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

11-10-2017 , 06:58 AM
It's pretty obvious to everyone that the coercion of Brendan Dassey was a serious ethical lapse. Lawyers and judges have pointed out exactly how those coaching sessions were mind ****ery of the worst kind, but corpus vile won't be convinced.

Apparently making the observation that ethical lapses on the parts of police and prosecution is 'cheerleading murder' and being a 'rapist fanboy'.

Especially ironic in since corpus vile's main hobby is watching slasher films so he can fantasize about terrorizing, raping, and murdering young women.
11-10-2017 , 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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.
He has some neck calling for others to be banned when he's behaved about two rungs up from an actual troll.
He accuses others of being obstinate as if he made some irrefutable point when in fact he's flat out refused to offer anything that would support his assertions.
He's raised various bars for rapist-murderers, tried to falsely peddle off the prosecution being allowed to change their narrative as an objective example of unfair due process or a weak case and he an actual lawyer, taking a leaf from Buting's book, who also knows better: https://twitter.com/JButing/status/927690869737746432

He has dishonestly claimed there's no evidence other than his confession against Dassey & rather than simply cite examples of coercion has told other posters to check the thread.
He has proactively engaged in argumentum ad hominem, leading to annoyed reactive replies, almost textbook trolling on his part, refusing to address the issues & deflecting onto other posters instead.

He has proclaimed several times he has no interest in discussing anything with me, yet then promptly proactively replies to my posts where he once again engages in bloviating waffle while yet again engaging in argumentum ad hominem & yet again refusing to back up his position with specifics to support it.
This isn't even including his jaw droppingly stupid claim that a settlement is actual fuhreelz proof of corrupt LE.

Neither he or the rest of his fellow advocates have made the slightest case for justifying a biased exercise in propaganda pathetic excuse for a documentary, or unfair due process or innocence.
All they've done is conflated their personal burden of proof criteria with the standard criteria & raised bars.
They have no case here, they wouldn't need to engage in such tiresome fallacious crap if they did.

Last edited by corpus vile; 11-10-2017 at 07:37 AM.
11-10-2017 , 07:50 AM
With regard to Dassey, here's the decision handed down from US Magistrate Judge William Duffin's opinion:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lega...nd%20Order.pdf

Corpus vile doesn't seem to have read it - full of examples and law that illustrates how as a legal matter Brendan was coerced:

"Dassey's confession was, as a practical matter, the entirety of the case against him on each of the three counts. Based on its review of the record, the court acknowledges significant doubts as to the reliability of Dassey's confession."

It turns out corpus vile has blatantly lied when he wrote Oski 'dishonestly claimed there's no evidence other than his confession against Dassey.'

Perhaps corpus should stick to masturbating to torture porn films and keep out of real life matters.
11-10-2017 , 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
He has some neck calling for others to be banned when he's behaved about two rungs up from an actual troll.
He accuses others of being obstinate as if he made some irrefutable point when in fact he's flat out refused to offer anything that would support his assertions.
His knowledge about the case consists entirely of watching the Netflix series and reading a few truther posts, and he's proud of this fact.

He's also one of the kook's who thinks we're "astroturfers".

Best to just ignore him.
11-10-2017 , 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
His knowledge about the case consists entirely of watching the Netflix series and reading a few truther posts, and he's proud of this fact.

He's also one of the kook's who thinks we're "astroturfers".

Best to just ignore him.
The alternative to being an astroturfer is that you are deranged idiots. No sane person would dedicate this much effort and time to attempting to prove a documentary wrong when the results already favor your side.

I am not calling you a deranged, idiotic moron. I am calling you an astroturfer.
11-10-2017 , 02:18 PM
A lot of strange comments this morning. I will just ignore most of it.

1. First of all, as an open challenge, please find any post of mine where I am advocating S.A.'s innocence. I can save you the trouble - there are none. Based on the film, I believe the prosecution and investigators abused the system which is designed to protect and promote justice.

So, again, I agree with the Documentary's premise that these irregularities in the process of this case should be explored.

2. At least in one respect, the Documentary has identified an issue of genuine concern and we are seeing it played out in the Appellate Courts. This is the issue of Dassey's confession.

In order to recognize that such is an ongoing, legitimate issue, one does not have to produce a doctoral dissertation on the merits of the case. We can simply observe: a. The Documentary raised the issue; and b. The Courts are still working through the issue.

3. If that alone is not justification for the documentary, then I don't know what is. The Documentary accomplished exactly what it set out to accomplish, and the Court's further treatment of issues raised by the documentary validates this point.

4. Further: If one is to believe that the documentary slandered Kratz, et al. they should be very happy the filmmakers made a lot of money from the project. Now, we can see if Kratz and co. decide to file a defamation lawsuit. Indeed, if they were defamed, they have a pocket from which to collect.

