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

08-23-2017 , 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, if it was my sister who'd been killed I'd be plenty angry that law enforcement didn't pull up their pants and do a proper job.



Folks like corpus vile who idiotically claim that the documentarians were aiming at fortune and fame don't know squat. There's a ton more money in presenting law enforcement in a favorable light, as millions of hours of cop movies and cop television shows proves beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Dear Family:

I am going to travel from NYC to Wisconsin to make a documentary for Netflix. I know Netflix has not even started as a company, let alone streaming technology, but it will be worth it.

My main character tortured a cat and was convicted of rape, but falsely accused. He is flawed but all superheroes are. I am sure if I hang around for 10 years or so, the same scenario will replay itself.

Please send money. I will repay you back in 10 years when I am famous.

Signed,
Crazed documentary person"
08-23-2017 , 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
"Dear Family:

I am going to travel from NYC to Wisconsin to make a documentary for Netflix. I know Netflix has not even started as a company, let alone streaming technology, but it will be worth it.

My main character tortured a cat and was convicted of rape, but falsely accused. He is flawed but all superheroes are. I am sure if I hang around for 10 years or so, the same scenario will replay itself.

Please send money. I will repay you back in 10 years when I am famous.

Signed,
Crazed documentary person"
Yes, that nails it!

Anyone who pushes the brain dead notion that making documentaries is the golden road to success is deluded at best.
08-23-2017 , 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
The parts in red were cut out of the doc. Can you see why?

Q. Well, and you can understand how someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at on the back end of a 1999 Toyota; from listening to that tape, you can understand why someone might think that, can't you?
ATTORNEY KRATZ: It's a conclusion, Judge. He's conveying the problems to the jury.
THE COURT: I agree, the objection is sustained.
Q. This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?

A. Yes.
Yes, I can see quite clearly why the irrelevant objection would be omitted.

Now suppose it was this:

Q. Well, and you can understand how someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at on the back end of a 1999 Toyota; from listening to that tape, you can understand why someone might think that, can't you?
ATTORNEY KRATZ: It's a conclusion, Judge. He's conveying the problems to the jury.
THE COURT: I agree, the objection is sustained.

Q. This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?
A. Yes.


Can you comprehend how it is a distinction without a difference?

Quote:
There is a part in the show where they are talking about Lenks name always coming up, they bring up him being in the bedroom when the key was found and him being on the scene during the search. Then they talk about the blood that was found in the rav 4 and say that lenk signed an order to move evidence from the 85 case. This is true, but it was to move hair and nail clippings, not the blood vial.
It does appear to be true that Lenk's name comes up with alarming frequency, as he was supposed to stay away from the investigation due to a conflict of interest.

Can you comprehend why a conflict of interest might compromise a criminal investigation?

Quote:
Just to name a couple of examples. There are a ton more.
If the other examples are like these, then we can safely conclude they are exactly as meaningless.

Quote:
The misrepresentation of avery's past crimes. Leaving out that it was a neighbor who turned avery in for flashing Sandra morris after seeing him do it. Leaving out that avery pointed a loaded gun at her and threatened to kill her. Leaving out that avery soaked the cat in gasoline with the intentions of watching it burn to death.
All irrelevant material with regard to Steven's being wrongly convicted in the 1985 case and irrelevant as far as evidence in the disappearance of Teresa Halbach.

But I can see why character assassination looms large in the imagination of folks who want Steven to be guilty of crimes against Teresa - the actual evidence is dubious at best.
08-23-2017 , 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, I can see quite clearly why the irrelevant objection would be omitted.

Now suppose it was this:

Q. Well, and you can understand how someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at on the back end of a 1999 Toyota; from listening to that tape, you can understand why someone might think that, can't you?
ATTORNEY KRATZ: It's a conclusion, Judge. He's conveying the problems to the jury.
THE COURT: I agree, the objection is sustained.

Q. This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?
A. Yes.


Can you comprehend how it is a distinction without a difference?
Obviously you can't see the distinction here. The film makers obviously did, otherwise they wouldn't have chopped up the interview in this way.

But to be clear,

Asking someone if it looks like they are doing something bad vs if it looks like they are doing something they always do then taking the answer to the second question and applying it to the first is quote mining.

Imagine if I asked you if it looked like SA was a rapist, then asked you if it looked like SA relationship with his niece was a normal one then took the answer to your second question as "yes" and applied it to the first question.Would that appear to be intentional to you? And would it be dishonest?



