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

11-23-2017 , 06:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I was making a joke.

I haven't seen what Oski said, but I think Hanlon's razor clearly applies in this instance.
.
I honestly don't think it does. His tropes are too consistent. Bar raising, veiled digs at the Halbachs, lies re evidence, false accusation against those close to Teresa. If he's not a murderer groupie, he's doing a spot on impression of one.
11-23-2017 , 07:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Good use of autnorities there.
.
Lets try this again: He is not an exoneree which was my point. Zellner claims he is. There is nothing at all inaccurate in my post, unlike Zellner's claim nor have I even expressed an opinion on Brian Carrick's case. So I have no need to even address the rest of your post.
Please provide the verbatim quote where I claimed everyone who had an overturned conviction were really guilty. Or again stop lying.
11-23-2017 , 07:17 AM
Quote:
Well, yeah. He even tried.to start a few threads here, but the reception is lukewarm.
I have posted two threads here in 2.5 years. One was on the Monster of Florence case, to provide information due to the misinformation being posted on the Knox thread by Knox's groupies. I'm not interested in its reception, once the information itself is available.

Nor is anyone interested in your trolling attempts to deflect the topic onto little old me, to cover up the glaring fact that your opinion is worthless due to your consistent inability/unwillingness to support your position with anything at all whatsoever.
11-23-2017 , 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Again provide the verbatim quote where I claimed Avery was factually guilty because he was convicted.

No just you Loudz, Sauce & Mitchel, so far are murderer groupies. I disagree with Golf who seems to feel an unfair due process occurred, but would not consider him an advocate & certainly not a groupie.

Already invited you to validate MAM's deception. You refuse.
Already invited you to validate the majority argument. You refuse.
Nobody cares about your revisionism or falsehoods.

The film is fraudulent for the deception they engaged in which has already been covered & thoroughly highlighted itt. You refuse to address it.
These are among the many reasons your opinion is worthless.



To quote your good self:

Stick me on ig if you have a problem with me lawboy. Back to pissing your diddies repetition I see.
1. I have validated MAM dozens of times. You just ignore it.

Amyhow, I don't need to validate anything to you. You have made it clear you disagree. If I had not statee my opinion in that respect, then you would have not had anything to disagree with.

What you are actually demanding is that I "prove" to you the film serves a purpose beyond meeting the filmmakers pecumiary interests.

That is a silly demand. I think the answer is.obvious, but you don't agree. That is fine by me. I don't value your opinion, so I am not interested in trying to change it.

2. As stated before, if I was.interested in debating the majority v. The minority opinion (which I am not - especially when the entire matter now being heard en banc, thus striking those opinions) I would not be interested in debating it with you. I find you insufferable.

3. Yes, my opinion is worthless. I have no basis from which to render a valid opinion on whether SA is factually guilty. I find it odd you act like you discovered the Dead Sea.Scrolls when you state that over and over, when you didn't realize.I had been stating exactly.that since I first.posted.in this thread.

I watched a documentary.

I found it interesting and believe it raised legitimate issues.

I am now following to see how the Court of Appeals decides on one of the issues raised in the documentary.

I don't care if others do not agree that legitimate issues were raised.

I do believe that anyone that has a strong belief about SA being factually guilty or non-guilty likely lacks a strong foundation for that opinion.

None of this requires homework, legal training, or the presentation of a doctoral thesis.
11-23-2017 , 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
I have posted two threads here in 2.5 years. One was on the Monster of Florence case, to provide information due to the misinformation being posted on the Knox thread by Knox's groupies. I'm not interested in its reception, once the information itself is available.

Nor is anyone interested in your trolling attempts to deflect the topic onto little old me, to cover up the glaring fact that your opinion is worthless due to your consistent inability/unwillingness to support your position with anything at all whatsoever.
Hence, the term "lukewarm." You misread the room, people don't like you.

