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

11-22-2017 , 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
^^Viewed this pavlovian nutjob's post & saw that this is the only thing it mentioned that's worth addressing & refuting:

DOJ investigation found no evidence of corruption or malfeasance (although I'm sure that means that they're in on the conspiracy too) & county was covered by liability insurance & it should look up the meaning of the word "liability" before posting.
As was already pointed out itt the validity of the lawsuit didn't rely on proving corruption & his lawyers settled anyway.

Rest of its post is yet more of its dribble so not even worth entertaining.
You are conflating: "coverage" with "duty to defend." In each case like this, the policy is referred to an attorney (commonly called "coverage counsel") to provide analysis as to whether the claim is covered. It is an ongoing process depending upon facts as discovered.

In this case, it is unlikely that "coverage" was a decided issue at the time of the murder. At best, insurance would have likely been proceeding under a reservation of rights.

Again, it is about 99.99% (in my opinion) that coverage issues had yet to be decided. So, I very much doubt you have any particularly beneficial information as to whether there was "coverage," or not for the entire claim (and potential claims to follow).
11-22-2017 , 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
^^Viewed this pavlovian nutjob's post & saw that this is the only thing it mentioned that's worth addressing & refuting:

DOJ investigation found no evidence of corruption or malfeasance
I am not sure that you appreciate that the DOJ's investigation and the resulting standards of culpability are significantly different that what is required in a civil case.

But, carry on.
11-22-2017 , 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Avery did win his suit and none of the above happened, so I think it's safe to assume that you're an idiot.

However I'm curious as to how your logic works. I mean, Beernstein and Allen's other victims could sue the county anyway if they thought they had a case. If any of the cops had committed criminal offenses they could still face charges (depending on statute of limitations). None of this is in any way contingent on Avery's winning his suit.
... a settlement is not a verdict. There was no "winning of the lawsuit;" there was no "losing of the lawsuit."

So, based on that, you are the idiot.
11-22-2017 , 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I thought he transferred the call to kocurek? Guess I was wrong.
He might have, but it was never established who Colborn transferred the call to or if he even knew exactly who he was transferring the call to at the time.

After all, we're talking about a call he transferred 8-10 years prior.
11-22-2017 , 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
He might have, but it was never established who Colborn transferred the call to or if he even knew exactly who he was transferring the call to at the time.

After all, we're talking about a call he may, or may not have, transferred 8-10 years prior.
.
11-22-2017 , 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
You are conflating: "coverage" with "duty to defend." In each case like this, the policy is referred to an attorney (commonly called "coverage counsel") to provide analysis as to whether the claim is covered. It is an ongoing process depending upon facts as discovered.
And you don't know what the word "liability" means when in the context of liability insurance. The omissions/errors/liabilities had, as was already highlighted itt a 5 mil cap so even if Avery had have won 5 mil they'd have been covered.

Quote:
In this case, it is unlikely that "coverage" was a decided issue at the time of the murder. At best, insurance would have likely been proceeding under a reservation of rights.
No because they were already covered against liabilities.
11-22-2017 , 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I am not sure that you appreciate that the DOJ's investigation and the resulting standards of culpability are significantly different that what is required in a civil case.

But, carry on.
Right so the DOJ investigation was wrong too. Everyone & everything is wrong except The Railroaded Ones... are you listening to yourself?

I asked you not to respond to me until you researched the Teresa Halbach case & stop using a fraudulent Netflix tv show as a source btw & am not interested in your worthless opinions re anything re her case until you do so. Including your worthless opinion on the lawsuit especially after your gem that a settlement equates to evidence of LE corruption.
11-22-2017 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Right so the DOJ investigation was wrong too. Everyone & everything is wrong except The Railroaded Ones... are you listening to yourself?

I asked you not to respond to me until you researched the Teresa Halbach case & stop using a fraudulent Netflix tv show as a source btw & am not interested in your worthless opinions re anything re her case until you do so. Including your worthless opinion on the lawsuit especially after your gem that a settlement equates to evidence of LE corruption.
I have no reason to believe the DOJ investigation was either "wrong" or reached an incorrect conclusion.

I am just pointing out (and it appears correctly) that you don't realize the DOJ is working towards a different standard than that of a civil lawsuit.
11-22-2017 , 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Right so the DOJ investigation was wrong too. Everyone & everything is wrong except The Railroaded Ones... are you listening to yourself?

