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

11-08-2017 , 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Avery was entitled to a settlement whether or not there were corrupt cops. He was wrongfully convicted. I don't see how this is a relevant point.
No one is ever entitled to a "settlement."
11-08-2017 , 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
No one is ever entitled to a "settlement."
You know what I mean. Avery getting a settlement says nothing about how corrupt the cops were. He was wrongfully convicted, when someone is wrongfully convicted it is expected they are compensated. This would be with or without police corruption.
11-08-2017 , 11:07 PM
1. A settlement (for $400,000, covered by insurance) where there's not even acknowledgement of any mistakes, let alone corruption, is certainly not evidence that there was corruption.

2. A much stronger argument can be made that there was negligence in the 1985 case, and that is a much more realistic factor for the defendants in choosing to settle. Other factors in choosing to settle are legal fees and closure.

3. The Wisconsin DOJ already investigated the 1985 case and found "no basis to bring criminal charges or assert ethics violations against anyone involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case".

4. If Avery's civil lawyers actually had any strong evidence of corruption, they would likely be against settling and looking for a way to support Avery through his criminal defense. Thus, their decision to settle indicates they did not have any strong evidence of corruption.
11-09-2017 , 04:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
The legal settlement.
Wat? No. That's not proof of corrupt LE as wrongful conviction because of an imperfect system would very probably ensure compensation anyway once the victim took it to court.
Provide evidence of his wrongful conviction for rape being due to "corrupt cops". Otherwise it's just a spurious claim, ergo dismissed.
Your ludicrous contention that his settlement is proof of corruption is laughed at for being stupid.


Quote:
I know you probably have some great explanation as to why the county would pay a heavily-leveraged Plaintiff hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle the wrongful conviction lawsuit, but the fact is they did.
Ya cuz he was wrongfully convicted & actually innocent and had the proof to show for it. How tf does this equate to "corrupt cops" again, lawboy?

Quote:
Obviously, that fact alone is not enough to establish this point in a court of law,
Yeah. You're right.

Quote:
but it certainly is enough to raise the issue for discussion, or dare I say, a documentary.
Not if there's no evidence to support it there isn't. Not that such things would deter you eh?
11-09-2017 , 05:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Why?
Otherwise it's just an unsubantiated claim, like much of what's in Zellner's motion, that's why. Claims require evidence to support such claims, Oski. I thought as a lawyer you'd know that...


Quote:
I believe the comment had to do with what the documentarians were aiming to explore in the movie.
They were exploring how to make money off of it.

Quote:
I think the documentary properly raises the issue that because of irregularities, etc
Yeah but you also think Pseudoscientific academically & judicially discredited clown Richard Ofshe is a-ok apparently as you never raised objections to his being mentioned as an authority & then ran away with your tail between your legs when asked to refute the critique against him and you also think Loudfootz is a "clear thinker" so you'll have to excuse me if rational people aren't particularly wowed by your thoughts.


Quote:
in the process, the trial may not have been proper
TRight you mean they provided inarguable examples of legal, procedural or systematic errors the trials engaged in?
Or did they just edit & omit & use dramatic music here & there?

Quote:
thus, it may be the case Avery was wrongfully convicted. You may disagree, but I do not believe the documentary goes any further than that.
Nor does it make a case for wrongful conviction, hence all their editing and omissions as it's promoting innocence fraud in order to make the film makers lots of cash & you can't engage in innocence fraud without such things, as the truth is easy to defend.



Quote:
And how do you know this?
Because 57 isn't thick & I very much doubt he meant Ms Bernstein's accusation. Bottom line he's correct when he refers to Avery as an accused rapist & molester.

Quote:
Is it a fact that these "accusations" were publicly known at the time the documentarians became interested in making the film?
They wanted to make money which is why they made the film and film it is btw it certainly isn't fatual.


Quote:
In any event, your interpretation of the quote makes no sense: the quote clearly states "rapist" which implies a conviction rather than an accusation.
No it says "accused rapist", stop selectively editing like the doco twins, it's doing you no favours.


Quote:
So, you agree Brandon Dassey was wrongfully convicted.
Nope as Dassey's guilt was also proven bard in court, guessed you must have missed his trial & Duffin Rovner et all currently vacated, nor does the appellate question his guilt but only if his confession was coerced, so it's all good in the hood, Oski.



Quote:
So, you don't agree with the film's premise.
No. .
Quote:
Obviously the filmmakers believe there are legitimate issues with the trial
Provide valid examples.
Quote:
You may hate them personally
I don't hate anyone, I simply find them contemptible for using their talent for innocence fraud.