I am sure it burns you up when you see.all the attention zellner gets and the well.wishes on her twitter.page. i suppose you expect at.least a pat on the back for all those victims you champion. Yet, you toil in obscurity.
11-23-2017 , 07:32 AM
No you haven't as yet again you were asked to justify their omissions & selective editing which has been covered itt.

Yeah you do need to validate as you're engaging in advocacy so the onus is indeed on you to validate it, bluster boy. Again this isn't your blog. Still can't back up your pap I see.

I'm asking you to validate MAM's deception. That's it. You haven't validated it despite your claim otherwise.

I get that you think that requests for evidence to support your position & valid arguments to justify a fraudulent doc seems like a childish demand. Eight Million & seventy sixth reason your opinion is considered worthless.

So yet again you're unable to justify the majority argument, gotcha. Glad you finally acknowledge they've been vacated though.

Nobody cares what you believe, you've failed to specify these "legitimate issues" or coercion & nobody is interested in your mindlessly repetitive assertions if nothing valid to support them is forthcoming.

Yes we know your opinion is worthless whaddya think we've been patiently explaining to you several times, due to your gnat like attention span?
But again glad you're acknowledging it, each journey begins with a single step yaddayadda.

As in the court of appeals whose arguments you're unable to even address re merits, that court of appeal?

Nobody cares what you care/don't care about due to your worthless opinion, there's that short attention span of yours kicking in again. Tsk tsk.

Your next two snooze inducing musings superfluous irrelevant & boring ergo ignored.
11-23-2017 , 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Hence, the term "lukewarm." You misread the room, people don't like you.
Guess you missed my point re information. I couldn't care less what strangers on the internetz think about me. Which includes you.

Quote:
I am sure it burns you up when you see.all the attention zellner gets and the well.wishes on her twitter.page.
??


Quote:
i suppose you expect at.least a pat on the back for all those victims you champion. Yet, you toil in obscurity.
Nope. Yet again I find such behaviour including yours as immoral so don't have a problem speaking up against it & yet again your latest veiled digs at murder victims is duly noted.

Anything else, lawboy? Again I'm not interested in your opinion of me but only if you can back up your bollocks. You've failed miserably to do so. Yet again why break a trend?
11-23-2017 , 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
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.



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.
So what exactly is stopping Beernstein and Allen's other victims now from subpeonaing the same people who would have testified in the Avery case, and launching the same discovery that would have happened in the Avery case, and bringing all this hypothetical information to light? What is stopping a law enforcement agency who believes there is a case against Lenk and Colborn for their actions in the Beernstein case from pursuing it? Nothing.

Also I suggest looking up the definition of the term "precedent."
11-23-2017 , 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
No you haven't as yet again you were asked to justify their omissions & selective editing which has been covered itt.
The guy already claims that the show portrayed the blood vial evidence fairly and accurately.

Whether he's purposefully lying or he's also lying to himself, it doesn't really matter, one thing is clear: you're not going to be able to have an honest conversation about this with him.

So why bother?



For me, one of the most glaring and disgusting examples of the filmmakers's dishonest agenda is in their portrayal of Steven Avery's relationship with Jodi. It's particularly noteworthy not because of it's significance to the show, but because of how the filmmakers responded to questions about it.


Background:

After Jodi bravely spoke out about how Steven violently abused her (allegations that are well-documented and corroborated by many witnesses including from Steven's own family), a majority of Avery advocates predictably turned on her in a particularly ugly fashion (just read the top comments on this youtube video for some examples).



In this interview, Jodi states:

"I asked Laurie and Moira not to even use anything with me in it... because I told her it was all lies... she called me and asked me if I wanted to do another interview before the documentary came out, and I told her 'no'. And that's when I asked her, 'I want nothing to do with it, I don't want any part of it, and I don't want to be in it.' I said, 'It's all lies'..."