I asked you not to respond to me until you researched the Teresa Halbach case & stop using a fraudulent Netflix tv show as a source btw & am not interested in your worthless opinions re anything re her case until you do so. Including your worthless opinion on the lawsuit especially after your gem that a settlement equates to evidence of LE corruption.
Right, you mean which was followed by my statement: "of course, this does not reach the standard in a court of law, but it certainly is enough to justify the inclusion of the issue in the documentary" (paraphrasing).

Keep being dishonest - you wear it well.
11-22-2017 , 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer

I asked you not to respond to me until you researched the Teresa Halbach case & stop using a fraudulent Netflix tv show as a source .
No. I will respond as I see fit.

If we are at the point where we make demands of each other, how about this?:

Please stop invoking the name of Theresa to further your cause. It is unseemly. You may be surprised by this, but you are not fooling anyone with your attempts to establish a "moral high ground" by claiming your lunacy is in the name of the victim.
11-22-2017 , 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
I have no reason to believe the DOJ investigation was either "wrong" or reached an incorrect conclusion.
Then how tf does a settlement equate to evidence of LE corruption lawboy? If you've no reason to believe it was wrong or reached an incorrect conclusion?

Quote:
I am just pointing out (and it appears correctly) that you don't realize the DOJ is working towards a different standard than that of a civil lawsuit.
Yes I actually do realise the diff between a potential criminal investigation's standards & that of a civil lawsuit as in the civil lawsuit whose validity didn't rely on proving corruption & for which Avery's own lawyers settled, that lawsuit?

And what you appear to be intimating is that those evil LE bastards were prolly in it up to their corrupt necks but that the DOJ just couldn't nail the slippery mfrs thanks to those damnable burden of proof standards that such investigations require & that's also laughed at for having nothing to support it. Just like everything else you've posted itt.

Odd though how you advocates disregard the fact that those standards were roundly met for Avery & Dassey innit? (But hey courts get it wrong amirite?)
11-22-2017 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
And you don't know what the word "liability" means when in the context of liability insurance. The omissions/errors/liabilities had, as was already highlighted itt a 5 mil cap so even if Avery had have won 5 mil they'd have been covered.


No because they were already covered against liabilities.
... and no they were not. The case was just reaching the issue of whether the acts were of a nature that such would be covered as "omissions/errors/liabilities" or not covered as intentional malfeasance (as Proudfootz put it).

By the way, as an objective observer, I reiterate my admiration for the postings of Proudfootz and LostintheSauce. I am amazed at their ability to keep their composure and patience in responding to the same circular posts by Poorshillz and Corpus Vile. I also commend them for remaining dignified in the face of the base, juvenile insults thrown their way (for no good reason) by Corpus Vile.

I also wish to point out that I have enjoyed Fraley's recent run of posts. He has done a good job of providing legitimate arguments and interesting content. And, I further appreciate him keeping a civil tone in what has proven to be a hotly-debated topic. Mind you, I remain unconvinced by his position, but at least he compels me to think about his posts and his point-of-view.
11-22-2017 , 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Then how tf does a settlement equate to evidence of LE corruption lawboy? If you've no reason to believe it was wrong or reached an incorrect conclusion?
It doesn't.

But, the settlement, under these conditions, certainly raises questions as set forth in the documentary.
11-22-2017 , 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Yes I actually do realise the diff between a potential criminal investigation's standards & that of a civil lawsuit as in the civil lawsuit whose validity didn't rely on proving corruption & for which Avery's own lawyers settled, that lawsuit?

And what you appear to be intimating is that those evil LE bastards were prolly in it up to their corrupt necks but that the DOJ just couldn't nail the slippery mfrs thanks to those damnable burden of proof standards that such investigations require & that's also laughed at for having nothing to support it. Just like everything else you've posted itt.

Odd though how you advocates disregard the fact that those standards were roundly met for Avery & Dassey innit? (But hey courts get it wrong amirite?)
Um, wat?

Either slow down, or speed up on the coffee today. Whatever you are right now, isn't where you need to be.
11-22-2017 , 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
... and no they were not. The case was just reaching the issue of whether the acts were of a nature that such would be covered as "omissions/errors/liabilities" or not covered as intentional malfeasance (as Proudfootz put it).
Yes they were which is supported by the fact that the DOJ investigation found nothing regardless of your paranoia

Quote:
By the way, as an objective observer, I reiterate my admiration for the postings of Proudfootz and LostintheSauce
Reason eight million & seventy five your opinion is considered worthless especially considering suacy's semo psychotic rants.