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
It does appear to be true that Lenk's name comes up with alarming frequency, as he was supposed to stay away from the investigation due to a conflict of interest.

Can you comprehend why a conflict of interest might compromise a criminal investigation?
No, that was not my argument. Read it again. I am specifically pointing out that they brought this up to imply lenk could have planted the blood. Which we know is false. Lenk never had access to the blood.



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
If the other examples are like these, then we can safely conclude they are exactly as meaningless.



All irrelevant material with regard to Steven's being wrongly convicted in the 1985 case and irrelevant as far as evidence in the disappearance of Teresa Halbach.

But I can see why character assassination looms large in the imagination of folks who want Steven to be guilty of crimes against Teresa - the actual evidence is dubious at best.

If its irrelevant, why did they bring them up? Most of us on the rational side of this debate have figured this out. Have you?
08-23-2017 , 11:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer

Just to name a couple of examples. There are a ton more. The misrepresentation of avery's past crimes. Leaving out that it was a neighbor who turned avery in for flashing Sandra morris after seeing him do it. Leaving out that avery pointed a loaded gun at her and threatened to kill her. Leaving out that avery soaked the cat in gasoline with the intentions of watching it burn to death.
They didn't misrepresent his crimes. I heard it the first time watching it and thought this guy, regardless of guilt, deserves to be in prison. Total unsympathetic character.

It was only when I saw the confession, which I also wanted to believe strongly implicated SA, that I thought this must be a joke if this was even used. And then for KK to go on TV and say the confession was fact to the public without any confirmatory evidence was frightening. Even if it later was determined to be all true which it wasn't.

We can keep going back over this again and again. I am not sure the point. There is the SA guilty side. Who seems stuck that anyone arguing against their position is SA innocent. When it is not mutually exclusive. The SA guilty side can also admit the investigative and police work was sloppy, but that is anathema to their position because it may mean (in their eyes) that he therefore could be not guilty and should not be in jail.
08-23-2017 , 11:32 PM
Golf,

I know there is a spectrum to the "non guilty side" I am fully aware you don't necessarily think SA is innocent. I don't care, some of my comments aren't addressing you then.
08-24-2017 , 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
They didn't misrepresent his crimes. I heard it the first time watching it and thought this guy, regardless of guilt, deserves to be in prison. Total unsympathetic character.
Yes, after watching the documentary I thought Steven might be guilty.

Pretty poor example of 'pro-Avery hypnosis' if you ask me.

Quote:
It was only when I saw the confession, which I also wanted to believe strongly implicated SA, that I thought this must be a joke if this was even used. And then for KK to go on TV and say the confession was fact to the public without any confirmatory evidence was frightening. Even if it later was determined to be all true which it wasn't.
Definitely the wrong thing to do. It's astounding how cavalier law enforcement and the prosecution acted in this case.

Quote:
We can keep going back over this again and again. I am not sure the point. There is the SA guilty side. Who seems stuck that anyone arguing against their position is SA innocent. When it is not mutually exclusive. The SA guilty side can also admit the investigative and police work was sloppy, but that is anathema to their position because it may mean (in their eyes) that he therefore could be not guilty and should not be in jail.
Anyone paying attention to this story while there's nothing much happening probably feels they've gotten enough information to make up their minds one way or the other.
08-24-2017 , 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Golf,

I know there is a spectrum to the "non guilty side" I am fully aware you don't necessarily think SA is innocent. I don't care, some of my comments aren't addressing you then.

Understood. I haven't read much that SA is innocent. More that SA is not guilty. Huuuuuuge difference.

There is a guy in Orange County who admitted killing 8 people who would be an automatic death row candidate. He is being spared the death penalty SOLELY because of police misconduct. He did the crime yet is not getting the punishment for that crime because we (society) are punishing the prosecution. Unfortunately we have to do that to keep some semblance of the law in check.

Nobody wants a guilty man to go free. But we do that to ensure that our rights are truly respected and it is not just lip service. Otherwise a society is in danger of becoming a police state with concomitant lack of respect by our citizens of the government. Which inevitably leads to corruption and then societal breakdown. Healthy functional governments welcome self-examinations and watchdog groups.
08-24-2017 , 12:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Obviously you can't see the distinction here. The film makers obviously did, otherwise they wouldn't have chopped up the interview in this way.
They had to cut something to get the hundreds of hours of material down to a mere ten. What better to cut than an irrelevant objection from the prosecutor?

