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

11-11-2017 , 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I scanned those links and I didn't see anything even tangentially related to the Avery case.

Obviously some businesses and government agencies monitor internet activity, including forum posts, connected to their areas of concern. For instance, this being a poker forum, Party Poker and Pokerstars have people on staff who monitor it and who will respond to posts in certain situations.

This is completely different than what you are alleging - that someone in the Wisconsin government or the Manitowoc Prosecutor's office or whatever is paying people to monitor and respond to posts in this thread. The fact that you don't understand the difference confirms that your opinion on any matter requiring a moderate level of critical thinking is worthless.
11-11-2017 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Do you know what gish galloping is? None of those examples are comparable to what you are talking about and the closest examples on that page are few in number.
11-11-2017 , 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
I scanned those links and I didn't see anything even tangentially related to the Avery case.

Obviously some businesses and government agencies monitor internet activity, including forum posts, connected to their areas of concern. For instance, this being a poker forum, Party Poker and Pokerstars have people on staff who monitor it and who will respond to posts in certain situations.

This is completely different than what you are alleging - that someone in the Wisconsin government or the Manitowoc Prosecutor's office or whatever is paying people to monitor and respond to posts in this thread. The fact that you don't understand the difference confirms that your opinion on any matter requiring a moderate level of critical thinking is worthless.
Pretty amazing he thinks these are the same thing. Even if there were a few anecdotal examples that are comparable to what we are talking about he takes it a step further and concludes that since it has happened before it must be happening now.

How would this look logically? Could I say this:

1)When people post on forums they lie
2)lost in the sauce is posting on a forum

Conclusion: Lost in the sauce is lying

Evidence for p1: anecdotal examples of people lying on forums.
11-11-2017 , 02:10 PM
lkasigh,

astroturfing is real.
11-11-2017 , 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
lkasigh,

astroturfing is real.
I'm not saying it's not a thing - I've lived in Russia, I've worked for restaurants whose staff post fake reviews. I know some businesses sponsor grass-roots advocacy groups and this can lead to blurred ethical lines.

It happens, but nothing of the sort is going on in this thread.
11-11-2017 , 03:06 PM
And you know this how?

Keep in mind that shills not need to be paid necessarily. They might have some other motivation or connection to the case. Are you familiar with the astroturfing in the Amanda Knox case?
11-11-2017 , 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
And you know this how?

Keep in mind that shills not need to be paid necessarily. They might have some other motivation or connection to the case. Are you familiar with the astroturfing in the Amanda Knox case?
Both murderers are in prison. Why would those who agree with that & the convictions need to astroturf? They're not being retried on the internet.
11-11-2017 , 06:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
And you know this how?

Keep in mind that shills not need to be paid necessarily. They might have some other motivation or connection to the case. Are you familiar with the astroturfing in the Amanda Knox case?
I am not, enlighten me.
11-11-2017 , 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
And you know this how?

Keep in mind that shills not need to be paid necessarily. They might have some other motivation or connection to the case. Are you familiar with the astroturfing in the Amanda Knox case?
So this thread has around 400,000 views. That includes all the hardcore posters who have probably clicked it a few thousand times each. If you're talking about unique visitors, it's going to be in the low 5-figures at most, over the course of two years, most of which probably just read one page or half a page and closed it. This level of viewership is simply not enough to be worth the investment of anyone's PR budget. Also the demographic of this site has nothing to do with the demographic anyone interested in shaping public opinion on the Avery case would want to target. Not to mention that all this is contingent on there actually being someone with a PR budget to influence public opinion against Steven Avery, which there isn't.

Okay, I guess we'll have to disagree on the definition of shill. In my opinion, it implies someone working for payment and I'm pretty sure that's how it's commonly used. By your definition, everyone in this thread on either side is a shill - our connection with the case is that we watched a documentary on it, our motivation is that we like posting on forums.
11-11-2017 , 06:42 PM
I think he means some connection that is biased. Like a relative of avery's or a friend of teresas.
11-11-2017 , 10:28 PM
To me that's not a shill though. Obviously the friends and family of a person who they believe to be wrongfully convicted will advocate for him. It's true they probably won't be that objective, but if they have a good case, they should be able to bring other people to their side. That's how many wrongfully convicted people have been vindicated. (This is basically what happened in the Avery case too, the only difference being that he turned out to actually be guilty.)

