explain the short time frame without having to resort to dumb luck or a miracle.

Quote:
The point you're overlooking is that the a priori probability of a frame up - let alone of this particular private investigator being involved in it - is much lower. I don't know if you've heard the old riddle about a medical test with a 1% false positive rate for a disease with a 1/1000 incidence in the population - only ~10% of people who test positive actually have the disease. Here your false positive rate may be 1/4000, but what is your incidence rate (i.e., the prior likelihood of a massive frame-up)?
But I'm not interested in an abstract problem. I am looking at a particular real world situation, where (in my opinion) the police framed Steven on a prior occasion. That history is also a data point.

"A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence, as with most aspects of science and personal knowledge."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

Quote:
You also haven't provided any reason why a short search time should be considered evidence of framing. Assuming your 1/4000 probability - that 1/4000 shot might hit totally by chance in the case of a frame-up or in the case of an honest investigation. For it to serve as evidence of a frame-up you have to show why it is substantially more likely in the case of a frame-up than in the case of an honest investigation.
As I thought I had adequately explained: if the odds are against Pam of God walking directly to the vehicle she's hunting for, then that event calls for some sort of explanation.

As I have already pointed out several times, it could be dumb luck.

On the other hand, a possible explanation is that she was directed where to look, perhaps the map she was given at the outset of her search, along with the Sheriff's phone number and a camera.

Again, this is not an abstract problem - this is a situation which has a context. So a priori reasoning will not be very helpful. Honestly, I don't think we have enough data to even know a priori whether a police investigation will be honest.

Quote:
So to return to the medical example - the test is 100% likely to be positive if you have the disease and only 1% likely if you don't, making it pretty powerful evidence, though not conclusive. How likely is a short search time in the case of a frame-up? You haven't shown this.
Until we have complete data on frame ups and their percentage among legit investigations I cannot satisfy your request for accurate odds on whether a randomly chosen case might be a frame or not.

In this case we have precedent, so I have to give the frame up hypothesis rather more weight than I might if there were no such history.

Quote:
In fact, in the case of the key found in Avery's home, you consider the long search time as evidence of framing. You are assuming a very strange relationship between search time and framing, for which you have not provided any support.
Seven searches of a tiny bedroom in a manufactured home. I'd suggest there's a meaningful difference between searching 40 acres and searching a room in a manufactured home. Steven's bedroom is a few dozen square feet being searched several times by law enforcement professionals. The other is tens of thousands of square feet with only two searchers.

We also have to figure in to the key situation the fact that the keys allegedly appeared in plain sight next to a small book case, where cops searching the room would have to step over them every time they entered and left the room.

The most likely explanation is that the keys were not there on earlier searches.
06-15-2017 , 07:58 PM
If there are just 10 people searching the salvage yard for this car and they can knock out 10 cars each a min, that is 40 cars a min.. After 15 or 20 mins its really not that remarkable the car was found. I mean its more unlikely than not theyd find it that fast but its not some amazing feat they did.
06-15-2017 , 09:46 PM
Yes, but there were only 2 people searching together. At your pace, knocking out 10 cars a min, they found it after about 50 cars
06-15-2017 , 10:06 PM
if Zellner is a renowned defense attorney then i've missed my calling

lol brain fingerprints... whatever odds this theory has of freeing avery (100,000:1 minimum) are more than offset by how much it discredits the rest of the brief

crazy amount of speculation dressed as facts, no new evidence besides weak handpicked expert testimony + SA affidavits written with the benefit of 12 years' hindsight, and an insane leap to new blood planted in RAV4 theory.

before this i was somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% that SA did it and would definitely acquit as a juror. if this is the best defense that can be mustered at this stage i'm inclined to bump it to the 50-60% range, but still believe he shouldn't have been convicted based on bungled investigation, lack of motive, and nonsensical murder story that was presented

lol at all of you certain SA or RH did it. this case is so weird.
06-16-2017 , 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
Yes, but there were only 2 people searching together. At your pace, knocking out 10 cars a min, they found it after about 50 cars
This is why I asked how many people were searching because I though there was a whole team searching in different areas of the compound.

Are you saying in the specific area where those two were searching there were 4000 cars? I don't think thats true.

      
m