Yet, the fact there has been no lawsuit filed against the filmmakers is telling - there are no grounds for a defamation suit, or at least that is the most reasonable conclusion one can draw from that.

Accordingly, stating the film is "propaganda" and "full of lies," etc., does not really carry much weight. I can appreciate that one may genuinely feel that way about the film, but understand, that is not a very compelling point to sway opinion.

One can rely on the fact "justice is blind," and it is. However, reaching "justice" is a human endeavor which, by its nature, is fallible. I believe it is quite a disservice to lump all cases such as this as a collateral attack on the victims of the underlying crimes and paint with such broad strokes.

It would be a shame to stop questioning these human endeavors especially when another's freedom is at stake. If that person deserves to lose his or her freedom, that is one thing, but having it lost because of a result contrary to the process is another. The system that decides such has to be trustworthy all the way from its form to it execution. It is not a proper system if one or more parties wield to the power to decide guilt or innocence outside of the process.

Here, it seems a lot of "liberties" were taken with the process (as set forth in the Documentary and as currently being considered at the Appellate level) and we all deserve to have it investigated.

Why anyone would get so upset by that simple premise is beyond me.
11-10-2017 , 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
This isn't even including his jaw droppingly stupid claim that a settlement is actual fuhreelz proof of corrupt LE.
.
This is a rather blatant misrepresentation.

Again, the question raised was whether there was a justification for the film beyond financial gain for the filmmakers. If you don't agree, then look back a page or so.

One poster mentioned the topic of the wrongful rape conviction and police corruption. That poster seems correct that those are the broad issues which interested the filmmakers.

In response (for some reason) you demanded proof of the wrongful conviction (for the murder, not the rape) as well as proof of police corruption.

I raised the point that the County paid a significant sum to settle S.A.'s civil case even though S.A. was heavily leveraged. I further explained that such is not proof for a court of law, but enough to raise an issue meriting exploration by the filmmakers (should that be something of interest to them - and it was).

I further pointed out that if the settlement was to represent only a wrongful conviction, that the settlement amount exceeded that particular aspect of the claim. It would be a very unusual case where a defendant settles a case for more than it is objectively worth.

Accordingly, the only reasonable conclusion is that the settlement reached other aspects of the case - which had to do with corruption, etc.

You disagree, for sure. Yet, you provide nothing to support your claim about what the settlement represents. So, that is fine, just appreciate that people far more experienced than you and who can actually dissect the elements of this particular issue have spoken - and they do not agree with you. So, your position is not going to be persuasive to those demanding more than belligerent name calling.

Beyond that, I simply ask why should it be necessary for anyone, let alone a poster on this board, to produce "proof" of the underlying case when "justification" or "motivation" for the film is the issue. The movie was designed to explore those issues and that is what it did. The movie did not attempt to prove anything other than that there were some apparent irregularities in this case.

Now, it has been an ongoing theme of yours in this thread about the film to demand anyone that agrees with the film's premise to prove the underlying case. I find that ridiculous. The film does not attempt to prove the underlying case, it merely raises issues. I do not believe the filmmakers ever lost sight of the fact they are not lawyers presenting their case in court.

Yet, speaking of "raising burdens, etc." you demand that not only the filmmakers, but the viewers themselves, to prove matters which the film does not seek to prove.

Why?

Beyond that, your entire approach is nonsensical. If the Documentary had no validity whatsoever to the point that there was no justification for it ever being made, why is the Court of Appeal handling one of the issues raised?

Why is the Court of Appeal now hearing an appeal from THE STATE to overturn a ruling in Dassey's favor on an issue raised by the film?

No matter how the Court eventually rules on that issue, the fact remains that the film raised at least one legitimate issue - which is not just important to Dassey, but to the general population as well.

You can blow as much hot air and make as many childish demands as you please, but most of us are simply waiting to see how this is handled by the Appellate Court.
11-10-2017 , 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
His knowledge about the case consists entirely of watching the Netflix series and reading a few truther posts, and he's proud of this fact.

He's also one of the kook's who thinks we're "astroturfers".

Best to just ignore him.
I don't care who is, or is not, an astroturfer. At the end of the day, whatever is said in this thread, will not affect the end-result. The case is ongoing and the end result will speak much louder to the public than anything stated here.

I do find it extraordinary that in response to being called a "shill" Fraley (with support from others advocating the same position as him), claimed the entire idea of an internet posting shill is ridiculous. He went to great lengths to argue that it is an absurd premise.