Quote:
but I believe you will be hard-pressed to contend they did not raise some legitimate issues with:

1. The conviction against Dassey.
Such as?

Quote:
2. The means of obtaining the confession from Dassey.
Which you were unable to give specifics of, other than "universally accepted", "clearly", "obviously" and other generic hollow phrases which mean nothing.

Quote:
3. The manner of collecting trial evidence.
Such as? Please tell me you don't mean the blood vial

Quote:
4. The manner of the investigation.
You've provided zero evidence for a corrupt or irrevocably incompetent investigation. Why break a trend?

Quote:
5. The prosecutor's tactics.
Such as? You gonna whinge again about press conferences without reading the voir dire or wail how the bad old prosecutor changed his theories despite this being allowed?

Quote:
Those alone completely justify the film.
Lol no they don't just to you & your fellow kool aid guzzlers.

What are your thoughts on your fellow lawyer filing on the anniversary of Teresa's murder btw Oski? I know she can of course. You think it's particularly decent?
11-09-2017 , 05:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
1. A settlement (for $400,000, covered by insurance) where there's not even acknowledgement of any mistakes, let alone corruption, is certainly not evidence that there was corruption.

2. A much stronger argument can be made that there was negligence in the 1985 case, and that is a much more realistic factor for the defendants in choosing to settle. Other factors in choosing to settle are legal fees and closure.

3. The Wisconsin DOJ already investigated the 1985 case and found "no basis to bring criminal charges or assert ethics violations against anyone involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case".

4. If Avery's civil lawyers actually had any strong evidence of corruption, they would likely be against settling and looking for a way to support Avery through his criminal defense. Thus, their decision to settle indicates they did not have any strong evidence of corruption.
Yeah but Netflix...
11-09-2017 , 06:27 AM
Zellner seems to have a thing for deleting her tweets & she's deleted these
https://imgur.com/a/itnUY

https://imgur.com/a/KQN3G

Which is apparently a reference to this
https://i.imgur.com/dFSPTqv.png

Which appears to be a reference to this??
https://i.imgur.com/QJpzzSe.jpg

Edwards was the Keyser Soze of serial killers. Not only did he frame the poor innocent WM3 but also possibly poor innocent Scott Peterson & if that isn't impressive enough Edwards may have been the Honest to God Zodiac Killer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a6824891.html

It's a theory of a former FBI guy so must be true.

I wonder who Zellner's gonna blame next. (before she finally blames Brendan Dassey alone, when all else fails, that is...)

ETA:
Former FBI guy also thinks Edwards murdered Jon Benet Ramsey AND Jimmy Hoffa
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/rea...3fa3be08d6c093
11-09-2017 , 06:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I will have to find it but I saw an interesting breakdown of stevens phone activity with the computer activity on the day TH was murdered. It would appear the two never really seemed to correspond with each other. In other words, when avery was on the phone the computer wasn't being used and when someone was on the computer avery's phone wasn't being used.

It is possible perhaps that when avery made the appointment with AT he was at barbs desk waiting for halbach to call or leave a message and was using the computer during this time in between calls.

I also remember seeing somewhere that avery didn't have internet access for a couple months leading up to the murder at his own home.
The information I have is that Steven was looking at property for sale (remember Zander Rd address?) in the month of October just a couple of weeks before Teresa's disappearance using his computer with internet access.

The computer activity seems to go right up to the end of October with automotive related internet searches.

The problem with the notion that Steven was supposedly hanging around his neighbor's house playing on the computer while waiting for a phone call is that he was working that morning.
11-09-2017 , 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Otherwise it's just an unsubantiated claim, like much of what's in Zellner's motion, that's why. Claims require evidence to support such claims, Oski. I thought as a lawyer you'd know that...
It's pretty much a waste of time to deal with you.

But, I will simply respond in general:

You have confused the film makers and their motives (whatever such may be) with those that believe the issues they raise should be explored - such as me.

Neither party (film makers or those that are interested in the issues they raise) have a burden of proof in any court of law. At some point you have also lost sight of the fact the film makers stop short (and have plainly stated as much) of rendering an opinion as to guilt or innocence. Their goal was to raise issues and many people who viewed the doc.- many who are experienced in law, and many who are not - seem to believe these issues should be explored. In my opinion, this these issues were successfully raised.

Obviously, you don't agree. That is fine.