This is the opposite of astroturfing/ shilling.
11-11-2017 , 11:56 PM
Ya, I agree. It pretty much takes all of the meaning out of the word "shill".
11-12-2017 , 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I am not, enlighten me.
Knox's family hired Gogarty & Merriot PR firm before even hiring a lawyer for their daughter. There were some shills on twitter & on the Knox thread with one being strongly suspected of being an administrator on a pro Knox site set up by her stepdad.
However there was a different context, as Italy have a multi tiered judiciary where the conviction or indeed acquittal isn't final after trial, so the shills were probably due to potential extradition proceedings as everyone was expecting the Italian SC to uphold her trial & appellate conviction, rather than violate their own procedure & illegally & very dubiously acquit without a jury, so the hope was enough US public opinion could be garnered to hopefully stop this. (not that she'd anything to worry about, the fix was in long ago anyway imho)

Here though in the Teresa Halbach case her murderers already been convicted & indeed incarcerated for years now. The facts have been established, Avery's been denied a retrial & under Dassey's HC writ,his guilt isn't being questioned or his confession deemed false but coerced.

So there's no incentive for anyone to shill or astro turf.

There's other factors at play though as high profile cases like these tend to attract all sorts of people, from those who go purely by a biased medium & so are basically fooled into thinking there's a miscarriage of justice when there isn't. Such types may be well intentioned or altruistic but if they refuse to research further the they're simply stupid.
However such cases also attract kooks, stick it to the man types, those who maybe have had problems with LE, or their relatives have, and of course murderer groupies, hybristophilliac weirdos who admire what the murderer did & relives the crime by advocating for the killer & sticking it to the victims, their families or friends in an "anyone but the convicted killer" defence.

However such types are almost without exception advocates for innocence/railroading etc.

Those who actually agree with the established facts have no need for an agenda, as they simply agree with the courts.

So the shills for guilt argument doesn't hold up as it doesn't make any sense as again they aren't being retried & certainly not on the internet.
11-12-2017 , 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Okay, I guess we'll have to disagree on the definition of shill. In my opinion, it implies someone working for payment and I'm pretty sure that's how it's commonly used. By your definition, everyone in this thread on either side is a shill - our connection with the case is that we watched a documentary on it, our motivation is that we like posting on forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
To me that's not a shill though. Obviously the friends and family of a person who they believe to be wrongfully convicted will advocate for him. It's true they probably won't be that objective, but if they have a good case, they should be able to bring other people to their side. That's how many wrongfully convicted people have been vindicated. (This is basically what happened in the Avery case too, the only difference being that he turned out to actually be guilty.)

This is the opposite of astroturfing/ shilling.
I guess we do have to disagree on the definition. If someone is open about his connection to the victim or in this case the relevant police department or commercial interest (say a book) I do not consider them a shill or astroturfing. If someone pretends to be unconnected in any such way and therefore an unbiased and objective third party then I consider such a deceptive poster a shill.
11-12-2017 , 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Both murderers are in prison. Why would those who agree with that & the convictions need to astroturf? They're not being retried on the internet.
EXACTLY. They're not being re-tried on the internet and are STILL in jail. So how on Earth could anyone put in this much effort into simply reinforcing the sentences and justifying what was done here? Again, this forum is dedicated to MaM, a documentary that used TEN episodes to show the absolute injustice that occurred here.

Just about every member of LE in the state of Wisconsin IS on trial and has been since the release of MaM. They still have everything to lose including their reputations, and sentences are to some degree or another handed down through the court of public opinion, where the jurisdiction is the entire internet. MaM has clearly, CLEARLY triggered a very deep and thorough look at what's been going on over there and it is absolutely appalling. I choose to believe that no sane human could ever attempt to justify what was done TH, BD, and SA, as well as literally countless other cases that don't have documentaries to bring their injustices to light. There's no doubt in my mind that anyone aggressively and actively attempting to sway the public opinion BACK towards guilty has other motives, which will all lead back to one purpose - stop looking at MCLE and Wisconsin DoJ.
11-12-2017 , 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
If someone pretends to be unconnected in any such way and therefore an unbiased and objective third party then I consider such a deceptive poster a shill.
Amen.

Fraleyight AT LEAST has already admitted he is close to the family, but that doesn't justify his blind dedication to guilt NOR his incessant need to reply 2x to every post. Being naive on purpose is not being naive.

PoorSkillz has no excuse.
11-12-2017 , 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
If someone pretends to be unconnected in any such way and therefore an unbiased and objective third party then I consider such a deceptive poster a shill.
Why would anyone pretend that itt? I'm unconnected to this case. I'm not LE or a relative of the victim or even American. Am I pretending when I say this?

Also what evidence is that there's people doing this itt? What itt do you base your comment on?
11-12-2017 , 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
I guess we do have to disagree on the definition. If someone is open about his connection to the victim or in this case the relevant police department or commercial interest (say a book) I do not consider them a shill or astroturfing. If someone pretends to be unconnected in any such way and therefore an unbiased and objective third party then I consider such a deceptive poster a shill.
You're really stretching the definition. I was talking about allegations of some conspiracy by the Manitowoc PD or prosecutor to pay people to post in this thread. You're talking about someone maybe having a personal connection to the case because his great uncle was the victim's neighbour. Not the same thing.