Yet, without any apparent effort, Lost in the Sauce, posted a lengthy list of "job openings" for internet shills. Was that surprising? Not at all. Just about anyone that has any familiarity with the internet (and is remotely aware) knows about astroturfers.

Yet, Fraley's move was to deny the entire existence of such. I find that very strange. That astroturfers exist is an irrefutable point, yet when accused of being one, Fraley argues (with a straight face, I assume) that he can't be an astroturfer because there is not such thing to begin with.

Okay.

The lady doth protest to much - and all that.
11-10-2017 , 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
1. First of all, as an open challenge, please find any post of mine where I am advocating S.A.'s innocence. I can save you the trouble - there are none. Based on the film, I believe the prosecution and investigators abused the system which is designed to protect and promote justice.
A few Oskisms:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I believe evidence was planted; I believe the kid was cooerced.

I don't think SA killed her.

I think the Bobby and Step dad scenario makes sense (but not that there was active collusion between them and the county - passive, morelike).

Also, I would have liked to have known who was stalking the victim with harassing phone calls. That fact could still be discovered through phone records.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
The real issue we are discussing is "based on the documentary, what are your thoughts?"

Well, one of my opinions from the documentary is that SA did not kill Teresa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Here is my guess (I will keep it brief for now):

Ryan killed T.H and was basically caught red-handed by Colburn or someone working for Colburn.

Colburn hatched the idea that this was a lottery ticket if they could pin this on Avery. Colburn discusses this with Lenk and they make Ryan an offer he can't refuse.

So, the three of them work to pin this on Avery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I heard the locals call Lenk and Colborn, "Siegfried and Roy."

They made a $35,000,000 lawsuit disappear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Right, because in small-community police forces with entrenched elected prosecutors it's every man for himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
3. I believe Lenk was deposed and based on his answers there was a strong indication he would be added to the lawsuit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I am confident Zellner will find a way to win Steve's case.

As I have stated before, as I have not done any research into this case, I do not hold an opinion as to whether he did it, but based only on the show, I believe there is reasonable doubt - especially since criticisms of the show (Katz' list of omitted "evidence") have proven to be weak.

However, given how brash Zellner has been, I am sure she believes she has a strong case and will be travelling a road she's familiar with. Strong facts, good law, and ample experience with that particular area of law allow attorneys like Zellner to make such certain statements when they are warranted.

I cannot believe Zellner is going to risk falling on her face in front of the world for Steve Avery. She is a very accomplished attorney, she does not need to shill for publicity. Therefore, I believe she is going hard in the paint here because she believes she will back it up. I have no reason to doubt her.
11-10-2017 , 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
A few Oskisms:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski View Post
I am confident Zellner will find a way to win Steve's case.

As I have stated before, as I have not done any research into this case, I do not hold an opinion as to whether he did it, but based only on the show, I believe there is reasonable doubt - especially since criticisms of the show (Katz' list of omitted "evidence") have proven to be weak.

However, given how brash Zellner has been, I am sure she believes she has a strong case and will be travelling a road she's familiar with. Strong facts, good law, and ample experience with that particular area of law allow attorneys like Zellner to make such certain statements when they are warranted.

I cannot believe Zellner is going to risk falling on her face in front of the world for Steve Avery. She is a very accomplished attorney, she does not need to shill for publicity. Therefore, I believe she is going hard in the paint here because she believes she will back it up. I have no reason to doubt her.
Try harder.

Beyond that, quotes out of context are not very compelling. Even in the "cherry picked" portions, I clearly state my opinion as based on the Documentary - which is what this thread is about.

Yet, I am not surprised that it is beyond you to appreciate the difference between stating an opinion and advocating a legal position.
11-10-2017 , 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Try harder.

Beyond that, quotes out of context are not very compelling. Even in the "cherry picked" portions, I clearly state my opinion as based on the Documentary - which is what this thread is about.

Yet, I am not surprised that it is beyond you to appreciate the difference between stating an opinion and advocating a legal position.
"Advocate"

verb (used with object), advocated, advocating.
1.
to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly:

noun
3.
a person who speaks or writes in support or defense of a person, cause, etc.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/advocating


Oski publicly writes in support or defense of Steven Avery and his factual/legal innocence.

That his opinions are acknowledged as solely based on a Netflix series is not significant since he treats the show as gospel. So far, the fact that Oski's opinions are based almost entirely on the show has not stopped him from accusing cops and prosecution of being corrupt to the point of framing someone of murder and arguing about the case with and insulting people who claim Steven is guilty (even accusing them of being paid shills!).

Oski, if you can just admit that because your knowledge is only based on the show, that your opinions on Steven's factual/legal innocence are worthless, we can consider this argument settled.