However, in holding that opinion, you seem oblivious to the fact other jurists handling the matter (at least in respect to Dassey) have validated the fact that at least some of these issues are real. At this point, we don't know the final result, but I believe it is simply wrong (legally and morally) to pretend "there is nothing there."

When there is "nothing there" Appellate Courts do not reverse the trial Court on non-procedural grounds.

Anyway, by your own hand, you have devalued your opinions (on this matter and in general) by being purposefully obstinate when considering views contrary to yours. You have a pat reference point which is to simply accept anything and everything done in the "name of justice" while immediately condemning anyone raising questions.

That is fine, but at least as to me, I lost that blind trust in the law enforcement sometime around middle school. I suspect most reasonably intelligent people did the same.
11-09-2017 , 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
1. A settlement (for $400,000, covered by insurance) where there's not even acknowledgement of any mistakes, let alone corruption, is certainly not evidence that there was corruption.

2. A much stronger argument can be made that there was negligence in the 1985 case, and that is a much more realistic factor for the defendants in choosing to settle. Other factors in choosing to settle are legal fees and closure.

3. The Wisconsin DOJ already investigated the 1985 case and found "no basis to bring criminal charges or assert ethics violations against anyone involved in the investigation and prosecution of this case".

4. If Avery's civil lawyers actually had any strong evidence of corruption, they would likely be against settling and looking for a way to support Avery through his criminal defense. Thus, their decision to settle indicates they did not have any strong evidence of corruption.
Nothing but predictable. At least that is something I suppose.

You rely on speculation to this, as do the rest of us. That is exactly my point, and you have missed it by a mile.

There is wide gulf between proving a matter in a court of law, and recognizing matters which may require exploring.

We do know:

S.A. sued the county and the complaint contained allegations of police corruption. If you disagree, then fine.

The county was unable to have that portion of the case dismissed by pretrial motions - either by their own decision not to pursue such a motion, or otherwise. All we know is that it was not done. There are significant protections against these types of allegations which can be pursued immediately after filing (I am unfamiliar with the exact procedure in Wisconsin, but I can safely assume it would bear resemblance to what exists in California). In response to such a motion, the Plaintiff has to essentially lay out their entire case or the case gets tossed.

Again, we know the case was not tossed.

We know there was a settlement which came on the heals of S.A.'s arrest for homicide. S.A.'s bargaining position (regardless of the merits) was drastically compromised in light of these facts - yet, the County paid a significant settlement to him.

It is my understanding you claim this settlement was recompense for the wrongful conviction - at basically full value.

I do not believe that would be accurate based on my experience with civil matters.

But, you disagree, and that is fine. However, such is beside the point - there is certainly enough with this to interest a filmmaker which is the context in which this issue is presently raised.

I do not expect you to understand that, but that is still fine by me.
11-09-2017 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
It's pretty much a waste of time to deal with you.
This.

There is no way possible anyone could review the case as much these two and be utterly convinced that SA is guilty, as fraleyight and poorskills are. There is also absolutely no reason anyone should be fighting this hard to prove their point since SA and BD are both still in jail and have been for over a decade.

Unless of course there is an ulterior motive to do so.

There is something wrong with these two accounts.
11-09-2017 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Yeah but Netflix...
...aired a documentary that showed very clearly the $400,000 settlement was taken in order to hire lawyers immediately since SA was again imprisoned by the same members of LE that were facing deposition. The original suit was for $36,000,000 with the 2 most culpable defendants on deck to be deposed. It's too bad a murder was committed days before their depositions. This is all available on Netflix btw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Yeah but Netflix...
...aired a documentary which showed very clearly that negligence was a very large factor in keeping SA imprisoned. But it went many steps further in showing that the negligence was intended, i.e. the people being deposed purposely neglected to take the necessary actions required for their jobs in order to release an innocent man. It also showed the possible motives by LE for doing so as well as the unusual connections and influence the DA had in the case. It's too bad a murder was committed days before his deposition. This is all available on Netflix btw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Yeah but Netflix...
...aired a documentary where the Wisonsin DOJ had a very unusual influence in the SA murder case, even going so far as to claim that no external investigations were required of the crime lab despite multiple eggregious ethics and procedural violations in the handling and testing of evidence in the SA case as well as many others. The documentary shows the potential for the DOJ having unwarranted influence in obtaining a conviction in the case. I think that any claims the Wis. DOJ make about the validity of the prosecution's efforts and conduct can be rendered null, as the DOJ itself is part of the many alleged corrupted parts in the sphere of influence over SA's case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Yeah but Netflix...
...aired a documentary where the settling of the $36,000,000 suit for $400,000 was clearly and ONLY done as a result of SA being imprisoned and charged with murder, thus needing money to pay for a defense. Any assumptions that the depositions did not show evidence of corruption and thus settled can easily be debunked by the fact that Wisconsin law stated that the wrongfully convicted are paid $5,000 per year with a cap of $25,000. Of course, opinions on the matter are welcome, but not relevant.