And in any case, whether someone has a personal interest (or even whether they are paid to talk about some issue) has nothing to do with the validity of their argument. Both the fossil fuels industry and the renewable energy industry have PR people who talk about global warming, for instance.
11-12-2017 , 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Amen.

Fraleyight AT LEAST has already admitted he is close to the family, but that doesn't justify his blind dedication to guilt NOR his incessant need to reply 2x to every post. Being naive on purpose is not being naive.

PoorSkillz has no excuse.
I never said I was "close" to the family. Why do you keep saying that despite being corrected hundreds of times before?
11-12-2017 , 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Knox's family hired Gogarty & Merriot PR firm before even hiring a lawyer for their daughter. There were some shills on twitter & on the Knox thread with one being strongly suspected of being an administrator on a pro Knox site set up by her stepdad.
However there was a different context, as Italy have a multi tiered judiciary where the conviction or indeed acquittal isn't final after trial, so the shills were probably due to potential extradition proceedings as everyone was expecting the Italian SC to uphold her trial & appellate conviction, rather than violate their own procedure & illegally & very dubiously acquit without a jury, so the hope was enough US public opinion could be garnered to hopefully stop this. (not that she'd anything to worry about, the fix was in long ago anyway imho)

Here though in the Teresa Halbach case her murderers already been convicted & indeed incarcerated for years now. The facts have been established, Avery's been denied a retrial & under Dassey's HC writ,his guilt isn't being questioned or his confession deemed false but coerced.

So there's no incentive for anyone to shill or astro turf.

There's other factors at play though as high profile cases like these tend to attract all sorts of people, from those who go purely by a biased medium & so are basically fooled into thinking there's a miscarriage of justice when there isn't. Such types may be well intentioned or altruistic but if they refuse to research further the they're simply stupid.
However such cases also attract kooks, stick it to the man types, those who maybe have had problems with LE, or their relatives have, and of course murderer groupies, hybristophilliac weirdos who admire what the murderer did & relives the crime by advocating for the killer & sticking it to the victims, their families or friends in an "anyone but the convicted killer" defence.

However such types are almost without exception advocates for innocence/railroading etc.

Those who actually agree with the established facts have no need for an agenda, as they simply agree with the courts.

So the shills for guilt argument doesn't hold up as it doesn't make any sense as again they aren't being retried & certainly not on the internet.
This example is at least somewhat comparable to what Lost is claiming but still quite the stretch.
11-12-2017 , 01:18 PM
LITS,

Get a clue. We are not going to go create another thread titled "the avery case and why he is guilty" that is not the way things work on this forum. This IS the thread about Avery. This isn't reddit. Mods don't like people creating hundreds of random threads when it can be contained here.

The documentary was about avery. We are talking about Avery. If we think the documentary was full of **** and that he is guilty, we are staying on topic.

There are a ton of people posting in the amanda knox thread who think shes guilty despite being aquitted. There are a ton of people posting in the "who shot JFK thread" who accept the official story. Tons of people posting in the 9-11 thread who accept the official story etc.. Are those people trolls as well? Should they go create a brand new thread that points out how ridiculous these conspiracy theories are?
11-12-2017 , 02:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
So this thread has around 400,000 views. That includes all the hardcore posters who have probably clicked it a few thousand times each. If you're talking about unique visitors, it's going to be in the low 5-figures at most, over the course of two years, most of which probably just read one page or half a page and closed it. This level of viewership is simply not enough to be worth the investment of anyone's PR budget. Also the demographic of this site has nothing to do with the demographic anyone interested in shaping public opinion on the Avery case would want to target. Not to mention that all this is contingent on there actually being someone with a PR budget to influence public opinion against Steven Avery, which there isn't.
Great explanation, but it's sad that it even needed to be explained. I guess that's just the age we live in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
If someone pretends to be unconnected in any such way and therefore an unbiased and objective third party then I consider such a deceptive poster a shill.
I'm curious, do you also believe anyone ITT who argues for Steven's innocence to be a shill? Why or why not?


Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
And in any case, whether someone has a personal interest (or even whether they are paid to talk about some issue) has nothing to do with the validity of their argument.
Exactly, and IMO this is why many ITT are accusing us of being shills. They don't want to accept they're wrong about Steven and misled by the documentary, so when we provide them information counter to their beliefs (such as showing Louis Cyphre that multiple women close to Steven Avery have accused him of raping them) their defensive reaction is to ignore it as coming from "shills", despite the fact that we usually provide actual documentation to support our arguments (such as providing documentation of the multiple women accusing Steven of rape).


Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I never said I was "close" to the family. Why do you keep saying that despite being corrected hundreds of times before?
I am also not related to nor have any relationship (personal, business, or otherwise) with anyone involved or related to the case in any way.

Conspiracy theorists will continue to theorize though.
11-12-2017 , 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis Cyphre Making a Murderer
And you know this how?

Keep in mind that shills not need to be paid necessarily. They might have some other motivation or connection to the case. Are you familiar with the astroturfing in the Amanda Knox case?
Astroturfing tends to be done on behalf of the defence, as in the case you mention. The prosecution just make their case in court, because, institutionally, that's how they work. Only the defence, if sufficiently funded, scurry round enlisting 'experts' to put their view in documentaries, or hiring PR firms to spam internet threads.
11-12-2017 , 07:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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.
Of course, that is all correct.

I guess the real question here is why you and a few other posters such as Corpus Vile and Fraley act as if that was ever in dispute.

Let me run this down for you (again):

1. I watched the film (and, even though it is beside the point, I enjoyed the film and thought it was well done);

2. Based on the film and nothing else, I formed the opinion that the film raises what appear to be legitimate issues with the case. I feel comfortable not listing them all as I have done so many times before in this thread.

3. From this thread, and nothing else, I reached the understanding that my opinion is not universally held. As clearly stated in this thread, there are a number of posters that take issue with the documentary, its premise, and related issues which reach out in a variety of directions.

4. Nevertheless, I have made it clear that regardless of the efforts those arguing against the film, I still hold my original opinion which is based on the show and nothing else.

5. At no time have I attempted to convince anyone that my opinion matters to the point it should be considered as any authority for changing their own opinion. Again, it is simply my own opinion, and given the fact the process is ongoing and Appellate Courts are not involved, I am very comfortable waiting to see what happens.

6. At some later point, if I have any interest, I may look further into the case, or, I may not. This matter is receiving a good amount of coverage and treatment and I believe a deep dive into source documents is not necessary at this point. This is in direct contrast to the Amanda Knox case which suffered from unreliable reporting and access to official documents.

7. The extent of my opinion on this matter reaches only what was presented in the film - that there are concerns with the process and that further treatment of/investigation into these concerns is necessary to determine whether SA and BD received a fair trial. I do not now, nor have I ever held an opinion as to whether SA is factually guilty, or not. Since watching the film, based on information in this thread and from the Appellate Courts, however, I believe BD is factually NOT GUILTY - and I do not care if anyone else holds that opinion, or not.

8. Again, I recognize that a number of posters are very concerned that I adopt their opinion that the process was bullet proof and free of prejudicial errors, etc., but as stated many times, I have not been swayed. In fact, given the ham-fisted and (in my opinion dishonest) tactics used by you, and others sharing your agenda, it is my default position at this time to reject just about everything you present out-of-hand.

So there. I still believe there are serious concerns with the trial. I do not believe that to hold that opinion that I am required to prove that S.A. is innocent, etc. For one thing, that is completely ridiculous, but more importantly, I am not even sure that issue is ever reached - if the process was/is sound, at this time, I do not believe there is any reason to dispute the result.

As to B.D. I believe he is factually innocent. I have not been presented any physical facts which suggest he participated in the crime in any way. If you disagree, that is fine by me. If you intend to convince me otherwise, that is your own business. However, I can assure you I am comfortable with my opinion(s) at this point in the game, especially since the appellate process is ongoing.

- So, carry on. Please understand that if you somehow expect that you will convince me of your position, that at this time, you are 180 degrees off - especially since I am prepared to rely on an actual authority handling this matter - the court system (which includes all the courts, not just the trial court).

- And just in case you have any doubt, I believe you are a complete lemming.
11-12-2017 , 07:25 PM
Quote:
I guess the real question here is why you and a few other posters such as Corpus Vile and Fraley act as if that was ever in dispute.
There are several other posters whom you've got into this conversation with and I am not one of them. The only thing I asked for that could be related to this was your reasons for thinking SA would have received a higher settlement than 5 million despite every example I can find similar to SA's receiving much lower pay outs.

The only reason I asked you for this specifically is because you and others have stated that you are an attorney and I have seen several other attornies reach the exact opposite conclusion. It had nothing to do with your knowledge of the case specifically.

Since you brought my name into this though I do think you have been dishonest itt about your opinion of avery's guilt. You clearly think hes innocent and that he didn't received a fair trial and I do think you try to pretend to be some sort of fence sitter at times when you are not.

      
m