And you're in no way an "objective observer" as you declared Avery's trial a "sham", opined Dassey's innocent, lied that the only evidence against him was his confession and raised various bars on his behalf, as well as making scurrilous attacks on others by accusing them of murder with absolutely nothing to support such a spurious accusation. Again you need to learn the meaning of words.



Quote:
I also wish to point out that I have enjoyed Fraley's recent run of posts. He has done a good job of providing legitimate arguments and interesting content. And, I further appreciate him keeping a civil tone in what has proven to be a hotly-debated topic. Mind you, I remain unconvinced by his position, but at least he compels me to think about his posts and his point-of-view.
You have no business commenting on civility considering you proactively engaged in argumentum ad hominem, you really are quite the revisionist & hypocrite.
Nobody rational cares whether you're convinced or not as you base your burblings on a TV show. Frayley wiped the floor with you loons anyway.
11-22-2017 , 04:52 PM
For anyone looking for actual insights into the civil case and how everything works, I highly recommend reading this initial reddit post and subsequent AMA from a defense lawyer in Avery's civil suit (or at least someone claiming to be and doing a very convincing job).

Here are a few excerpts relevant to the current discussion:

Quote:
I will also comment, briefly, on insurance. There are some very smart things written by other attorneys here on reddit regarding whether and to what extent insurance was available to the three parties in the civil suit. I will note this, my firm billed itself as an insurance defense firm. The $400,000 (settlement to Mr. Avery) was paid for by insurance. And after more than a year of litigation, the insurance companies did not file a motion to bifurcate and stay the proceedings (to determine coverage). Honestly, that should tell you all you need to know. And, frankly, should be an excellent reminder that you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV.
Quote:
Q: How much money would Avery's suit have realistically cost the county if Avery hadn't murdered someone?


A: All of this depends on insurance coverage, the verdict or settlement agreement, etc, with a caveat. Assuming coverage was found (and the plaintiff wanted coverage, and no motion to bifurcate and stay the case on coverage was made), then you are talking about deductible(s). I cannot comment on the amount of the deductible(s) because no one filed a policy (this would have been done just prior to the trial). So it isn't public record. But that would have been the exposure to the County. Exposure is different than "cost." We could have won at trial and, thus, the County pays nothing (the deductible is for losses, not attorney fees - usually, again I can't speak to the policy(ies) in question.
A verdict or settlement is a different thing. I did a research memo on this and found the most likely scenario for a victory at trial was $2 mil (based on a jury verdict in upstate New York for a similar case). There were differences, of course, but that was the most similar case I could find.
Quote:
Q: Why offer a settlement to SA at all if things looked that good for your side after TH's murder? (I've always wondered about this.)


A: Sure. That's an excellent question.
Citizens United might have said corporations are people, but insurance companies don't have feelings. They operate on black and white. How much was remaining discovery, motion practice, a trial, and possible appeal going to cost for all three defendants? Think about it that way. Then factor in the possibility that SA didn't murder TH. That would leave a chance that he could win at trial. Add up the costs and the chance, however small, of a SA victory, and you arrive at the high end number the insurance company(ies) was/were willing to settle for. I would submit that said number may have been higher than what Mr. Avery received. But I can't say, one way or another.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...ld_appreciate/

https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAvery...worked_on_the/
11-22-2017 , 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
No. I will respond as I see fit.
Then stop declaring you're not interested in my posts & opinions you big girl's blouse drama queen
Not interested in your veiled attacks on a murder victim either just like Knox's groupies, declaring they were really looking for justice for Meredith & how horrified she'd be at the railroading of her dear friend blah de blah.
Murderer groupies love invoking the name of the victim as a veiled dig against them in order to get a vicarious thrill out of the murderer's crimes. Keep showing your true colours.

What pray tell is my cause lawboy? I already told you were I'm coming from. What you people are doing is immoral. Such things are repugnant to me. I get that my speaking up for Teresa & her family irks you no end & I further get that your idea of unseemly doesn't cover attacking her ex boyfriend( or possibly her brother as I'm not sure which "RH" you meant, perhaps you'd like to clarify? Or are you gonna lose interest again?), hence your deflection onto me & your veiled attacks on Teresa & shame on you.

You're fooling nobody. And I will indeed continue to mention her name seeing as you lot seem to have forgotten about her as you're too busy cheer leading her murderers. Neither I or anyone else who cares about the victim & who is aware of the facts are going anywhere of that you can rest assured.