The statement "yeah but Netflix..." is a clear straw-man strategy. The medium on which the data was presented has no relevance to the facts in the case. To attempt to strengthen your own (or you shill friend's) arguments for SA's guilt by stating "yeah but Netflix..." has no significance what-so-ever.
11-09-2017 , 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
You have confused the film makers and their motives (whatever such may be) with those that believe the issues they raise should be explored - such as me.
No. I have asked you & others to provide evidence that the issues they raise should be explored. To back up this contention with something tangible. I haven't received anything tangible. Nor am I alleging that those who believe the issues should be explored (such as advocates itt) are motivated by financial gain.


Quote:
Neither party (film makers or those that are interested in the issues they raise) have a burden of proof in any court of law.
Nobody said they did & they wouldn't be able to anyway as pretty much nothing the filmmakers or advocates raised wasn't covered by the courts already, who rejected it. Why should I or anyone else entertain repetition via a different medium such as film or online threads?

Both murderers already met the burden of proof required by a court. They aren't being retired via a documentary. Nor is there any evidence to suggest anyone else but both murderers. Hence the doco twins engaging in a fraudulent narrative as there's no other way they could make a case for innocence or unfair due process.

Quote:
At some point you have also lost sight of the fact the film makers stop short (and have plainly stated as much) of rendering an opinion as to guilt or innocence.
IIRC they said it was for the courts to decide...which was given as their justification for omitting facts & evidence which strongly pointed toward guilt.

Quote:
Their goal was to raise issues
Yeah the 3 mil pad was just an added bonus eh? It's good to be a campaigner against injustice innit? How come they had to omit facts and evidence, selectively edit testimony & cast sinister intimations against a murder victim's family to raise those issues when the truth is easy to defend & doesn't require such sleazy tactics, thoughts?
^^Kinda like your bar raising for special little guys actually & again neither you, your fellow advocates or the doco twins have a case to make here if you need to resort to such things.

Quote:
and many people who viewed the doc.- many who are experienced in law, and many who are not - seem to believe these issues should be explored.
So? With nothing to support their beliefs (and yet again you've provided nothing) such beliefs can be comfortbly dismissed.

Quote:
In my opinion, this these issues were successfully raised.
No they weren't as again they had to resort to fraud in order to do it.

Quote:
Obviously, you don't agree. That is fine.

However, in holding that opinion, you seem oblivious to the fact other jurists handling the matter (at least in respect to Dassey) have validated the fact that at least some of these issues are real. At this point, we don't know the final result, but I believe it is simply wrong (legally and morally) to pretend "there is nothing there."
Who's pretending? I asked for evidence of coercion, your opinion of whose argument was more on point re the law re the 7th circuit & got nothing so I'm not interested in mere assertions. There is nothing there & it speaks volumes that you have to raise various bars & film makers need to engage in omission & selective editing in order to contend that there is something there.

Quote:
When there is "nothing there" Appellate Courts do not reverse the trial Court on non-procedural grounds.
Neither do 7th circuit courts vacate reversals of the trial courts for no reason.
The trial court verdict was reversed as Duffin & Rovner misinterpreted the facts, law & disregarded Dassey's own testimony to come to their conclusions. You've already shown yourself unwilling or unable to compare the merits of their argument with that of Hamilton's.

Quote:
Anyway, by your own hand, you have devalued your opinions (on this matter and in general) by being purposefully obstinate when considering views contrary to yours.
Again I asked you & other advocates to provide evidence for their claims. You moved the goalposts declaring that nobody was here to prove it to me when I never said otherwise. Don't blame me for your weak arguments, proactive argumentum ad hominem attacks and bar raising.

Quote:
You have a pat reference point which is to simply accept anything and everything done in the "name of justice" while immediately condemning anyone raising questions.
No I simply haven't accepted the questions they've raised as they aren't of any substance or validity. I had one guy proclaiming that a coerced confession was the same as a false confession because it was coerced ffs as well as roundly discredited pseudo scientific defence guns for hire being touted as authority.

