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

07-04-2017 , 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Let me tell what you should also want. And get away from SA/BD which you are obsessed with. I really don't feel for them that much either. I do feel they were railroaded.

You should not want to be put in a room with your own investigator that is working solely for you and to be presented with a sheet that says.

Option A: "Yes, I did it and I am sorry"
Option B: "Yes, I did it and I am not sorry"

When you go for option C: "I didn't do anything" and are told, no, that you only have option A or B, otherwise I can't help you, you should be able to run out of the room.

It is one thing for seasoned investigator to get a confession. Your own people should not be working also in concert with those investigators, especially when you say you didn't do anything. Instead his own investigator calls the police all happy that he got his own client to confess to murder. Against his own will.

I don't think that is a system you want for yourself, family or friends.
For some reason everyone involved in this process of justice is very interested in trying by hook or by crook to get a 'confession'.

This article talks about how 'confessing' would have put Steven in the way of possible early release.

Steven Avery was found guilty of sexual assault, attempted murder, and false imprisonment and sentenced to 32 years in prison. Because he refused to admit guilt, he was ineligible for parole until his full sentence was served.

Avery refused to plead guilty, and instead took a series of appeals all the way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.


http://uproxx.com/tv/making-a-murderer-1985-case/3/
07-04-2017 , 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Also the doc was one sided. It was originally much worse, and had to be remade. Netflix asked them to remake it and tone it down on the conspiracy theory stuff. The first movie was made in 2008 and never released to the public. This is why people like kratz didn't want to participate in the doc.
Has anyone gotten any documentation that supports this story?

Quote:
Think about it, if you were george bush would you take part in loosechange?
Or would OJ take part in a documentary about his wife's murder?

The last thing Kratz and company want is a spotlight on this case.
07-04-2017 , 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So it is unfair to say if he admitted to doing it they would have let him go? Its a lot more nuanced than that correct?

Generally speaking, I am aware you don't know the specifics here.
We have no information other than an understanding of how parole generally works and what SA said.

It may be the case he was denied parole and the board told him directly that he had to admit it in order to get out, or not. I don't know.
07-04-2017 , 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
We have no information other than an understanding of how parole generally works and what SA said.

It may be the case he was denied parole and the board told him directly that he had to admit it in order to get out, or not. I don't know.

I can't imagine the parole board letting anyone out that claims they were framed by the police. Not only did you have to admit to the crime, you also have to show understanding that it was wrong, and express genuine remorse. And probably good behavior in prison.

I don't think SA could fake remorse for a crime he didn't commit. He would definitely get some jab in there that he is innocent and was forced to admit guilt.

Unless there was some quid pro quo that if he signed a written confession, they would release him on parole. I am sure his lawyers could negotiate that for him and the state would be thrilled. He walks just a few years early and is still on parole and the concern that they put an innocent person in jail is over. I am sure part of the plea, especially while he is on parole, is that he can't make statements that he was forced to admit guilt. The legal document absolutely states that he is of sound mind and signing it on his own free will.
07-04-2017 , 11:34 PM
When it comes to "reasonable doubt" SA should be allowed a little more latitude than most.

He was already framed. He was in the middle of a major lawsuit with the key players giving depositions. He is the only person in the history of the "innocence project" to be found guilty of a serious felony. He is statistically very unlikely to commit his murder in his 40s and include a 16-year old witness.

His initial plan, allegedly, of dumping her body in the cold river was ruled out because it was frozen and she wouldn't even submerge. His on the fly alternative was to burn her in cold weather to such a degree that it was almost impossible to identify her. And incredibly, even though she was in his residence being terrorized for who knows how many hours, there isn't any DNA of her. Even on the key.

He gives a tv interview right next to the place he buried her bones. He goes on vacation for a few days knowing full well that her SUV is in the compound covered by a branch.

This does not make him not guilty. It brings a slightly elevated doubt to the case and it was therefore critical to have a very solid investigation and prosecution.

