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

11-05-2017 , 01:20 PM
Quote:
You'd think fraleyight would come up with a better conspiracy theory than that. Two film makers wake up one day and decide they're going to frame some cops. No reason. Just a wild hair. Then spend ten years of their life on this quest.
Maybe if you read why I think they made the film and not why someone else thinks I think they made the film, you'd get a better answer.
11-05-2017 , 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
A quick google search of the name "kathleen Zellner" will give you very good motive for her to take this case, regardless of how she feels about her clients actual innocence or guilt.
Challenge accepted.

I did the search. Here are the results:



This is exactly what I am talking about. If someone reads your post, they would be lead to believe there is some derogatory (and assumed credible) links that would make less of KZ, her efforts to date, and her motives. There are not. There is only the opposite.

Well if you are going to use the word "propaganda" to mean a tool to simply express point of view, then you sir are the back-to-back SAG propagandist of the year with over 2x the amount of propaganda than 2nd place. Well done.
11-05-2017 , 01:35 PM
Don't know if you missed the point but most of her links are about avery and after she took the avery case people started searching for her 10 times as much.

That is good motivation for her to take the case, regardless of how she feels about avery.
11-05-2017 , 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Don't know if you missed the point but most of her links are about avery and after she took the avery case people started searching for her 10 times as much.

That is good motivation for her to take the case, regardless of how she feels about avery.
Her deliberately filing her motion on the anniversary of Teresa's murder is utterly contemptible & seems a dig at the victim's family.
11-05-2017 , 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Maybe if you read why I think they made the film and not why someone else thinks I think they made the film, you'd get a better answer.
Whoever said that has some neck talking about conspiracy theories
11-05-2017 , 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Don't know if you missed the point but most of her links are about avery and after she took the avery case people started searching for her 10 times as much.

That is good motivation for her to take the case, regardless of how she feels about avery.
So, if I understand correctly, SA and his clan, as well as Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, used "propaganda" and lies in order to purposely vilify and scandalize 2 counties worth of Law Enforcement in some little corner no one had heard of in Wisconsin. After only 10 years of work, they accomplished this worthy goal and now 12 years later, no one without Asperger's can see the tom-foolery and shenanigans going on...so they've accomplished their plan.

KZ comes along and despite her perfect record, is duped by SA and BD and their families into actually believing that SA is innocent and takes the case pro bono...all so she could up her google search count.

Currently, KZ cannot see the obvious facts that SA is guilty and continues to be tricked into "grasping for air" and submitting old evidence. OR she now does believe he's guilty but doesn't want to look bad so she continues to fight by filing invalid motions and "nothing new".

Gotcha.
11-05-2017 , 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
So, if I understand correctly, SA and his clan, as well as Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, used "propaganda" and lies in order to purposely vilify and scandalize 2 counties worth of Law Enforcement in some little corner no one had heard of in Wisconsin. After only 10 years of work, they accomplished this worthy goal and now 12 years later, no one without Asperger's can see the tom-foolery and shenanigans going on...so they've accomplished their plan.
No you don't understand correctly. No one has said any of this. They clealry used propaganda. Even if Avery is innocent (news flash, hes not) its still propaganda. They lied, they edited testimony, they omitted facts, this is what propaganda is! Its the very definition of the word. I have no doubt that both Laura and Moira believe SA is innocent. I also don't think it was some huge plan other than to promote a documentary. This not their first time trying to get this thing into a movie or television show. "making a murderer" is a extended version of "the people vs avery" which was shown at a film festival in 2010.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
KZ comes along and despite her perfect record, is duped by SA and BD and their families into actually believing that SA is innocent and takes the case pro bono...all so she could up her google search count.
KZ doesn't have a perfect record. But yes, her notiriety she has gained from this case is invaluable.