Quote:
But to be clear,

Asking someone if it looks like they are doing something bad vs if it looks like they are doing something they always do then taking the answer to the second question and applying it to the first is quote mining.
If you say so.

Here's the actual question:

"...someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at"

because?

"This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?"

Of course it sounds routine because it is routine.

Quote:
Imagine if I asked you if it looked like SA was a rapist, then asked you if it looked like SA relationship with his niece was a normal one then took the answer to your second question as "yes" and applied it to the first question.Would that appear to be intentional to you? And would it be dishonest?
It would be much more honest to simply look at the two questions in the actual transcript you provided and work with those.

Quote:
No, that was not my argument. Read it again. I am specifically pointing out that they brought this up to imply lenk could have planted the blood. Which we know is false. Lenk never had access to the blood.
Again you seem to want to read the minds of people who made a documentary. But I don't believe in ESP.

Quote:
If its irrelevant, why did they bring them up?
Yes, it's quite obvious why attacking the defendant's character is so important in a case where the forensic evidence of a crime is so dubious.

The prosecution dredged up this garbage to try and win their case.

Quote:
Most of us on the rational side of this debate have figured this out. Have you?
As you can see, I have figured out what Kratz and the gang were up to.

If you haven't figured it out yet there's still hope.
08-24-2017 , 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Understood. I haven't read much that SA is innocent. More that SA is not guilty. Huuuuuuge difference.

There is a guy in Orange County who admitted killing 8 people who would be an automatic death row candidate. He is being spared the death penalty SOLELY because of police misconduct. He did the crime yet is not getting the punishment for that crime because we (society) are punishing the prosecution. Unfortunately we have to do that to keep some semblance of the law in check.

Nobody wants a guilty man to go free. But we do that to ensure that our rights are truly respected and it is not just lip service. Otherwise a society is in danger of becoming a police state with concomitant lack of respect by our citizens of the government. Which inevitably leads to corruption and then societal breakdown. Healthy functional governments welcome self-examinations and watchdog groups.
I am not familiar with that case but it doesn't surprise me. It takes a lot to succesfully carry out a death sentance. There were those two guys in cheshire who murdered that family and one guy was convicted and sentanced to death. The guy, fully admitted to what he did and demanded he be killed for what he did. To this day they still refuse to kill him until he completes all of his appeals. I imagine its similar to that.

I do not want innocent men in prison and I respect the process we use here in the states but I do not see any reasonable doubt in either of the cases these threads are about and I think anyone who does has been fooled by propaganda or is using the propaganda for publicity like zellner has. Btw, totally called zellner over a year ago didn't I?
08-24-2017 , 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
They had to cut something to get the hundreds of hours of material down to a mere ten. What better to cut than an irrelevant objection from the prosecutor?



If you say so.

Here's the actual question:

"...someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at"

because?

"This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?"

Of course it sounds routine because it is routine.
So in other words, for no reason at all other than to make more work for themselves decided to splice a testimony by taking a question and an answer that are two paragraphs apart from each other rather than just showing the direct question and answer? Think about it. Read both questions. One implies something the other doesn't.

Just because one call sounds like a routine license plate check doesn't mean he was looking at a license plate, nor does it mean we should think such a thing. He explained in detail why he made that call and said hes made similar calls to verify information several times in the past. Another important answer quote that somehow made it to the cuttring room floor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Again you seem to want to read the minds of people who made a documentary. But I don't believe in ESP.
So they show that lenks name came up a handful of times and for whatever reason point out he was in charge of moving evidence form the 1985 case then start talking about the blood vial then say lenk had a key to the place where the blood was kept. Just based on that alone, what do you think they are trying to tell us?

Now when you realize (as I imagine you arleady know) that lenk didn't move the blood, that lenk didn't have a key to the room where the blood was kept and that all this happened months before the murder investigation.. What do you start to think then? Do you not see that they are twisting the facts here?



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, it's quite obvious why attacking the defendant's character is so important in a case where the forensic evidence of a crime is so dubious.
What? They (the people making the pro avery fil) brought it up. Why did they bring up the cat and attempted murder?

Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
The prosecution dredged up this garbage to try and win their case.
This was not even used in court, I think its relevant to this case because it shows a history of abusive, socipathic actions by avery but the judge disagreed so it wasn't even used. It had nothing to do with his conviction.



Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
As you can see, I have figured out what Kratz and the gang were up to.