When the filmmakers were asked on twitter how they felt about Jodi's interview claiming Steven was a monster, the filmmakers stated:

"We have no idea what's behind Jodi's recent statements...The filming we did w/ her 9 years ago accurately captured her views and state of mind at the time..."

However, numerous witness statements, court documents, etc. all verify Jodi's claims in the interview that Steven was a physically abusive piece of ****. This includes a police interview with Jodi where she details how Steven had abused her. Clips from this interview were included in the documentary, so the filmmakers have absolutely no excuse for "having no idea what's behind Jodi's recent statements." Thus, their denial speaks volumes.


Further details can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAvery..._knowledge_of/

I'll include the conclusion of that post here, because I can't state it better myself:

Conclusion:
Filmmakers Demos & Ricciardi were disingenuous when they stated, "We have no idea what's behind Jodi's recent statements" alleging her abuse by Steven Avery. Even if D&R were unaware of the police interview reports of Jodi's mom, Kayla, Marie, Doris and Tammy, or the State's "Other Acts" motions attempting to allow Jodi and others to testify about the abuse at trial, they surely knew about it when they reviewed for inclusion in MaM Jodi's August, 2006 police interview video, in which she referred to multiple incidents of abuse and described one in detail.
But an abusive Steven Avery didn't fit the MaM narrative, so it was left on the cutting room floor. And when asked about Jodi's claims, the filmmakers chose to play dumb, rather than admit knowledge of a basis for them.
11-23-2017 , 09:42 AM
IMO the filmmakers' agenda was to highlight a broken justice system, and I do believe that is a worthwhile agenda.

The problem is the way they went about it though.

To achieve their agenda, what the filmmakers should have done is look at a case that had already happened where they know there were legitimate issues (such as the 1985 case).

Instead, what the filmmakers did was dive headfirst into a case with their predetermined agenda before they even knew the actual facts of said case.

When the facts of the case did not line up with the filmmakers predetermined agenda their only choice was to fudge a bunch of those facts and dress it all up with disingenuous editing.

Ultimately, the issues discussed should be molded around the facts of the case, not the other way around.


Looking at things in the most favorable light, I believe the filmmakers stuck themselves inside an echo chamber by embedding themselves with the Avery family and defense lawyers, leaving them with a skewed outlook on everything (obviously the prosecution and police are not going to appear in a documentary advocating for Steven's innocence while a trial is going on, so I'm not sure what they were really expecting there), and they actually believed they were doing some good.


Looking at things in the least favorable light, the filmmakers knowingly dragged a bunch of completely innocent people's lives through the muck in order to make something out of their one chance at success.

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 11-23-2017 at 09:47 AM.
11-23-2017 , 09:49 AM
"The people that were close to Steve knew he was harmless. He was always happy, happy, happy. Always laughing. Always wanted to make other people laugh."

- this is an actual quote used in Making a Murderer
11-23-2017 , 10:12 AM
Oski's position appears to be:
He watched & was impressed by MAM
He doesn't feel the need to research further
He doesn't need to validate his opinion to anyone
He doesn't need to scrutinize the appellate court's arguments to see if MAM did indeed raise "legitimate issues"
He doesn't feel that MAM was deceptive despite lots of examples being given
He therefore doesn't need to address such deception.

And because he doesn't need to do any of this, everyone else's opinions are irrelevant as they don't discuss solely MAM as a film.
Useless continuing with him.

I respectfully disagree re the film makers I honesty think they simply wanted fame limelight & to profit from it as highlighting flaws in a system which everyone knows is flawed doesn't need a biased & indeed fraudulent narrative to support it, the truth speaks for itself in such things.
They also could have investigated cases with much more merit re wrongful convictions yet chose a case for where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt for one of the defendants anyway & as you adequately showed in your previous posts quite deliberately altered testimony, statements interviews & perceptions of evidence to intimate at least a wrongful conviction or unfair due process. It also had no qualms whatsoever in casting sinister intimations against members of Ms Halbach's own family.