So no your demand is refused, you murderer advocate who lies on their behalf re evidence & attacks innocents to make the killers look blameless. Again shame on you.
11-22-2017 , 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Avery did win his suit and none of the above happened, so I think it's safe to assume that you're an idiot.
Since you don't seem to know the difference between a settlement without a trial and a trial, it's a cold stone lock that you are the idiot.

Quote:
However I'm curious as to how your logic works. I mean, Beernstein and Allen's other victims could sue the county anyway if they thought they had a case. If any of the cops had committed criminal offenses they could still face charges (depending on statute of limitations). None of this is in any way contingent on Avery's winning his suit.
My logic works the way sane people use it - not in the pretzel method you seem to prefer.

Had the lawsuit been able to proceed and further depositions and discoveries been made it's very possible those new facts would give the others harmed by police malfeasance to get some justice.

If you imagine legal precedents are not establish by court decisions, you really are a special kind of stupid.
11-22-2017 , 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
There is a difference between the source of the tides and saying the police planted evidence to frame Avery. Its called evidence. If someone were to produce evidence that all these things happened, the conversation would be different. Until then, assuming the most complicated explanation when a simpler one fits the evidence is illogical.
But since I am not assuming anything a priori, your rant here is of little value.

I base my judgement on the evidence.

Quote:
For example, if I cannot locate my car keys my first response is not going to be that someone broke into my house, stole my car keys, left my car in its location and left no traces of a break in. My first response is going to be that I misplaced my car keys. If however, I noticed my window was broken, all my shelves were turned inside out and my car was missing, I may start to investigate who stole my car.
Cool story, bro. It has nothing to do with anything I have posted.

Quote:
This is kind of logic 101 by the way.
Yes, your strawman arguments are among the logical fallacies to be avoided.
11-22-2017 , 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
... and no they were not. The case was just reaching the issue of whether the acts were of a nature that such would be covered as "omissions/errors/liabilities" or not covered as intentional malfeasance (as Proudfootz put it).

By the way, as an objective observer, I reiterate my admiration for the postings of Proudfootz and LostintheSauce. I am amazed at their ability to keep their composure and patience in responding to the same circular posts by Poorshillz and Corpus Vile. I also commend them for remaining dignified in the face of the base, juvenile insults thrown their way (for no good reason) by Corpus Vile.

I also wish to point out that I have enjoyed Fraley's recent run of posts. He has done a good job of providing legitimate arguments and interesting content. And, I further appreciate him keeping a civil tone in what has proven to be a hotly-debated topic. Mind you, I remain unconvinced by his position, but at least he compels me to think about his posts and his point-of-view.
I agree - fraleyight at least tries to make coherent statements and claims rather than simply trolling as corpus vile and others do.

I still respond to corpus's posts lest unwary lurkers come to believe everyone on this site agrees with his skewed views.

I also appreciate your posts which help illuminate some of the legal issues.
11-22-2017 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Then stop declaring you're not interested in my posts & opinions you big girl's blouse drama queen
Quite an ironic post coming from someone who pretends to have put me on 'ignore' yet can't help reading and responding to my posts.

Quote:
Not interested in your veiled attacks on a murder victim either just like Knox's groupies, declaring they were really looking for justice for Meredith & how horrified she'd be at the railroading of her dear friend blah de blah.
Murderer groupies love invoking the name of the victim as a veiled dig against them in order to get a vicarious thrill out of the murderer's crimes. Keep showing your true colours.
No one is 'attacking' the victim here AFAICT - except those who claim Teresa was too stupid to realize that an address on AVERY RD would bring her into contact with the Averys whom she was allegedly so afraid of, even though she'd been there a number of times already.

Quote:
What pray tell is my cause lawboy? I already told you were I'm coming from. What you people are doing is immoral. Such things are repugnant to me.
Yeah, right.

So repugnant that corpus vile spends his free time watching films about women being assaulted, raped, murdered, and mutilated in his torture porn film collection.
Quote:
I get that my speaking up for Teresa & her family irks you no end & I further get that your idea of unseemly doesn't cover attacking her ex boyfriend( or possibly her brother as I'm not sure which "RH" you meant, perhaps you'd like to clarify? Or are you gonna lose interest again?), hence your deflection onto me & your veiled attacks on Teresa & shame on you.
Now the 'attacks' are 'veiled attacks' that only corpus vile can see through.