If you haven't figured it out yet there's still hope.
They were up to convicting a murderer.
08-24-2017 , 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So in other words, for no reason at all other than to make more work for themselves decided to splice a testimony by taking a question and an answer that are two paragraphs apart from each other rather than just showing the direct question and answer? Think about it. Read both questions. One implies something the other doesn't.
I already quoted the text you provided - did it look like it was routine? and was it routine? are in this instance pretty much the same question rephrased. Pretending that the editor made heroic efforts to try to misrepresent the incident is quite a stretch.

Quote:
Just because one call sounds like a routine license plate check doesn't mean he was looking at a license plate, nor does it mean we should think such a thing. He explained in detail why he made that call and said hes made similar calls to verify information several times in the past. Another important answer quote that somehow made it to the cuttring room floor.
You're reading a great deal of significance into something that is trivial. If this is the best example you can come up with then I think we can consider the idea that Demos and Ricciardi were deliberately misrepresenting the case is unfounded.

Quote:
So they show that lenks name came up a handful of times and for whatever reason point out he was in charge of moving evidence form the 1985 case then start talking about the blood vial then say lenk had a key to the place where the blood was kept. Just based on that alone, what do you think they are trying to tell us?
I think what you are trying to tell us is that you are privy to the inmost thoughts of people you never met and that the film was agenda driven. But if this is the kind of material that you think makes your case for you, I'd say it is a very weak case.

Quote:
Now when you realize (as I imagine you arleady know) that lenk didn't move the blood, that lenk didn't have a key to the room where the blood was kept and that all this happened months before the murder investigation.. What do you start to think then? Do you not see that they are twisting the facts here?
If you drew a poor conclusion from the factual material presented by the film makers, perhaps the failure is on the receiving end.

Quote:
What? They (the people making the pro avery fil) brought it up. Why did they bring up the cat and attempted murder?
I guess I don't understand what you are upset about. Many people - you among them - feel like these are very significant 'facts'. If this material was left on the cutting room floor you'd be screaming bloody murder.

It seems the documentarians can't get a break - damned if they mention it, damned if they don't.

Quote:
This was not even used in court, I think its relevant to this case because it shows a history of abusive, socipathic actions by avery but the judge disagreed so it wasn't even used. It had nothing to do with his conviction.
So you say a judge didn't allow this previous history into court? Doesn't that suggest to you the prosecution brought it up?

Quote:
They were up to convicting a murderer.
Correction: they were trying to convict Steven Avery of murder.

The way they convicted Steven Avery of a rape even though he was innocent.

Character assassination was what they were up to then, and that is what a lot of people are up to now.
08-24-2017 , 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I do not see any reasonable doubt in either of the cases these threads are about and I think anyone who does has been fooled by propaganda or is using the propaganda for publicity like zellner has.
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, many people who do find problems with how this case was handled are actually quite well versed in the material. If you believe the court transcripts and official documents that compel them to doubt the verdicts are 'propaganda' that poses quite a puzzle as to what isn't propaganda.

Quote:
Btw, totally called zellner over a year ago didn't I?
What? That Zellner would persist in the case and that the courts would take her motions seriously enough as to allow further testing of the evidence?

Or were you one of the failed prophets who has been predicting Zellner would drop the case like a hot potato?
08-24-2017 , 07:32 PM
So you don't find it misleading that lenks access to the blood vial and his handling of the blood vial (which never happeend) was misrepresented? How can you say that?

Other examples:

ST testimony where he says the fire was 8 to 10 ft tall. Strang asks him if he told police it was at least 3 ft. The doc cut the "at least" part out and it was cut to say " did you tell police it was 3 ft" not to mention the polic brought up the number 3 ft, not him.

It cut a whole bunch of RH testimony. Him mentioning that him and several friends hacked TH laptop account, not just him and her roommate.

The guy who said "do we have avery in custody" it explained why he asked that question in the conversation. He heard there was a body warrant, he was asking if that body warrant was for avery.

The splicing of the interview avery had with police in 84 over sandra morris.

I could go on and on. Almost every interview in that doc was spliced to leave out important details. It was intentionally misleading.
08-24-2017 , 07:33 PM
NO I said zellner was fos, avery didn't have an air tight alibi. She didn't have another killer that she could prove was the killer. Both turned out to be true.
08-24-2017 , 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
NO I said zellner was fos, avery didn't have an air tight alibi.
What? We know where Steven was - at his home.