Quote:
That is fine, but at least as to me, I lost that blind trust in the law enforcement sometime around middle school. I suspect most reasonably intelligent people did the same.
Please point out where I ever professed blind trust in LE. Or else stop making false statements.

Do you know in your entire post you still haven't provided anything of substance that would make anyone who agrees with the verdicts change their minds? Seriously. Read over it.

Now again the truth is easy to defend. So we'll see how well Rovner's arguments hold up come the 7th circuits decision.

We'll see how Zellner does with her new & improved amended motion to reconsider whatevs. (Speaking of which you never told me what you think of her filing her motion on the anniversary of Teresa's murder)

Until then nobody itt so far has made any valid case for innocence or unfair due process. Sorry you can't see that.

Last edited by corpus vile; 11-09-2017 at 05:01 PM.
11-09-2017 , 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Nothing but predictable. At least that is something I suppose.

You rely on speculation to this, as do the rest of us. That is exactly my point, and you have missed it by a mile.

There is wide gulf between proving a matter in a court of law, and recognizing matters which may require exploring.
No evidence to show that the issues raised are worth exploring

Quote:
We do know:

S.A. sued the county and the complaint contained allegations of police corruption. If you disagree, then fine.
Of which nothing was found to support such allegations, after an investigation into the matter.

Quote:
The county was unable to have that portion of the case dismissed by pretrial motions - either by their own decision not to pursue such a motion, or otherwise. All we know is that it was not done. There are significant protections against these types of allegations which can be pursued immediately after filing (I am unfamiliar with the exact procedure in Wisconsin, but I can safely assume it would bear resemblance to what exists in California). In response to such a motion, the Plaintiff has to essentially lay out their entire case or the case gets tossed.

Again, we know the case was not tossed.
Nor did the investigation find any evidence of corruption.


Quote:
We know there was a settlement which came on the heals of S.A.'s arrest for homicide. S.A.'s bargaining position (regardless of the merits) was drastically compromised in light of these facts - yet, the County paid a significant settlement to him.
Cases are settled all the time. It doesn't mean the're settled to protect corruption and certainly isn't proof.

Quote:
It is my understanding you claim this settlement was recompense for the wrongful conviction - at basically full value.

I do not believe that would be accurate based on my experience with civil matters.

But, you disagree, and that is fine. However, such is beside the point - there is certainly enough with this to interest a filmmaker which is the context in which this issue is presently raised.

I do not expect you to understand that, but that is still fine by me.
Again why all the selective editing & omissions so? If it was such an issue that was fully justified raising?
11-09-2017 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
This.

There is no way possible anyone could review the case as much these two and be utterly convinced that SA is guilty, as fraleyight and poorskills are. There is also absolutely no reason anyone should be fighting this hard to prove their point since SA and BD are both still in jail and have been for over a decade.

Unless of course there is an ulterior motive to do so.

There is something wrong with these two accounts.
You're right - corpus vile is working awfully hard for some supposedly disinterested observer.

You'll also notice he's jumping all over alleged flaws in the documentary and studiously ignoring serious ethical violations revealed by the documentary - including those cops from the department with an acknowledged conflict of interest always turning up whenever there's incriminating evidence to be found (evidence neutral cops can't seem to find), cops who coerced a so-called 'confession' from a learning disabled teen, and the drug addled prosecutor whose thigh rubbing press conference outraged legal experts for its egregious lapse of ethics.

Quote:
corpus vile:
...the truth is easy to defend & doesn't require such sleazy tactics.
The sleaze is up to the eyeballs coming from the prosecution.

But none of that matters because convictions were secured on the basis of mutually exclusive 'theories' of how the crime was supposedly committed.

The prosecution doubted their own theory, yet somehow it's crazy for anyone else to doubt it.

Last edited by proudfootz; 11-09-2017 at 05:40 PM. Reason: added quote
11-09-2017 , 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
This.

There is no way possible anyone could review the case as much these two and be utterly convinced that SA is guilty, as fraleyight and poorskills are. There is also absolutely no reason anyone should be fighting this hard to prove their point since SA and BD are both still in jail and have been for over a decade.

Unless of course there is an ulterior motive to do so.