Bonus Oskism:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I can't believe even one person would be so invested in the opinion that SA killed TH, when there is not even a ****ing competent narrative out there.
11-10-2017 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Oski, if you can just admit that because your knowledge is only based on the show, that your opinions on Steven's factual/legal innocence are worthless, we can consider this argument settled.
You mean like this, dip****?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski View Post
I am confident Zellner will find a way to win Steve's case.

As I have stated before, as I have not done any research into this case, I do not hold an opinion as to whether he did it, but based only on the show, I believe there is reasonable doubt - especially since criticisms of the show (Katz' list of omitted "evidence") have proven to be weak.

However, given how brash Zellner has been, I am sure she believes she has a strong case and will be travelling a road she's familiar with. Strong facts, good law, and ample experience with that particular area of law allow attorneys like Zellner to make such certain statements when they are warranted.

I cannot believe Zellner is going to risk falling on her face in front of the world for Steve Avery. She is a very accomplished attorney, she does not need to shill for publicity. Therefore, I believe she is going hard in the paint here because she believes she will back it up. I have no reason to doubt her.
As far as "Steven's factual/legal innocence" is concerned, I have not stated anything beyond that whatever opinions I hold are based on the show. Also, I suppose it has to be spelled out for you, my impressions from the film are also supported by my experience in, and studies of, the legal field. But as for having "case specific knowledge" such comes from the show, and subsequently from what is reported about the Appellate proceedings (including a review of the opinions).

Last edited by Oski; 11-10-2017 at 05:46 PM.
11-10-2017 , 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer

Bonus Oskism: I can't believe even one person would be so invested in the opinion that SA killed TH, when there is not even a ****ing competent narrative out there.
Also, and once again, I take issue with your intellectual dishonesty of providing only portions of quotes and presenting them out-of-context.

Why not post the entire quote of the "Bonus Oskism?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
If people are doing "countless hours" of research in here, I suggest they are woefully deficient at it. - especially those arguing SA killed TH.

I'm not a puppet at all. Do you accuse a jury of being puppets? All they did is evaluate evidence and hear argument

As a person undecided, in a place where two groups of people are arguing opposite sides, may I not be afforded the indulgence of allowing myself to be pursuaded?

If you are trying to pursuaded me or anyone here, you are doing a profoundly poor job. Poorskillz is doing a crap job. So is Fraley, Fruit Snake, and the other yes man.

I would hope to see someone present at least something compelling in favor od the prosecution. I recognize that arguing the trials were fair is an impossible task - but, how about a logical narrative of the killing that remotely meets the evidence. Where the **** is that?

I can't believe even one person would be so invested in the opinion that SA killed TH, when there is not even a ****ing competent narrative out there.

And you with your "bad character" evidence. What the hell are you proving with that? Come on man! Get in the game and give us some of the secret facts that have convinced you SA is a killer.
Wait, I guess you don't need to answer - your dishonesty is obvious.
11-10-2017 , 06:07 PM
Quote:
I do find it extraordinary that in response to being called a "shill" Fraley (with support from others advocating the same position as him), claimed the entire idea of an internet posting shill is ridiculous. He went to great lengths to argue that it is an absurd premise.

Yet, without any apparent effort, Lost in the Sauce, posted a lengthy list of "job openings" for internet shills. Was that surprising? Not at all. Just about anyone that has any familiarity with the internet (and is remotely aware) knows about astroturfers.

Yet, Fraley's move was to deny the entire existence of such. I find that very strange. That astroturfers exist is an irrefutable point, yet when accused of being one, Fraley argues (with a straight face, I assume) that he can't be an astroturfer because there is not such thing to begin with.

Okay.
There is a bit of an equivocation fallacy going on here because when Lost was talking about "shills" He was referring to people that are paid by some big government agency to apologize for the government. Or paid to apologize at all if we want to be generous to what he was implying.

Of course people are paid to post links on forums, or try and direct traffic to different websites or pyramid scams. That isn't the same thing as being paid to post on a forum about someone elses opinion.

As you notice the overwhelming majority of paying gigs in that link are people asking others to direct traffic to a website. You may also notice there are 0 posts asking people to post in defense or in attack of avery. If you read further, you may have also noticed when asked for proof that people were paid to do this specifically (post on forums bashing avery or sticking up for the state of wisconsin) a claim made directly by lost, all he was able to provide is a link from a sheriff consulting people on how to handle damage control from the media.
11-10-2017 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I don't care who is, or is not, an astroturfer. At the end of the day, whatever is said in this thread, will not affect the end-result. The case is ongoing and the end result will speak much louder to the public than anything stated here.

I do find it extraordinary that in response to being called a "shill" Fraley (with support from others advocating the same position as him), claimed the entire idea of an internet posting shill is ridiculous. He went to great lengths to argue that it is an absurd premise.