We also know that Teresa was not killed there - they tore the place apart looking for a scrap of evidence she was ever there (let alone raped, choked, stabbed, shot, or cut up into pieces).

Looks like the prosecution was fos, because they claimed things they have no evidence for.

Quote:
She didn't have another killer that she could prove was the killer.
A bit early for you to call this, as the retrial hasn't been held yet.

Quote:
Both turned out to be true.
So your record is one wrong and one not proven.
08-24-2017 , 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So you don't find it misleading that lenks access to the blood vial and his handling of the blood vial (which never happeend) was misrepresented? How can you say that?

Other examples:

ST testimony where he says the fire was 8 to 10 ft tall. Strang asks him if he told police it was at least 3 ft. The doc cut the "at least" part out and it was cut to say " did you tell police it was 3 ft" not to mention the polic brought up the number 3 ft, not him.

It cut a whole bunch of RH testimony. Him mentioning that him and several friends hacked TH laptop account, not just him and her roommate.

The guy who said "do we have avery in custody" it explained why he asked that question in the conversation. He heard there was a body warrant, he was asking if that body warrant was for avery.

The splicing of the interview avery had with police in 84 over sandra morris.

I could go on and on. Almost every interview in that doc was spliced to leave out important details. It was intentionally misleading.
Given the unreliability of your reporting on countless other topics, forgive me if I don't take your word for it that these things happened as you claim and that they were part of a deliberate effort of film makers Ricciardi and Demos to mislead.

Condensing hundreds of hours of material down to ten hours will of course leave things out. Some might have supported the prosecution narrative, some things were left out which supported the defense. It's just a matter of the impossibility of making a film hundreds of hours long.

The trial itself began on 2/12/2007 and didn't go to the jury until 3/15/2007, so even if they only included the trial and nothing before the trial or the verdict and the aftermath that is a ton of material to present.

Do you consider your own posts to be deliberately misleading because you selectively quote other posters here?
08-24-2017 , 09:17 PM
"Did you tell police the fire was at least 3 ft tall"?

The part in red was cut out of the doc. Watch it yourself, look at ST testimony. Can you give me an honest reason why the filmakers would cut those two words out of his question? Its not like they even cut it out of the end of the question, it was in the middle ffs.

Lets start with that.
08-24-2017 , 09:25 PM
From the transcripts:

Quote:

Q. Was November 29 also the day that you told the police that the flames were at least 3 feet high, at least that high?

A. Must have.
From MAM

Episode 6 around the 50 minute mark.

Quote:
Q. Was November 29 also the day that you told the police that the flames were 3 feet high?
A. Must have.
08-24-2017 , 09:34 PM
Quote:
We also know that Teresa was not killed there - they tore the place apart looking for a scrap of evidence she was ever there (let alone raped, choked, stabbed, shot, or cut up into pieces).
Dude, there is nothing BUT evidence she was killed there. With 0 evidence to the contrary since zellner has apparently abandoned the bogus cell tower theory we are stuck with her remains in a burn pit that several people saw burning late into the night, her property burned at his location and her no longer making calls or taking calls after she arrived at his location. Its obvious to anyone with any cricital thinking skills that she was killed there.
08-24-2017 , 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Dude, there is nothing BUT evidence she was killed there.
Not a single hair, fiber, or skinflake anywhere, not a drop of blood from all the stabbing, throat-slashing, and 11 shots - 2 of them head shots?

No, I feel pretty confident of anyplace on the planet where we can be pretty confident Teresa never was it was Steven's.

Logic dictates that if she wasn't at Steven's, she must have been killed somewhere else.

But we know Steven was at home.

This leaves a rather gaping hole straight through the prosecution hypothesis.

Can you appreciate how applying a little critical thinking can clear things up?

Quote:
With 0 evidence to the contrary since zellner has apparently abandoned the bogus cell tower theory we are stuck with her remains in a burn pit that several people saw burning late into the night, her property burned at his location and her no longer making calls or taking calls after she arrived at his location. Its obvious to anyone with any cricital thinking skills that she was killed there.
Now you are making claims about Zellner's theory of the crime, which is rather interesting as you provided no evidence anyone should believe you have insider knowledge of the defense team's strategy.

It's quite obvious to anyone who gives this a moment's reflection that Steven has a cast-iron alibi - using phone calls recorded by law enforcement no less!
08-24-2017 , 11:25 PM
1) you don't know if there were no hair fibers of TH found at his house because you can't identify hair without the roots.