For example, did you know strang got millions of dollars for his last speaking tour?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Currently, KZ cannot see the obvious facts that SA is guilty and continues to be tricked into "grasping for air" and submitting old evidence. OR she now does believe he's guilty but doesn't want to look bad so she continues to fight by filing invalid motions and "nothing new".

Gotcha.
Not sure what KZ currently thinks but I would be very surprised if she thinks hes innocent but shes done nothing but surprise me so far.

I am curious, why do you think she is filing evidence that doesn't qualify and filing invalid motions?
11-05-2017 , 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Her deliberately filing her motion on the anniversary of Teresa's murder is utterly contemptible & seems a dig at the victim's family.
Its not like anyone ever thought she cared about Teresa. At least no rational person following this has.
11-06-2017 , 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Its not like anyone ever thought she cared about Teresa. At least no rational person following this has.
Nope, her intention has never been to catch who ACTUALLY killed Teresa has it?

Because no rational person thinks anything the state alleged regarding who, where, when, how, and why Teresa was killed is what happened.

I mean it's all about getting those google search counts up, amirite?
11-06-2017 , 07:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
So, if I understand correctly, SA and his clan, as well as Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, used "propaganda" and lies in order to purposely vilify and scandalize 2 counties worth of Law Enforcement in some little corner no one had heard of in Wisconsin. After only 10 years of work, they accomplished this worthy goal and now 12 years later, no one without Asperger's can see the tom-foolery and shenanigans going on...so they've accomplished their plan.

KZ comes along and despite her perfect record, is duped by SA and BD and their families into actually believing that SA is innocent and takes the case pro bono...all so she could up her google search count.

Currently, KZ cannot see the obvious facts that SA is guilty and continues to be tricked into "grasping for air" and submitting old evidence. OR she now does believe he's guilty but doesn't want to look bad so she continues to fight by filing invalid motions and "nothing new".

Gotcha.
Yes, this notion that the documentary is 'propaganda' because it shows how screwed up the case against Steven and Brendan was is absurd.

While we know for a fact is that the prosecutor was publicly chided for his unethical behavior for the infamous press conference which tried the case in the media, police who were supposed to be prohibited due to conflict of interest in fact visited the alleged crime scene before the 'incriminating' evidence mysteriously turned up, and that the so-called 'confession' from one of the accused was the result of coercion by police.

No similar serious lapses of ethics can be cited on the part of the defense.
11-06-2017 , 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Nope, her intention has never been to catch who ACTUALLY killed Teresa has it?

Because no rational person thinks anything the state alleged regarding who, where, when, how, and why Teresa was killed is what happened.

I mean it's all about getting those google search counts up, amirite?
The pro-Kratz folks crying crocodile tears about Teresa is grotesque.
11-06-2017 , 10:48 AM
The documentary WAS propaganda. There is no way around this fact. It fits the very definition of the word. It is irrelevant to that point whether or not avery is guilty or innocent. They clearly misrepresented facts, edited testimony and lied.
11-06-2017 , 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Nope, her intention has never been to catch who ACTUALLY killed Teresa has it?

Because no rational person thinks anything the state alleged regarding who, where, when, how, and why Teresa was killed is what happened.

I mean it's all about getting those google search counts up, amirite?
Not exactly what I said. I said the notoriety she gained from this case is invaluable regardless of how she feels about avery's innocence or guilt. She clearly would have a motive to take the case for all the free press even if she thought he was guilty.
11-06-2017 , 01:15 PM
I mean there's just absolutely no doubt fraleyight is the shill in charge of this thread. He does not ever post anything new, he only posts in response to anything against MCLE and its always at least 2 posts. They always contain matter of fact lines that use key words such as "propaganda", "clearly", "misrepresented", etc, and carry a tone that is far too matter-of-fact to be coming from a subjective, thinking person. That way, in a thread dedicated to a documentary about police corruption, coverups and lies and evidence planting, he is ALWAYS at least the last (or first) 2 posts and always counter to anything against MCLE. This way the casual browser sees his posts far in excess of anyone else's.