Quote:
You're fooling nobody. And I will indeed continue to mention her name seeing as you lot seem to have forgotten about her as you're too busy cheer leading her murderers. Neither I or anyone else who cares about the victim & who is aware of the facts are going anywhere of that you can rest assured.
No one here is 'cheerleading murderers' - because if someone was you'd be able to provide an actual quote from someone saying they approve of Teresa's murder.

Quote:
So no your demand is refused, you murderer advocate who lies on their behalf re evidence & attacks innocents to make the killers look blameless. Again shame on you.
I think corpus vile is overcompensating trying to cover up his torture porn addiction by inserting himself into cases where women are killed just like in the movies he prefers.

It would be interesting to see what kind of search terms came up on corpus's computer...
11-22-2017 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Um, wat?

Either slow down, or speed up on the coffee today. Whatever you are right now, isn't where you need to be.
I'm merely responding to what you semi alleged/intimated.
11-22-2017 , 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Then stop declaring you're not interested in my posts & opinions you big girl's blouse drama queen
Not interested in your veiled attacks on a murder victim either just like Knox's groupies, declaring they were really looking for justice for Meredith & how horrified she'd be at the railroading of her dear friend blah de blah.
Murderer groupies love invoking the name of the victim as a veiled dig against them in order to get a vicarious thrill out of the murderer's crimes. Keep showing your true colours.

What pray tell is my cause lawboy? I already told you were I'm coming from. What you people are doing is immoral. Such things are repugnant to me. I get that my speaking up for Teresa & her family irks you no end & I further get that your idea of unseemly doesn't cover attacking her ex boyfriend( or possibly her brother as I'm not sure which "RH" you meant, perhaps you'd like to clarify? Or are you gonna lose interest again?), hence your deflection onto me & your veiled attacks on Teresa & shame on you.

You're fooling nobody. And I will indeed continue to mention her name seeing as you lot seem to have forgotten about her as you're too busy cheer leading her murderers. Neither I or anyone else who cares about the victim & who is aware of the facts are going anywhere of that you can rest assured.

So no your demand is refused, you murderer advocate who lies on their behalf re evidence & attacks innocents to make the killers look blameless. Again shame on you.
Actually, out of everyone here, your opinion means the least.

Your position is that: "Avery stood trial and got convicted, therefore he did it." That is circular.

That position ignores the entire purpose of movie and this thread.

We don't need you to restate the obvious: Avery was found guilty and is in jail. So was Brendan.

It so happens one of the main issues raised by MAM is being heard on appeal. In case you are wondering, the Appellate Court doesn't simply do this:

"Well, did Brendan have a trial?"

"Ok, and he was convicted, right?"

"So, what's your issue? Unless you provide us, verbatim, the testimony that disproves these facts, we must concluded he was properly convicted. Accordingly, the appeal is denied."

So, I understand you purport to have reasearched this case, but perhaps you need help in finding how to apply your otherwise irrelevant findings to the issues actually being discussed in this thread.

I know you have the blessing and support of Theresa's family, but at least here, you lack the venue for whatever you are attempting to achieve.

Again, we are all aware Avery and Brendan were convicted.
11-22-2017 , 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Actually, out of everyone here, your opinion means the least.

Your position is that: "Avery stood trial and got convicted, therefore he did it." That is circular.

That position ignores the entire purpose of movie and this thread.

We don't need you to restate the obvious: Avery was found guilty and is in jail. So was Brendan.

It so happens one of the main issues raised by MAM is being heard on appeal. In case you are wondering, the Appellate Court doesn't simply do this:

"Well, did Avery have a trial?"

"Ok, and he was convicted, right?"

"So, what's your issue? Unless you provide us, verbatim, the testimony that disproves these facts, we must concluded he was properly convicted. Accordingly, the appeal is denied."

So, I understand you purport to have reasearched this case, but perhaps you need help in finding how to apply your otherwise irrelevant findings to the issues actually being discussed in this thread.

I know you have the blessing and support of Theresa's family, but at least here, you lack the venue for whatever you are attempting to achieve.

Again, we are all aware Avery was convicted.
It seems corpus vile believes the very existence of appeals courts are some kind of 'fraud' as it is founded on the widely acknowledged fact that courts sometimes get it wrong.
11-22-2017 , 05:43 PM
[QUOTE=proudfootz;53155269]But since I am not assuming anything a priori, your rant here is of little value.

I base my judgement on the evidence.
QUOTE]

What is it exactly that you think I am assuming a priori? Other than what would be considered a standard axiom, like not assuming things without proof or not creating complicated explanations without evidence when simpler ones will explain the evidence we do have.

      
m