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

06-22-2017 , 04:07 PM
Meanwhile, the 7th Circuit Court has upheld Duffin's ruling overturning Brendan Dassey's conviction.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bi...:N:1983985:S:0
06-22-2017 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts Making a Murderer
I guess you didn't see the KK press conference that the jurors also very likely saw prior to trial that likely swayed their view going in.
By that rationale any press conference held during due process amounts to an unfair due process including for the BTK killer & Washington Snipers to name but a few. Juries aren't sequestered for all cases & press conferences are allowed. Whether it influences juries or not is a separate issue- as it stands it's allowed by the system & doesn't equate objectively to an unfair due process, within the paradigm.
06-22-2017 , 04:25 PM
Seems like some of Zellner's theories are already disproven.

http://www.crimeonline.com/2017/06/2...ller-part-one/
06-22-2017 , 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
By that rationale any press conference held during due process amounts to an unfair due process including for the BTK killer & Washington Snipers to name but a few. Juries aren't sequestered for all cases & press conferences are allowed. Whether it influences juries or not is a separate issue- as it stands it's allowed by the system & doesn't equate objectively to an unfair due process, within the paradigm.
No.

But it does appear that folks with some legal background found Kratz's lurid press conference to be outrageous:


Wisconsin's rules of professional conduct for prosecutors resemble those that are recommended by the American Bar Association.

Prosecutors are not supposed to be making public statements prior to a defendant's trial regarding the following areas:

"The character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness."
"The identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented."
"Any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in deprivation of liberty."
"Information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible evidence in a trial and would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial."

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...ical/78630248/
06-22-2017 , 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Seems like some of Zellner's theories are already disproven.

http://www.crimeonline.com/2017/06/2...ller-part-one/
This article is pretty poor.

Talks about a broken headlight, when the actual issue was a broken tail light.

Apparently written by someone with severe trouble in reading comprehension.
06-22-2017 , 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
No.

Where did you get that idea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Threats to prosecute Steven for other alleged offenses if he is released again due to a false conviction?

Sounds like they aren't very interested in justice so much as pursuing some sort of vendetta against Steven.
This would imply you think the "false" confession is what led him to being convicted, no?
06-22-2017 , 04:56 PM
Omg I am dumb, I thought that said false confession lol. nvm
06-22-2017 , 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Omg I am dumb, I thought that said false confession lol. nvm
Mistakes were made.
06-22-2017 , 05:53 PM
Appeals court affirms the confession was coerced.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Mak...430192773.html
06-22-2017 , 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Appeals court affirms the confession was coerced.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Mak...430192773.html
So is this gonna cost the county more or less than what they would have paid out in the initial wrongful imprisonment of Avery?
06-22-2017 , 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
So is this gonna cost the county more or less than what they would have paid out in the initial wrongful imprisonment of Avery?
They would rather spend the money on imprisonment than have the continued depositions of the officials involved that would have been incredibly personal.

They are also still going to appeal this ruling too. BD isn't walking free anytime soon.
06-22-2017 , 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
They would rather spend the money on imprisonment than have the continued depositions of the officials involved that would have been incredibly personal.

They are also still going to appeal this ruling too. BD isn't walking free anytime soon.
You mean the retired sheriff that both lenk and colborn testified against? Yea, thats it.
06-22-2017 , 07:53 PM
:$-@)))?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-22-2017 , 08:21 PM
Thats right, Colborn and lenk only testified to the call in the mid 1990s (I don't remember the exact year) but colborn testified that he gave the information to Tom Kocourek who later told him not to worry about it. Tom Kocourek was being sued by avery because the argument was that Tom should have did more about this phone call (whether or not that is the case isn't entirely important to my point) the point is that Kocourek was being sued, Colborn and lenk were not. Colborn was just testifying that he gave the information to Kocourek and Lenk was testifying that he took colborn to file the report.

There is no indication anywhere that either of those man were going to be sued and no reason as far as I can tell to expect them to be sued.
06-22-2017 , 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Appeals court affirms the confession was coerced.

http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Mak...430192773.html
Yes, for unknown reasons cops were highly motivated to coerce a false 'confession' out of a teenager in a plot to implicate Steven Avery.

I guess you don't have to be named in a lawsuit to manufacture evidence.
06-23-2017 , 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Thats right, Colborn and lenk only testified to the call in the mid 1990s (I don't remember the exact year) but colborn testified that he gave the information to Tom Kocourek who later told him not to worry about it. Tom Kocourek was being sued by avery because the argument was that Tom should have did more about this phone call (whether or not that is the case isn't entirely important to my point) the point is that Kocourek was being sued, Colborn and lenk were not. Colborn was just testifying that he gave the information to Kocourek and Lenk was testifying that he took colborn to file the report.

There is no indication anywhere that either of those man were going to be sued and no reason as far as I can tell to expect them to be sued.

You really aren't thinking things through. Just because you are not personally sued does not mean you have no motivation. You are foolish to think that testifying against your own department and an ex-sheriff is meaningless and just another day in the field. This was highly unusual and because of it, they also were publicly removed from investigated SA, but not only was that completely ignored, those two found all the key evidence. Yet, you somehow think that isn't a big deal.