The proven paid shills on reddit attempted this strategy as well, so reddit simply created their own separate sub in order to keep the integrity of the forum intact.

It's just not believable that anyone without alterior motives would dedicate this much of their effort and life to attempt to get people to believe what they saw in MaM is false.
11-06-2017 , 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I mean there's just absolutely no doubt fraleyight is the shill in charge of this thread. He does not ever post anything new, he only posts in response to anything against MCLE and its always at least 2 posts. They always contain matter of fact lines that use key words such as "propaganda", "clearly", "misrepresented", etc, and carry a tone that is far too matter-of-fact to be coming from a subjective, thinking person. That way, in a thread dedicated to a documentary about police corruption, coverups and lies and evidence planting, he is ALWAYS at least the last (or first) 2 posts and always counter to anything against MCLE. This way the casual browser sees his posts far in excess of anyone else's.

The proven paid shills on reddit attempted this strategy as well, so reddit simply created their own separate sub in order to keep the integrity of the forum intact.


The reason why I usually have two posts is because I usually have at least 2 people talking to me or 1 person making several posts I am responding to that are directed at me. I am actually the only guilter on this page that takes this much time to take your points and other truthers points seriously. That is a good thing.

I am also not aware of any "paid shills" on reddit and I would be surprised if there is any credibility to this. Citation? There is a separate reddit group for people who think avery is guilty, there are several separate reddit groups for people who think he is innocent. Like the tic toc manitwoc group. So if you are drawing this conclusion because there are separate groups within the main thread, then you should also think some of the Tic Toc Manitwoc people are paid shills for avery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
It's just not believable that anyone without alterior motives would dedicate this much of their effort and life to attempt to get people to believe what they saw in MaM is false.
So you think it is more believable that someone like me is getting paid to do this rather than me just having the same interest in the case as you for different reasons? I have dedicated a lot of my time to different conspiracy theories. Its one of my main hobbies. I have spent a lot of time debating and conversing with people who think the holocaust never happened, 9-11 truthers, creationists and a host of other conspiracy theories. The reason why avery caught my attention so much is because it reminded me of loose change and noticed that a lot of the reasons people were initially convinced 9-11 was an inside job are very similar reasons people think avery is innocent.
11-06-2017 , 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I have no doubt that both Laura and Moira believe SA is innocent.
Really? I mean, it's the only way you can make money in that field, and they were only in it to make money. (They weren't salaried reporters for some major news outlet, and they weren't aristocrats or rentiers with private incomes who were just being noble.)

'Cops arrest right people, jury duly convicts' isn't a story. To have a story, you have to argue wrongful conviction, so that's what that type scavenger animal always does.

And they're generally wrong. In Britain the late Paul Foot gained a great journalistic reputation for arguing the 'innocence' of one James Hanratty, hanged in the early 1960s for what was known as the 'A6 murder'. (It wasn't just a murder, it was also a rape and attempted murder of a second victim, by the side of the main road known as the A6.) Until quite a late stage, the media were cheering Foot on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wr...t-1285402.html

Then the DNA evidence came in, and the Court of Appeal duly had the last word.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ond-doubt.html

Foot never accepted this, and died still denying it.

The other case Foot made a career out of was the Bridgewater Four. Their convictions were overturned by the Court of Appeal in 1997, but not -- despite what the media and politicians and grandstanding lawyers claimed -- because the men were 'found innocent'. It was simply because the police broke Judges' Rules during questioning. As the court noted, there were obvious factual grounds on which the men could be considered guilty, and, while some of the most cogent evidence was technically inadmissable, there was nevertheless enough evidence to allow a jury rightly directed to convict one of the men, which would have implications for the others under the joint-enterprise rule.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1997/2028.html

Innocence fraud is an industry and people make money out of it.
11-06-2017 , 05:42 PM
I think it more likely they believe he is innocent but ultimately I don't care. The whole argument presented by LITS is illogical. He is saying they would have no reason to lie so we shouldnt think they did but THEY DID lie. This is clearly evidenced if you read transcripts and compare them to court footage in the doc. I have provided several examples in the thread.