Yet, without any apparent effort, Lost in the Sauce, posted a lengthy list of "job openings" for internet shills. Was that surprising? Not at all. Just about anyone that has any familiarity with the internet (and is remotely aware) knows about astroturfers.

Yet, Fraley's move was to deny the entire existence of such. I find that very strange. That astroturfers exist is an irrefutable point, yet when accused of being one, Fraley argues (with a straight face, I assume) that he can't be an astroturfer because there is not such thing to begin with.

Okay.

The lady doth protest to much - and all that.
That is one of the tells: those advocating for Steven's guilt in crimes against Teresa seem to insist on an 'all or nothing' approach.

Corpus vile insists that 'no evidence' has been presented indicating Brendan was coerced, when in fact many instances from the coaching sessions with police have been quoted as evidence.

These people also claim that 'no evidence' has been cited of police corruption, when in fact many facts have been pointed out as possible evidence of bad faith in this case.

Such absolutism seems to indicate that they can't admit there is evidence on both sides and that the case isn't as easy as they wish it was. So to avoid the doubt any sensible person would realize is inevitable regarding a criminal case like this they have to pretend all the evidence is on the side they prefer.
11-10-2017 , 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Why not post the entire quote of the "Bonus Oskism?"
There is nothing intellectually dishonest in my reasons. Your posts are often long-winded rants, and I select the relevant excerpt.

Nevertheless, some of the quotes I've provided are the full versions, and there are plenty more like them. For instance, here is a full quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
And yet when YOU try to convince us SA and BD are murderers based on those sham trials, we just laugh at you.

Your consistent defending of Steven's factual and/or legal innocence ITT (such as in the quote above, stating unequivocally that the trials were "shams"*) is proof that you are, by definition, "advocating S.A.'s innocence". That is what I sought out to prove, and I have.


Quote:
You mean like this, dip****?
Given numerous posts ITT like the one above about "sham trials" I didn't consider that an admission that "because your knowledge is only based on the show, that your opinions on Steven's factual/legal innocence are worthless", but I'm glad that you consider it to be and that we can now agree that "because your knowledge is only based on the show, that your opinions on Steven's factual/legal innocence are worthless."

I would think that in addition to agreeing that:
  • your opinion about Steven's trial being a sham is worthless* as your knowledge of the case is based almost entirely on watching the Netflix advocacy piece;

  • your opinion that Steven is factually and/or legally innocent is worthless as your knowledge of the case is based almost entirely on watching the Netflix advocacy piece.

we could also agree that:
  • your opinion about any cops being corrupt is worthless as your knowledge of the case is based almost entirely on watching the Netflix advocacy piece and not on any actual evidence of corruption (no, the settlement of a lawsuit where the scope goes beyond corruption is not evidence of corruption);

  • your opinion about Ryan, Bobby, Scott, etc. being factually guilty of anything case-related is worthless as your knowledge of the case is based almost entirely on watching the Netflix advocacy piece and not on any actual evidence.

Now that we've reached an agreement, I'll go back to ignoring you and enjoy my weekend.



* If Steven's trial was a sham, then he is legally innocent,
therefore an opinion about the trial being a sham is an opinion that Steven Avery is legally innocent,
therefore if your opinion that Steven Avery is legally innocent is worthless, then your opinion about the trial being a sham is worthless as well.
11-11-2017 , 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
A lot of strange comments this morning. I will just ignore most of it.
Yeah that's all you do, refuse to support your claims or address issues, it's why I accurately said you're two rungs up from a troll at this stage.

You'e droned on about "issues" you feel shoud be explored yet when questioned about them you declare it's a waste of time & say you'll only answer genrally then you ask who are others to ask you anything as if you're the pope.
Quote:
. First of all, as an open challenge, please find any post of mine where I am advocating S.A.'s innocence. I can save you the trouble - there are none. Based on the film, I believe the prosecution and investigators abused the system which is designed to protect and promote justice.
You have failed to provide any evidence of this. When challenged you run away or just bluster. It's why you're a quasi troll.

Quote:
So, again, I agree with the Documentary's premise that these irregularities in the process of this case should be explored.
What "irregularities"? You're great at making claims piss poor at supporting them or even engaging in specifics.
Provide evidence of abuses or a corrupt investigation. Or you gonna bluster some more?

Quote:
2. At least in one respect, the Documentary has identified an issue of genuine concern and we are seeing it played out in the Appellate Courts. This is the issue of Dassey's confession.
Provide evidence of coercion interrogation page numbers will be great thanks.
Justify Rovner's argument.
Explain how she's more on point re the law.
Opine whose argument will hold, majority's or Hamilton's & also explain why.
Since it's such a truism like.