Do you think I want an animal torturer who may have also killed an innocent woman released on obfuscation? I want a fair system applied to everyone so we have confidence in our justice system. When a law enforcement agency publicly says they are not going to be involved, we need to have faith in that statement. When they are actively involved, we should question it as should you.

When a potential suspect is allowed to enter a secured crime scene during the initial phases of an investigation, we should be allowed to question it. And if do we find that behavior highly unusual like all other investigative agencies do, we shouldn't just be told we are just fanboys and he is guilty regardless.
06-23-2017 , 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
You really aren't thinking things through. Just because you are not personally sued does not mean you have no motivation. You are foolish to think that testifying against your own department and an ex-sheriff is meaningless and just another day in the field. This was highly unusual and because of it, they also were publicly removed from investigated SA, but not only was that completely ignored, those two found all the key evidence. Yet, you somehow think that isn't a big deal.

Do you think I want an animal torturer who may have also killed an innocent woman released on obfuscation? I want a fair system applied to everyone so we have confidence in our justice system. When a law enforcement agency publicly says they are not going to be involved, we need to have faith in that statement. When they are actively involved, we should question it as should you.

When a potential suspect is allowed to enter a secured crime scene during the initial phases of an investigation, we should be allowed to question it. And if do we find that behavior highly unusual like all other investigative agencies do, we shouldn't just be told we are just fanboys and he is guilty regardless.
As the recent opinion by the 7th Circuit Court points out, justice is not served by putting the wrong person in prison.

There are good reasons why conflicts of interest are to be avoided, why scientific protocols must be observed, why criminal investigations should not only be thorough but also thoroughly documented.
06-23-2017 , 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
So is this gonna cost the county more or less than what they would have paid out in the initial wrongful imprisonment of Avery?
Assuming this decision holds (certainly not a sure thing), I think it should be way less.

I have always been on the fence regarding certain aspects of Brendan's factual and legal guilt, but whether factually guilty or innocent, I believe Brendan brought this all on himself by repeatedly lying in every interview starting from his initial one on 11/6* and confessing to law enforcement and others on several occasions. He deserves the vast majority of the blame for his predicament.**



* In his trial testimony, Brendan admits to lying because "I'm just like my family - I don't like cops."

** Brendan is not mentally ******ed - in his IQ test taken before his trial, he scored above 12% of males his age.
06-23-2017 , 09:13 AM
Good news for Brendan.
I hope they release him soon.
06-23-2017 , 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Assuming this decision holds (certainly not a sure thing), I think it should be way less.

I have always been on the fence regarding certain aspects of Brendan's factual and legal guilt, but whether factually guilty or innocent, I believe Brendan brought this all on himself by repeatedly lying in every interview starting from his initial one on 11/6* and confessing to law enforcement and others on several occasions. He deserves the vast majority of the blame for his predicament.**



* In his trial testimony, Brendan admits to lying because "I'm just like my family - I don't like cops."

** Brendan is not mentally ******ed - in his IQ test taken before his trial, he scored above 12% of males his age.
Yes it is obviously the mentally limited kid who is at fault here.

Glad to see you are still diseasing up this thread.
06-24-2017 , 06:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Assuming this decision holds (certainly not a sure thing), I think it should be way less.

I have always been on the fence regarding certain aspects of Brendan's factual and legal guilt, but whether factually guilty or innocent, I believe Brendan brought this all on himself by repeatedly lying in every interview starting from his initial one on 11/6* and confessing to law enforcement and others on several occasions. He deserves the vast majority of the blame for his predicament.**



* In his trial testimony, Brendan admits to lying because "I'm just like my family - I don't like cops."

** Brendan is not mentally ******ed - in his IQ test taken before his trial, he scored above 12% of males his age.
So... Brendan scored below 87% of males his age?

And therefore Brendan is responsible for tricking experienced cops into coercing statements from him?

Are these cops in the lower 12% of the population?
06-24-2017 , 06:24 AM
Poorshillz is my hero.
06-24-2017 , 06:36 AM
Defense attorneys filed a motion for Brendan's immediate release. The 7th District Court has set a deadline requiring a reply from the state by 5:00 PM Monday, June 26.

Brendan has suffered enough for police malfeasance.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/stat...ease/559292979
06-24-2017 , 07:26 AM
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/op...ase/420015001/

Quote:
After months of Trump-like tweets promising a “tsunami” of new scientific evidence proving her client’s innocence, Chicago attorney Kathleen Zellner filed her much-anticipated motion for a new trial.

But the “Zellnami,” as Zellner’s social media followers expectantly dubbed her thousand-plus-page filing, failed to materialize on the Lake Michigan shoreline. With a reckless disregard for the truth worthy of a Kellyanne Conway press briefing, Zellner accuses police — in league with the “real” killer this time — of planting evidence to wrongly convict Mr. Avery a second time.

Speculation is asserted as fact, and dubious science such as “brain fingerprinting” is used to support her claim without a shred of credible evidence to back it up. Zellner teamed up for the upcoming release of MAM2 with the once struggling justice-crusading film makers who recently parted with a portion of their Netflix earnings for a $2.8 million Los Angeles home. It’s no wonder her motion reads more like a Hollywood script than a legal document filed in a court of law.
06-24-2017 , 11:24 AM
Lol who could have imagined poorshillz posting an article written by Michael griesbach and pretending it has any weight.

      
m