Imo all of this was done for a reason, and one of the oldest in the world- personal gain.
11-23-2017 , 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
No you haven't as yet again you were asked to justify their omissions & selective editing which has been covered itt.

Yeah you do need to validate as you're engaging in advocacy so the onus is indeed on you to validate it, bluster boy. Again this isn't your blog. Still can't back up your pap I see.

I'm asking you to validate MAM's deception. That's it. You haven't validated it despite your claim otherwise.

I get that you think that requests for evidence to support your position & valid arguments to justify a fraudulent doc seems like a childish demand. Eight Million & seventy sixth reason your opinion is considered worthless.

So yet again you're unable to justify the majority argument, gotcha. Glad you finally acknowledge they've been vacated though.

Nobody cares what you believe, you've failed to specify these "legitimate issues" or coercion & nobody is interested in your mindlessly repetitive assertions if nothing valid to support them is forthcoming.

Yes we know your opinion is worthless whaddya think we've been patiently explaining to you several times, due to your gnat like attention span?
But again glad you're acknowledging it, each journey begins with a single step yaddayadda.

As in the court of appeals whose arguments you're unable to even address re merits, that court of appeal?

Nobody cares what you care/don't care about due to your worthless opinion, there's that short attention span of yours kicking in again. Tsk tsk.

Your next two snooze inducing musings superfluous irrelevant & boring ergo ignored.
Actually, you have yet to prove MAM is fraudulent, yet you continue to make that assertion.

Please provide, verbatim, the evidence and testimony that establishes this "fraud."

Furthermore, you have yet to controvert any single claim made by MAM.

Please identify by setting forth the episode number and minute mark of each portion if MAM you argue is fraudulent. Provide evidence of the fraud. As you know, the standard of proof for proving fraud is by "clear and convincing evidence."

I do not see that you have remotely met this burden anuwhere in this thread.

So, we will wait for it.
11-23-2017 , 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
So what exactly is stopping Beernstein and Allen's other victims now from subpeonaing the same people who would have testified in the Avery case, and launching the same discovery that would have happened in the Avery case, and bringing all this hypothetical information to light? What is stopping a law enforcement agency who believes there is a case against Lenk and Colborn for their actions in the Beernstein case from pursuing it? Nothing.

Also I suggest looking up the definition of the term "precedent."
Statute of limitations. Subpoenas can only be issued in conjunction with a court case. They would not be able to sustain a complaint because it would be time-barred.
11-23-2017 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Oski's position appears to be:
He watched & was impressed by MAM
He doesn't feel the need to research further
He doesn't need to validate his opinion to anyone
He doesn't need to scrutinize the appellate court's arguments to see if MAM did indeed raise "legitimate issues"
He doesn't feel that MAM was deceptive despite lots of examples being given
He therefore doesn't need to address such deception.

And because he doesn't need to do any of this, everyone else's opinions are irrelevant as they don't discuss solely MAM as a film.
Useless continuing with him.
.
All that is basically correct. I have stated this pretty much consistently. I have no idea how you can't pick this up when its been laid out for you dozens of times.
11-23-2017 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
All that is basically correct. I have stated this pretty much consistently. I have no idea how you can't pick this up when its been laid out for you dozens of times.
...It's just that your posts tend to make my eyes glaze over after the first few (dozen ) paragraphs of bloated dross, making it hard to pick out the odd relevant nugget. Is all.
But now that it is without a doubt (far beyond a reasonable doubt you might say) confirmed that you're basically useless itt (and bizarrely apparently proud of this fact) we can all continue to dismiss your worth-less-than-Chechen- currency opinion & get on with our respective lives...

*cue yet more wall of text pontificating droning from Better Call Saul*
11-23-2017 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Actually, you have yet to prove MAM is fraudulent, yet you continue to make that assertion.
Already been proven with plenty of specific examples given which you either ignored or else hand waved away.