Quote:
In order to recognize that such is an ongoing, legitimate issue, one does not have to produce a doctoral dissertation on the merits of the case.
You mean you can't back up your waffle.


Quote:
We can simply observe: a. The Documentary raised the issue; and
No it didn't it. It may have influenced certain judges with its fraudulent narrative but that isn't the same as legitimately raising an issue. You're simply to thick to realise this.

Quote:
b. The Courts are still working through the issue.
You said you were convinced by Rovner's argument. Will she be upheld or reversed?

Quote:
3. If that alone is not justification for the documentary, then I don't know what is.
So again why omit & selectively edit so? If it's so justifiable? You gonna answer or bluster some more?

Quote:
The Documentary accomplished exactly what it set out to accomplish,
I know hence their new 3 mil pad.

Quote:
and the Court's further treatment of issues raised by the documentary validates this point.
You mean Rovner vacated & en banc granted? Again whose argument is gonna pass the Pepsi challenge lawboy?

Quote:
4. Further: If one is to believe that the documentary slandered Kratz, et al. they should be very happy the filmmakers made a lot of money from the project. Now, we can see if Kratz and co. decide to file a defamation lawsuit. Indeed, if they were defamed, they have a pocket from which to collect.
I don't give a rat's ass about the prosecutor unlike murderer groupies everywhere in more than one case...

Quote:
Yet, the fact there has been no lawsuit filed against the filmmakers is telling - there are no grounds for a defamation suit, or at least that is the most reasonable conclusion one can draw from that.
So? Neither was there against Paradise Lost or Amanda Knox documentary, both were still bs.


Quote:
Accordingly, stating the film is "propaganda" and "full of lies," etc., does not really carry much weight. I can appreciate that one may genuinely feel that way about the film, but understand, that is not a very compelling point to sway opinion.
Links were already provided itt deconstructing the narrative.


Your next two paragraphs superfluous waffle so ignored.

Quote:
, it seems a lot of "liberties" were taken with the process (as set forth in the Documentary and as currently being considered at the Appellate level) and we all deserve to have it investigated.

Why anyone would get so upset by that simple premise is beyond me.
.
Such as? You're great at claiming this but when it comes to specifying and discussing you get all blustery as usual.
11-11-2017 , 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski View Post
Here is my guess (I will keep it brief for now):

Ryan killed T.H and was basically caught red-handed by Colburn or someone working for Colburn.

Colburn hatched the idea that this was a lottery ticket if they could pin this on Avery. Colburn discusses this with Lenk and they make Ryan an offer he can't refuse.

So, the three of them work to pin this on Avery.
So now he's engaging in victim denigration to go with the standard murderer groupie trope of multiple courts of law rejected for special little guys like Avery & Dassey (while never specifying with validity how the court erred, mind) while sleazy innuendo & scurrilous speculation is a-okay for innocent victims like RH, for whom no evidence exists to even arrest, never mind arrest, charge try & convict like it did for Oski's special little guys.

Utterly despicable and utter shame on him.
11-11-2017 , 04:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
This is a rather blatant misrepresentation.
No it isn't stop lying here's what I said:
Quote:
Provide evidence Avery was wrongfully convicted of rape due to "corrupt cops".
To which you replied:
Quote:
The legal settlement.

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.

Obviously, that fact alone is not enough to establish this point in a court of law, but it certainly is enough to raise the issue for discussion, or dare I say, a documentary.
So again stop lying Pinocchio


Quote:
Again, the question raised was whether there was a justification for the film beyond financial gain for the filmmakers. If you don't agree, then look back a page or so.
Which you failed miserably to provide examples of and when asked proclaimed you were only gonna respond generally.(as you're unable to justify the doc).
Why did they falsely intimate the blood vial was tampered with and edit out key parts of testimony & statements? If it was all so justified?

Quote:
One poster mentioned the topic of the wrongful rape conviction and police corruption. That poster seems correct that those are the broad issues which interested the filmmakers.
Provide evidence his wrongful conviction for rape was due to corrupt LE...whenever you're ready & yet again remember that the truth is easy to defend...

Quote:
In response (for some reason) you demanded proof of the wrongful conviction (for the murder, not the rape) as well as proof of police corruption.
Again here's what I said:
Quote:
Provide evidence Avery was wrongfully convicted of rape due to "corrupt cops".
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=11137

I asked for proof he was wrongfully convicted of murder full stop, not wrongfully convicted due to corrupt LE only.