Instead, we have no pictures, another likely suspect being allowed to enter a secured crime scene, officers that were not supposed to be involved in the investigation finding virtually everything, a joke of a confession, a lawyer and investigator for the other suspect working in concert with the prosecution, and a press conference stating guilt without any physical evidence and for the sole purpose of changing public opinion. Oh, and not to mention that he was found not guilty of rape, but the police and prosecution after were going to conferences and saying he raped her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
07-05-2017 , 12:32 AM
Footz,

He met with the parole board but was not eligible until 2004 because he didn't participate in the programs, was threatening to kill his wife and refused to do anything to rehabilitate himself. So him admitting to doing it would not have got him released, not until 2004 anyway in which case if he didn't commit anymore crimes in prison hed be released anyway.
07-05-2017 , 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Footz,

He met with the parole board but was not eligible until 2004 because he didn't participate in the programs, was threatening to kill his wife and refused to do anything to rehabilitate himself. So him admitting to doing it would not have got him released, not until 2004 anyway in which case if he didn't commit anymore crimes in prison hed be released anyway.

I agree that him getting paroled would have been challenging even if admitted to the crime unless there was a specific negotiation. Perhaps.

I think it was just his lawyers telling him that since the final appeal failed, there could only be upside to admitting guilt. They probably left out that he needed to show remorse and upstanding behavior. Hard to show remorse for a crime you didn't even commit.

Whatever the case, being jailed for rape when you had multiple alibis is the nut-low of life. And even worse, when you are in there and there is information received that he may be the wrong person. Ignored. Not saying they have to release him immediately, but it wasn't a random person calling. They had specific information about who may have committed the crime.
07-05-2017 , 07:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer

He was already framed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No he wasn't there's not a scintilla of proof exists for Avery being framed either for rape or murder.
07-05-2017 , 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
It is the sheriff's department and not the PD.
Yeah okay then whoever
Quote:
Well, there was an allegation of corruption in the false conviction.
Without any proof to support it. A hypothesis without support doesn't trump evidence submitted in court.

Quote:
It is not about weak evidence. It is evidence collected from personnel that were SPECIFICALLY not supposed to be collecting evidence due to perception of self-interest. That is corrupted evidence.
No it really isn't & again not a shred of proof that anything was planted & there would be far easier, less risky ways to frame a habitual felon like Avery anyway, as I pointed out earlier.
07-05-2017 , 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Please stop arguing with poorshillz and the other shill.
You're the one shilling for a rapist and a murderer. You're projecting.

Quote:
We have read for 1 year and a half the same exact arguments and no matter how many expert will testify and destroy the credibility of all key evidences they will still repeat the same nonsenses.
You mean will still repeat that they agree with separate court of laws guilty verdicts? Whaddya mean "will testify" That assumes a lot.


Quote:
2 courts have ruled in favor of Dassey
You mean provisionally ruled with specious arguments and disregarding of the law, which is up for a requested en banc or SCOTUS review.
Who's argument is more compelling to you, Hamilton's or the Sob Sisters?

Quote:
and they still call him a rapist
No. "calling" implies it's subjective. Dassey is a convicted rapist meaning it's established fact, even if you just don't get this.

Quote:
while there are 0 evidences TH was even raped.
Hence his rape conviction. You don't know what evidence is. His admission against interest is evidence of rape, specifically where he confesses to raping Ms Halbach. Even if you really really think an admission against interest shouldn't be considered as evidence sufficient enough to convict him, it is. So deal with it and accept it and stop conflating your personal definition of evidence with the standard definition.

Quote:
90% of lawyers qualify Dassey confession as textbook coreced
Either cite & source where "90%" of all lawyers in the US claim this or else tone down the hyperbole a few million notches.

Quote:
and yet they still stick to their initial feeling like some autistic kids.
Again you're projecting, you're the one with the feelings with zero evidence to support your feelings that a labyrinthine, complex, way illogical extremely implausible and logistically next to impossible to pull of conspiracy theory has actual merit.
I asked, invited and outright challenged you Avery & Dassey supporters to specify unequivocal examples of coercion and false promises of leniency & got crickets in return...why break a trend?