There is something wrong with these two accounts.
Lol...
11-09-2017 , 05:40 PM
Lost,

How much do you think one of these shill accounts get paid? I am just curious about the infrastructure. Do they collect a "per post" check, or is it lump sum?
11-09-2017 , 05:47 PM
Another question, (really just trying to pick your brain here)

I have made several posts since joining this thread unrelated to avery. I have posted in the POG forum, played WW games, posted in RGT and posted in other tv threads. (in fact most of my posts are from POG) so.. Do I get paid for just the posts I make in the avery thread? And did someone locate me who has an active account and ask me to post in the avery thread or did I lease my account to a 3rd party who uses my account simultaneously with me?
11-09-2017 , 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
No. I have asked you & others to provide evidence that the issues they raise should be explored.
... and who are you to ask me to do anything? GTFO.

In any event, for demonstration purposes only, we have the issue with Dassey's "confession" which was raised in the film.

After the film, the Federal Court has ruled in Dassey's favor on the very issue raised in the film.

That is one issue that WAS raised by the film and which is currently being explored by the judicial system. You can ignore that if you please.

- So, again, GTFO. If you don't like the film, fine, go tell it to a wall. Nobody cares about your bull**** anyway.
11-09-2017 , 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Do I get paid for just the posts I make in the avery thread? And did someone locate me who has an active account and ask me to post in the avery thread or did I lease my account to a 3rd party who uses my account simultaneously with me?
Not sure, exactly.

Following your strategy, I advise anyone interested in the answers to your rhetorical questions to simply google how do paid forum shills work. It's quite simple and effective and requires far less effort than it seems.

Keep in mind, keywords must be used and there are often other duties required such as posting in off-topic discussion in the same forum to feign authenticity as well as monitoring for new posts, so that the paid shill can respond quickly, often with multiple responses in order to keep the top (or bottom) most viewed spot.

Judging from the sheer amount of companies/individuals looking to hire paid forum posters, it seems the payment methods can vary quite a bit.

paid forum poster job opportunities
11-09-2017 , 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Cases are settled all the time. It doesn't mean the're settled to protect corruption and certainly isn't proof.
Yes, especially when the validity of the lawsuit does not rely on proving corruption, which is one of several key points that Oski does not seem to understand.

The whole argument that the settlement is evidence the cops were corrupt is laughable.
11-09-2017 , 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
How much do you think one of these shill accounts get paid? I am just curious about the infrastructure. Do they collect a "per post" check, or is it lump sum?
I wonder, do shill-conspiracy theorists also think Zellner's hiring shills?

She claims to have spent over $500,000 on Avery's case, but doesn't provide a breakdown, and we know she doesn't mind wasting money on foolish endeavours such as brain fingerprinting!

Have any of the truthers here emailed Zellner to see if they can get paid for posting about the case in a poker forum?
11-10-2017 , 03:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Lol...
Yeah do you see why I have certain idiots on ignore now?
11-10-2017 , 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
... and who are you to ask me to do anything? GTFO.
No you STFU if you can't provide anything to back up your tiresome blather. This is a discussion. Either back up your burblings with something of substance or you GTFO you long winded snot nosed passive aggressive pseudo intellectual little prick

Quote:
In any event, for demonstration purposes only, we have the issue with Dassey's "confession" which was raised in the film.
Asked you a bunch of times for examples of coercion & you're still unable to provide any. Again why break a trend blowhard?

Quote:
After the film, the Federal Court has ruled in Dassey's favor on the very issue raised in the film.
This is all provisional & will go to SCOTUS either way. En banc reviews are rarely given but they certainly gave it for the prosecution due to Rovner misinterpreting the law & facts. I've asked you before & now I'm asking again- whose argument do you think will pass the smell test Rovner or Hamilton's, lawboy?

Quote:
That is one issue that WAS raised by the film and which is currently being explored by the judicial system. You can ignore that if you please.
Are you taking the piss? I asked you several times to compare the merits of the judges arguments,& for examples of coercion, you've shown yourself unwilling/unable to do so.

Quote:
- So, again, GTFO. If you don't like the film, fine, go tell it to a wall. Nobody cares about your bull**** anyway.
No you. You GTFO with your passive aggressive murderer fanboy s***e, you've shown yourself pathologically determined not to backup your points with anything tangible & to avoid the issues. Now piss off & stop proactively responding to my posts, seeing as you keep whinging what a waste of time I am.
And utter shame on you for throwing your logic out the window to cheerlead a murderer and a rapist, you shyster charlatan blowhard low life. Shame on you, a supposed lawyer raising bars for murderers & rapists you low life. You're probably pleased with Zellner filing on Teresa's anniversary hence your continued unwillingness to address it as you'd admit to it. You scumbag.
Stick me on ignore you pos got tired of your bollocks long ago.
You have nothing.

Last edited by corpus vile; 11-10-2017 at 03:56 AM.

      
m