Quote:
I raised the point that the County paid a significant sum to settle S.A.'s civil case even though S.A. was heavily leveraged. I further explained that such is not proof for a court of law, but enough to raise an issue meriting exploration by the filmmakers (should that be something of interest to them - and it was).
Which was already counterpointed. Cases are settled all the time provide evidence it was settled to protect corrupt LE & explain why the investigation uncovered none of this.Provide evidence he was wrongfully convicted of rape due to corrupt LR. Was Ms Beernstein in on this conspiracy too?

Quote:
I further pointed out that if the settlement was to represent only a wrongful conviction, that the settlement amount exceeded that particular aspect of the claim. It would be a very unusual case where a defendant settles a case for more than it is objectively worth.
Why did his lawyers settle and why was no evidence of corruption found by the investigation? Are they in on the conspiracy too? (are you listening to yourself here btw??)

Quote:
Accordingly, the only reasonable conclusion is that the settlement reached other aspects of the case - which had to do with corruption, etc.
Great provide the evidence so.

Quote:
You disagree, for sure. Yet, you provide nothing to support your claim about what the settlement represents
I havem't commented on it other than to accurately state that cases are settled all the tie outa court and have asked you to provide evidence that his wrongful conviction was due to corrupt LE. (Which btw I'm still waiting for but am admittedly expecting yet more bluster from you that you don't have to prove to me and who am I to ask you and to gtfo whinge wail bluster yawn...)

.
Quote:
So, that is fine, just appreciate that people far more experienced than you and who can actually dissect the elements of this particular issue have spoken
Not interested in your argument for authority any more than I was interested in Loudfootz argument for Ofshe. Can you provide this evidence for corruption & specifics of how the doco Twins justified their Triumph of the Will style exercise in shilling for bad people or not?

Quote:
So, your position is not going to be persuasive to those demanding more than belligerent name calling.
My name calling to you was reactive in response to your proactive engagement in argumentum ad hominem & your generally and again proactively obnoxious attitude with me & I treat people as I find them anyway, particularly those who engage in victim bashing like you have with Ms Halbach's ex. So quit yer whinging, you should be banned for your attacks on RH & I'm personally gonna do my own exploring to see if your comments are even legal and covered under freedom of speech. If they are then fair enough but if they aren't I'll be contacting LE myself.

Quote:
Beyond that, I simply ask why should it be necessary for anyone, let alone a poster on this board, to produce "proof" of the underlying case when "justification" or "motivation" for the film is the issue.
Right so iow you've nothing have you? Not a sausage.


Quote:
The movie was designed to explore those issues and that is what it did. The movie did not attempt to prove anything other than that there were some apparent irregularities in this case.
What issues? There y'go getting all vague again. Elaborate & justify thanks ever so much. Explain the editing and omissions since it's all so justifiable.

Quote:
Now, it has been an ongoing theme of yours in this thread about the film to demand anyone that agrees with the film's premise to prove the underlying case.
One who asserts or claims must prove or support one's claims otherwise they're just whacky claims which can be dismissed...see how that works?(Honest question btw are you really a lawyer? You're not one of those internet oddballs who makes their profession up to try impress strangers on the internet by any chance are you?)

Quote:
I find that ridiculous
You also find it acceptable to deem innuendo okay for victims to the point where you can accuse them of murder, despite no evidence to even arrest them so nobody sane cares what you find ridiculous and again shame on you, you callous morally barren person.

Quote:
The film does not attempt to prove the underlying case, it merely raises issues. I do not believe the filmmakers ever lost sight of the fact they are not lawyers presenting their case in court.
No it doesn't raise issues as real issues don't need fraudulent tactics to raise them. Truth speaks for itself.

Quote:
Yet, speaking of "raising burdens, etc." you demand that not only the filmmakers, but the viewers themselves, to prove matters which the film does not seek to prove.

Why?
Stop lying I've asked for proof of the claims made itt & so far have gotten deafening silence punctuated by the occasional cricket. I'm not expecting any trends to be broken in this regard any time soon as you people have nothing anyway, hence your chagrin & proactive argumentum ad hominem when normal people don't buy into your kool aid peddling. It's been utterly consistent from you Loudz, Saucy & the rest of your fellow murderer groupies

Quote:
Beyond that, your entire approach is nonsensical.
Yeah I get that you think that agreeing with the established judicial facts and disregarding a biased fraudulent documentary is "nonsensical". It's one of the reasons I'm asking if you're a fuhreelz lawyer.