Quote:
Either they are troll, ******s or shills so stop making this thread unreadable by engaging them.
Yeah I get that you think that those who agree with multiple court of law verdicts are "troll, ******s or shills" while those who subscribe to whacky conspiracies and who deem innuendo & speculation sufficient for RH...aren't. It's why nobody rational takes you hard core fanboys remotely seriously.

If you want an echo chamber go post on that insane TickTock forum, but don't expect normal people not to laugh at your illogicality and call you on your reprehensible shilling for murderers and rapists in order to curry favour for them in the court of public opinion.

Dassey's gonna stay in prison while the appeals process gets sorted & can still be retried anyway. Avery's gonna die in prison & if you or anyone else thinks Zellner's brief has the remotest possibility of succeeding then I really don't have the words to adequately express how deluded you are.
07-05-2017 , 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marke. Making a Murderer
we can't believe you don't
By that rationale every single case with a press conference has been unfairly influenced. Press conferences during murder cases are allowed in the US. Whether they should be is a separate issue, but as it stands, they are & neither Avery or Dassey are special in need of special treatment and got treated no differently than anyone else.
07-05-2017 , 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer


We need more clear thinkers here like ProudFootz.
07-05-2017 , 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
You seem hopefully obsessed with painting him as a terrible person but brush over the inadequate law enforcement investigation and prosecution.
He is a terrible person. He's a habitual felon, an animal torturer & has persistent allegations of rape and molestation by more than one party. He's also an attempted kidnapper.
No charges have been brought against anyone for either misconduct or corruption and the investigation was considered adequate enough to try & convict in separate courts.

Quote:
What you should hope for is a crystal clear, transparent investigation and prosecution that leaves little doubt that 'abc' committed 'xyz' crime. We all don't want a justice system where we are left significantly doubting that things were handled properly.
No evidence things weren't handled properly to the point where it made the investigation unsound, certainly not the convictions.

Quote:
You can keep saying "the documentary" made people believe.
Yeah cuz it did.
Quote:
No it didn't.
Sorry, 'fraid it did.

It could have been a lot more sympathetic to him. It shows the actual courtroom testimony. We heard the most compelling part of the "confession".

I didn't like him. I hope he was guilty. It was use of the "confession" that instantly made this case a total joke. The kid was brow-beaten to give the cops whatever they wanted to hear.

Quote:
There was ONE aspect of the confession that the police said was the most critical part for BD to let them know.
There were several confessions and several more incriminating statements by Dassey.

Quote:
That only they knew she was shot in the head and if BD would admit it that, it would show a very high likelihood he was involved.
Already covered, LE never mention which side of the head or that Ms Halbach was shot twice or with a .22

Quote:
He wildly guessed 8 things until they finally had to inform him. Like he would have forgotten 10 gunshots.
Sez you.

Quote:
It just might be that a bunch of federal judges, who also have no interest in the outcome either way, are universally ruling that the "confession" was completely coerced.
Or maybe they really dig Netflix and had to disregard the law to come to their irresponsible ruling.
And maybe they'll be overturned.
Or maybe Dassey will be retried. Lotta maybes and in the meantime Dassey's staying where he belongs.
07-05-2017 , 08:56 AM
Proof of rape, stabbings etc please, bar a confession that has been ruled that is was coerced.
07-05-2017 , 09:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer

I asked, invited and outright challenged you Avery & Dassey supporters to specify unequivocal examples of coercion and false promises of leniency & got crickets in return...why break a trend?

.
Poor you. All you got was two appellate courts finding that the so-called 'confessions' were indeed coerced, peppered with examples from the coaching sessions, and citing legal precedents which support these judgements.

If the state can't come up with better arguments why these tainted statements should get anywhere near a courtroom, Brendan is likely to be released.
07-05-2017 , 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
I agree that him getting paroled would have been challenging even if admitted to the crime unless there was a specific negotiation. Perhaps.