The one I was currently talking about with LITS is in Scotts testimony he is asked about previous encounters with police. In the transcripts both Strang and the police report says

Scott was asked if the fire was "at least" 3 ft high.

In the doc it says

Scott was asked if the fire was 3 ft high.

Why was "at least" cut from filming?

The other example I use often is Ryans testimony where they completely leave out the parts of his testimony where he says he was with racheal and two of teresas other friends when getting into the computer. They just cut out any indication of this and made it sound like Ryan and her male roommate were being creepy. Why would they do this?

Why do they constantly jump around during testimony and edit it, changing answers etc.. This is clearly bias reporting.
11-06-2017 , 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red Making a Murderer
Really? I mean, it's the only way you can make money in that field, and they were only in it to make money. (They weren't salaried reporters for some major news outlet, and they weren't aristocrats or rentiers with private incomes who were just being noble.)
Gee, the cops and the DA and the judges also get paid - I guess that makes them corrupt, too?

What disingenuous crap you're spouting.

Quote:
'Cops arrest right people, jury duly convicts' isn't a story. To have a story, you have to argue wrongful conviction, so that's what that type scavenger animal always does.
What nonsense - the movies, television, and books are full of stories about good cops and detectives who are putting the bad guys away.

Quote:
Innocence fraud is an industry and people make money out of it.
There are any number of cases of wrongful convictions which are a powerful counterargument to your blanket assumption that arguing the innocence of a convicted suspect is a 'fraud'.

FFS that's why we have appeals courts in the first place!
11-06-2017 , 07:40 PM
Quote:
then you should also think some of the Tic Toc Manitwoc people are paid shills for avery.
Listen to yourself, lol. Who would be paying them?

Meanwhile:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...tary/83537512/
11-06-2017 , 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Listen to yourself, lol. Who would be paying them?
Well in this hypothetical fantasy world where people are paid to post on different sites using established accounts... Anyone who allocates funds toward social media could be doing this. IE: Zellner law firm, The studio that produced Making a murderer etc..

Seriously though, no one is doing this. Its a silly concept, it wouldn't even benefit anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
OK? So a sheriff seeks help from a non profit org. that is associated with the sheriffs office for public relations and you think this somehow demonstrates that they were paying people money to post on reddit and 2p2? This is the best you have after claiming that this was previously proven?
11-06-2017 , 09:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Listen to yourself, lol. Who would be paying them?

Meanwhile:

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...tary/83537512/
Yes, very telling the Sheriff thought of this as a public relations matter rather than taking a long, hard look at the ethical lapses that have outraged intelligent observers.
11-06-2017 , 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
Yes, very telling the Sheriff thought of this as a public relations matter rather than taking a long, hard look at the ethical lapses that have outraged intelligent observers.
Its not telling. They were getting threats from people and were bombarded with phone calls from people who were influenced by a misleading documentary. I see no reason to not reach out for public relations help.
11-06-2017 , 09:40 PM
It's also very telling that apologists for Manitowoc law enforcement and the prosecution also avoid the egregious ethics violations.
11-07-2017 , 04:52 AM
Quote:
Innocence fraud is an industry and people make money out of it.
Makers of Innocence Fraud documentary Making a Murderer certainly made money from it.
http://beta.latimes.com/business/rea...515-story.html
11-07-2017 , 06:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Makers of Innocence Fraud documentary Making a Murderer certainly made money from it.
http://beta.latimes.com/business/rea...515-story.html
So if cops, prosecutors, judges, and prison guards get paid that proves that 'justice fraud' is a thing?

There really isn't anything too stupid for corpus vile to post, is there?

      
m