Quote:
If the Documentary had no validity whatsoever to the point that there was no justification for it ever being made, why is the Court of Appeal handling one of the issues raised?
Gosh cuz maybe Duffin & Rovner really dig Netflix? And maybe they were influenced by it hence their specious arguments which will most likely be reversed, hence the en banc review as all the actual serious judges went "WTF are these effin serious with this bs?!"
Whaddya reckon Oski?
Besides if I'm to use the logic of you murderer groupies all I have to say is "well hey courts get it wrong dontcha know so Duffin & Rovner got it wrong, the end".
Luckily though I don't use that type of logic (thank Christ)


Quote:
Why is the Court of Appeal now hearing an appeal from THE STATE to overturn a ruling in Dassey's favor on an issue raised by the film?
Already answered. Whose argument is more compelling & on point re the law Oski? Rovner or Hamilton's? I keep asking you this. You keep refusing to address it. Why?

Quote:
No matter how the Court eventually rules on that issue, the fact remains that the film raised at least one legitimate issue - which is not just important to Dassey, but to the general population as well.
No it didn't as neither it, you or indeed Duffin or Rovner were able to highlight any specific instances of coercion hence their laughable totality argument, hence my optimism they're gonna be reversed.
Do you think they'll be reversed?Or upheld? If so why? Specifically?



Quote:
You can blow as much hot air
Stop projecting

Quote:
and make as many childish demands as you please,
No. Asking for proof to support your spurious claims is not a childish demand, you effin lunatic...guess why??

Quote:
but most of us are simply waiting to see how this is handled by the Appellate Court.
Seems to me most of you only care about the [verdict actually even though you can't justify it. You refuse to discuss Rovner/Hamilton so clearly aren't willing to justify your stance.
Courts rejected when you please yet slavishly deferred to when you get the outcome you want with refusal to discuss specifics or merits when challenged.

You're fooling nobody & again shame on your for you victim denigration. I thought you were a decent human being when I saw you speak up for Meredith Kercher, another innocent victim. Yet you've shown yourself to be just another groupie with your despicable attacks on RH. Utter shame on you. Again I'll be doing my own research to see if you're covered by freedom of speech. And if not again I'll be contacting LE myself. Shame on you.

Last edited by corpus vile; 11-11-2017 at 04:53 AM.
11-11-2017 , 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Try harder.

Beyond that, quotes out of context are not very compelling. Even in the "cherry picked" portions, I clearly state my opinion as based on the Documentary - which is what this thread is about.

Yet, I am not surprised that it is beyond you to appreciate the difference between stating an opinion and advocating a legal position.
If you're basing anything you say on a documentary then everything you say can be ignored/dismissed.
11-11-2017 , 04:54 AM
I would like to respectfully request to the moderators that they do not permit attacks on a murder victim,her family or friends itt. I don't know if there have been attacks on the victim or her family (such as her brother) but there have been attacks on people such as the murder victim's ex boyfriend.

He has been subjected to scurrilous accusation for which not a scintilla of evidence exists to even arrest him on. It is for this reason that I respectfully make my request & and equally respectfully suggest that potential legal issues/ramifications be considered as making such accusations in the absence of any evidence at all whatsoever could potentially have consequences.

I also respectfully ask those in this thread to behave like decent human beings and stop showing inconsistent reasoning where mere innuendo is sufficient for those who have suffered the loss of a friend through brutal murder.
Be respectful and be decent please.

Cheers.
11-11-2017 , 06:58 AM
Wow! corpus vile quintuples down on false claim there 'isn't a scintilla of evidence' in a complex case where there actually is evidence that indicates a lot of possible scenarios and possible perpetrators.


As an example of how dubious the police investigation was we only need observe how they had to coerce incriminating statements out of a leaning disabled teen.

As an example of how cautious we should be about this case is that the prosecution doubted their own 'theory' of the crime and proposed two mutually exclusive scenarios.

Then corpus vile is reduced to claiming a magistrate judge who upheld Brendan Dassey's habeas corpus filing 'must have been a Netflix fan' since corpus can't argue on the facts or on the legal issues.
11-11-2017 , 09:23 AM
Let's get a couple of points straight - 1. No one in a position of authority cares what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about the Avery case. 2. Even if there are people who have a stake in shifting public opinion around the Avery case, they wouldn't go about it by paying people to post in random internet forums.

If you don't have the common sense to understand these two points, then it's a pretty safe bet that your opinion on the Avery case (and probably any other matter requiring a modest amount of critical thinking) is worthless.
11-11-2017 , 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
There is nothing intellectually dishonest in my reasons. Your posts are often long-winded rants, and I select the relevant excerpt.
Inorite? He's like that strange rambling old dude from that film where Keanu Reeves was stuck inside that fake real life thingy, just drones on & on & then on some more while never actually saying anything...
Keanu nails it when he says "You haven't answered my question" & the old rambling dude smirks "I know"

11-11-2017 , 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
they wouldn't go about it by paying people to post in random internet forums.

...umm

Paying People to Post in Random Internet Forums

      
m