Quote:
Please provide, verbatim, the evidence and testimony that establishes this "fraud."
See above & previous posts.

Quote:
, you have yet to controvert any single claim made by MAM.
Already been done again see above, see also the blood vial charade which you apparently think was a fair/accurate presentation.
As to the rest of your repetitive waffle again see above. Yet again such examples have been clearly given itt & yet again nobody is interested in your rehashing. Counterpoint the issues already raised thanks, Skillz just posted several examples very recently & Frayley also did so earlier. Refute them.

We will continue to wait.
11-23-2017 , 03:26 PM
Coming up on two years of debating this by some of the same people. Nice work.
11-23-2017 , 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Oski's position appears to be:
He watched & was impressed by MAM
He doesn't feel the need to research further
He doesn't need to validate his opinion to anyone
He doesn't need to scrutinize the appellate court's arguments to see if MAM did indeed raise "legitimate issues"
He doesn't feel that MAM was deceptive despite lots of examples being given
He therefore doesn't need to address such deception.

And because he doesn't need to do any of this, everyone else's opinions are irrelevant as they don't discuss solely MAM as a film.
This is all accurate.


Quote:
Useless continuing with him.
Exactly. It's like trying to discuss evolution with a religious zealot who bases all arguments around the bible.

At a certain point, you have to realize that an open and honest discussion will be impossible and move on.


Quote:
Imo all of this was done for a reason, and one of the oldest in the world- personal gain.
It's certainly possible. We can never truly know what their goals were, but we do know that they acted unethically and disingenuously in pursuing them (the Jodi portrayal being a particularly egregious example).
11-23-2017 , 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Well, yeah. He even tried.to start a few threads here, but the reception is lukewarm.

I think people were uncomfortable with him describing the slasher film Hostel as "delicious" (or something similar).

I always found it odd in the AK thread how CV would rant about Solecitto's torture porn, etc, but finds similar items."delicious." A total nutter - and a grossly unpleasant personality as well.
I think corpus vile identifies with some of the 'heroes' of his torture porn films. Notice how he tries to emulate the speech patterns of the character 'Buffalo Bill' from Silence of the Lambs.
11-23-2017 , 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Hence, the term "lukewarm." You misread the room, people don't like you.

I am sure it burns you up when you see all the attention Zellner gets and the well.wishes on her twitter page. I suppose you expect at least a pat on the back for all those victims you champion. Yet, you toil in obscurity.
I suppose if corpus vile did anything but vent his spleen on threads like this and give his copious opinions about what the best torture scene in a serial killer movie is corpus could have made something of himself and contributed something positive to society.

Sadly, he seems to be too much of a misanthrope to to anything more than express his jealousy of people more accomplished and more beneficial in the community than he will ever be.

If he wasn't such an ******* I'd pity him.
11-23-2017 , 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
"The people that were close to Steve knew he was harmless. He was always happy, happy, happy. Always laughing. Always wanted to make other people laugh."

- this is an actual quote used in Making a Murderer
Yes, some people who knew Steven said some nice things about him.

If you watched the show, you'd have noticed there were some folks who said ****ty things about him too.

That's the thing about documentaries - life is more complex than an old-fashioned Western where the Good Guys wear white hats and the Bad Guys wear black hats.
11-23-2017 , 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
I honestly don't think it does. His tropes are too consistent. Bar raising, veiled digs at the Halbachs, lies re evidence, false accusation against those close to Teresa. If he's not a murderer groupie, he's doing a spot on impression of one.
LOL, why would anyone do that? That's absurd. GTFO.

Lies!
Lies!
LIES!
11-23-2017 , 07:23 PM
Did everyone have a nice thanksgiving? :P
11-23-2017 , 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet Making a Murderer
Coming up on two years of debating this by some of the same people. Nice work.
Yes, funny the folks like corpus vile et al are still standing by limited information from 2006 while the other folks are talking about breaking news involving the appeals and current state of play in the case in 2017.

      
m