2) There have been several murders in the past were little to no blood was found at the murder scene, including victims with a gun shot wound to the head.

3) This does not prove she wasn't there when there IS physical proof she was there. Her remains are there! They are in two seperate burn locations. Why the **** would you need blood evidence when her bones are there ffs?

But wait! Theres cell phone tower data (which is proven to be unreliable) so **** it all. SHe couldn't have been there.

Quote:
It's quite obvious to anyone who gives this a moment's reflection that Steven has a cast-iron alibi - using phone calls recorded by law enforcement no less!
Are you talking about the calls from Jodi? The ones that corroborate BD story of helping avery clean up a murder scene? Ya, great alibi! Can't murder her because you spent 30 mins on the phone in a 10 hr period with jodi!

Quote:
Now you are making claims about Zellner's theory of the crime, which is rather interesting as you provided no evidence anyone should believe you have insider knowledge of the defense team's strategy.
Shes alraedy filed her appeal, we know her theory. It will probably change again though in a few weeks. You are right! We are reduced to claiming RH snuck into his trailer like a ninja and stole blood from his sink before it could coagulate and planted in a SUV, hanging on to it for a few days before planting it on the ASY.
08-25-2017 , 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
1) you don't know if there were no hair fibers of TH found at his house because you can't identify hair without the roots.
I'm simply pointing out there is zero evidence Teresa was ever in the house or garage, the places where the prosecution claims the raping, stabbing, slashing, shooting, chopping into little pieces happened. Since they looked and looked and didn't find any evidence to corroborate their story there is no reason for anyone to believe their story.

Quote:
2) There have been several murders in the past were little to no blood was found at the murder scene, including victims with a gun shot wound to the head.
So what? I'm just pointing out that there is zero evidence any crime was committed where the prosecution claims.

Quote:
3) This does not prove she wasn't there when there IS physical proof she was there. Her remains are there! They are in two seperate burn locations. Why the **** would you need blood evidence when her bones are there ffs?
As everyone knows by now cremains are portable. You can walk away with your loved one's ashes in a jar and put it on your mantle or take them to the ocean a sprinkle them around. That doesn't 'prove' you burned their corpse on the beach!

Quote:
But wait! Theres cell phone tower data (which is proven to be unreliable) so **** it all. SHe couldn't have been there.
You may want to believe cell phone pings are useless, but it is at least something (which is more than can be said for unsubstantiated claims any crimes were committed at the Avery Salvage Yard).

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep...l/me-onthelaw6

Quote:
Are you talking about the calls from Jodi? The ones that corroborate BD story of helping avery clean up a murder scene? Ya, great alibi! Can't murder her because you spent 30 mins on the phone in a 10 hr period with jodi!
Link to transcript where Steven and Jodi discuss any clean up of any murder scene?

No?

Didn't think so.

Stop just making stuff up - it really does a disservice to your cause to get caught doing that.

If Steven was overheard on Monday talking about murdering someone they would have been out there Monday night or Tuesday morning at the latest to arrest him.

Quote:
Shes alraedy filed her appeal, we know her theory. It will probably change again though in a few weeks. You are right! We are reduced to claiming RH snuck into his trailer like a ninja and stole blood from his sink before it could coagulate and planted in a SUV, hanging on to it for a few days before planting it on the ASY.
So in your view only a ninja could get into someone else's home while they are away? Really?
08-25-2017 , 09:42 AM
I dont even know why you bother proudfootz , are you sure you arent on the spectrum aswell because for the last 6 months you have both been responding to each other about most likely the same exacts topics with same questions and answers.

Now ofc fraye is a moron when he pretend no evidence but a dodgy confession is enough to say what happened but evidence to the contrary are invalid. Pretending that entering a trailer require mad skillz is laughable, i d be surprised if avery even bothered to lock his door.
08-25-2017 , 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
I dont even know why you bother proudfootz , are you sure you arent on the spectrum aswell because for the last 6 months you have both been responding to each other about most likely the same exacts topics with same questions and answers.

Now ofc fraye is a moron when he pretend no evidence but a dodgy confession is enough to say what happened but evidence to the contrary are invalid. Pretending that entering a trailer require mad skillz is laughable, i d be surprised if avery even bothered to lock his door.
I know, right?

It entertains me to make fun of the stupid things these hacks say.

      
m