I think it was just his lawyers telling him that since the final appeal failed, there could only be upside to admitting guilt. They probably left out that he needed to show remorse and upstanding behavior. Hard to show remorse for a crime you didn't even commit.

Whatever the case, being jailed for rape when you had multiple alibis is the nut-low of life. And even worse, when you are in there and there is information received that he may be the wrong person. Ignored. Not saying they have to release him immediately, but it wasn't a random person calling. They had specific information about who may have committed the crime.
From what I have read it does look like the 'eligible for parole' was perhaps a bargaining chip - cooperate and we'll stand by you, we'll protect you, we'll put in a good word with the judge, etc. But since Steven didn't take the deal the prosecution asked for 'no parole' in sentencing?

Though it's interesting Beerntsen seems to suggest she wrote letters to the parole board. I wonder what that was about?
07-05-2017 , 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
No he wasn't there's not a scintilla of proof exists for Avery being framed either for rape or murder.

He was literally framed by "The Pencil".
07-05-2017 , 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Yeah okay then whoever



Without any proof to support it. A hypothesis without support doesn't trump evidence submitted in court.





No it really isn't & again not a shred of proof that anything was planted & there would be far easier, less risky ways to frame a habitual felon like Avery anyway, as I pointed out earlier.

Easier just to eliminate him actually.
07-05-2017 , 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
No. "calling" implies it's subjective. Dassey is a convicted rapist meaning it's established fact, even if you just don't get this.

And SA was found not guilty of rape. It is an established fact that he did not rape here.

Although it is an established fact that SA raped PB for a number of years. Until it became an established fact that he didn't rape her.
07-05-2017 , 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
And SA was found not guilty of rape. It is an established fact that he did not rape here.

Although it is an established fact that SA raped PB for a number of years. Until it became an established fact that he didn't rape her.
It's interesting that courts can make things that never happened into 'facts'.
07-05-2017 , 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
And SA was found not guilty of rape. It is an established fact that he did not rape here.

Although it is an established fact that SA raped PB for a number of years. Until it became an established fact that he didn't rape her.
That is not how it works, it is supposed to be more likely a guilty person gets aquitted than a non guilty person gets convicted. So someone found not guilty should not be as established as "innocent" as someone found guilty should be as guilty.
07-05-2017 , 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
That is not how it works, it is supposed to be more likely a guilty person gets aquitted than a non guilty person gets convicted. So someone found not guilty should not be as established as "innocent" as someone found guilty should be as guilty.
Apparently the court found the case against Steven on the rape charge so absurd the charge had to be dropped.
07-05-2017 , 10:34 PM
This documentary was made to convince people of only one side of the story.
Any good lawyer or movie director can convince you of just about anything when you only hear the information they present to you.
An example of this is the documentary about the fake moon landing, heck, I am convinced that we went to the Moon with no doubt in my mind, but that documentary is very convincing if you only took the info they presented.
If the state made a multi-part documentary of their sides story, one could make an informed decision.
The court heard both sides. We havent.
07-05-2017 , 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Apparently the court found the case against Steven on the rape charge so absurd the charge had to be dropped.
Or perhaps they found the case not worth pursuing since he was getting convicted of murder.
07-05-2017 , 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb5zcr Making a Murderer
This documentary was made to convince people of only one side of the story.
Any good lawyer or movie director can convince you of just about anything when you only hear the information they present to you.
An example of this is the documentary about the fake moon landing, heck, I am convinced that we went to the Moon with no doubt in my mind, but that documentary is very convincing if you only took the info they presented.
If the state made a multi-part documentary of their sides story, one could make an informed decision.
The court heard both sides. We havent.
Or we can just read the transcripts to hear the states case.

Good post. It is generally easier to fool people than it is to convince people they've been fooled. This and other conspiracy theories 911, moonlanding hoax etc.. Are good examples of this.

      
m