No. Stop lying.

You raised the claim that MAM is fraudulent in connection to your statements about the filmmakers' motives.

But, we can take your current waffling as an admission that you don't understand what "fraud" is.

So, given you don't understand what fraud is, I suppose you retract your claims that MAM is fraudulent and apologize for defaming yhe filmmakers?

By the way, please explain how I am a "murder groupie." It may interest you that I had a long debate with lostinthesauce anout about SA as a person.

It was (and remains) my position that he is a POS. You can look it up as it is in this very thread.

That does not erase my concerns about the issues raised in MAM.

This is a fair post.

So, we have at least 3 legitimate issues raised, prima facie, by MAM.

As for these, I don't agree Dassey was a side show, at least 2 full episiodes of 10 focused soley on him. Also, the story could not.be told without making SA the main focus (for obvious reasons).

Now, at the very least, would you agree the film also raised issues concerning the county's proceedures in general and as applied to this case as well as whether MCSD and others had motivation to see SA's civil lawsuit go away?

Well, is there currently a court of appeal or some other comparable tribinal working on the issue as we speak?

If so, maybe we can wait to see what happens.

However, given most people's life experience and education, it would probably be highly unsusual for an educated, well-reasoned person to accept the show's conclusion about aliens.

I appreciate you were convinced and are debating whether you should investigate further.

Without even watching the show, I am.l comfortable rejecting its premise (not to mention, if it was compelling in any way, it would be newsworthy. But, I have yet to see the New York Times debating the merits of "Ancient Aliens.")

As I explained before, in the civil context, the standard of proof for fraud is "clear and convincing."

CV's position in this regard is neither clear nor convincing.

But, I appreciate others have not been attempting to prove fraud (and they habe not), so when CV declares MAM is fraudulent and seeks to rely on others' "proof" ot falls short.

But, since CV is the one declaring MAM fraudulent, I assumed s/he had some particular insight or facts that supports that claim. I guess not.

You're lawyering a bit too hard, Oski. Corpus obviously is not accusing the filmmakers of commercial fraud -- I don't think he is saying that they defrauded Netflix by, for instance, selling on prospectus a show that they never had any intention of delivering for broadcast. He's accusing them of what is called innocence fraud, which is indeed a thing.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/05/prweb12701214.htm

Innocence fraud occurs where journalists, activists -- and, in some cases, arguably and unfortunately, lawyers -- seek prestige and financial gain by agitating for the overturn of convictions on behalf of people who are blindingly bloody obviously guilty in fact of the most serious of all possible crimes.

Because the American criminal justice system is so catastrophically defective, with over 90 per cent of cases resolved by plea bargain under threat, Americans imagine that 'innocence projects' are a good thing. But they aren't, necessarily. The UK Innocence Project caught a nasty cold when their poster boy Simon Hall, on whose behalf they'd been agitating for years to make themselves look important, confessed to the murder for which he was convicted and then committed suicide.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-36576113

Britain isn't immune to this kind of thing, though. The late journalist Paul Foot made a career out of agitating for the posthumous acquittal of the murderer James Hanratty, and refused to admit his error even after DNA analysis (not available at the time of the murder in 1961) proved Hanratty guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanratty


Foot also agitated for the acquittal of the robbers convicted of murdering teenage newspaperboy Carl Bridgewater in 1978. Although the men had their acquittals overturned in 1997, solely on the basis that police broke Judges' Rules during questioning -- which certainly did happen, so the overturn was legitimate -- the media falsely reported that the killers had been somehow 'exonerated', which was not the view taken by the Court of Appeal at all.

Bearing in mind the evidence from the similar Chapel Farm robbery a month later, which the same men committed by their own admission -- that evidence being ruled inadmissible by the trial judge for the obvious reason that its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative effect, rendering any conviction on those grounds appealable, so that Crown counsel was forbidden to mention it unless defence counsel made the mistake of mentioning it first -- those men were very clearly factually guilty of the murder of young Carl Bridgewater. And the Court of Appeal said there was sufficient evidence against at least one of them to allow a jury rightly directed to convict, with the obvious implication for the rest of them under the joint-enterprise rule. But the media claimed they'd been 'exonerated', which is not the case.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1997/2028.html

No one familiar with the Meredith Kercher murder case can really claim to be unfamiliar with the phenomenon of innocence fraud, since in that case it notoriously became an industry involving the major US TV networks (who agreed to promote the view of Amanda Knox's family in exchange for interview rights, US TV producers even child-minding for Knox's parents and paying all their expenses). The New York Times was also implicated, as were other US media outlets.

Today's entry into the discussion of MaM's biased and deceitful narrative is a great post by reddit-philosopher parminides:

"selective editing and bias in MaM: why it matters"

No. The issue arose within discussions of the filmmakers' motivations and justification for the film.

Some took the position the film was simply a money grab with legitimate basis for even being made.

I disagree with that as I believe the Court of Appeals' treatment of the Dassey case thus far validates the film - in that legitimate issues of public interest are raised.

CV has taken it a step further claiming the film is "fraudulent."

I think such claim demands proof. You all can't walk it back for CV. This thread captures the words. No need to monday-morning quarterback on behalf of CV.

For someone who easily throws around "murder groupie" accusations and speaks with purported authority about "murder groupies" and their tactics, etc., I am confident that when CV accuses the fillmakers of fraud, that is exactly what is meant.

The solution is simple:

1. CV admits he does not know what fraud is and retract the accusation; or

2. Prove the fraud.

Correct me if I am wrong, but CV is the lone poster that demands everyone to prove their opinions. It is not enough for CV to accept someone holds an opinion without claiming authority - he demands proof, and often to the legal.standard.

So, is it not.fair to expect the same from him?

At.the end of.the day, he doesn't HAVE to do anything, but failing here just confirms he is full of crap (as.everyone seems to already know)

Well, if you can, since the thrust of you claim concerns the broken US system, please provide examples comparable examples of US innocence fraudsters. Showing us UK innocence fraudsters doesn't quite do it for me.

I do know that this past week, in Southern California, an innocent man was release after serving 40 years of a false murder conviction.

Guess who lobbied for the overturn and release? One of the case investigators. I guess the case investigator was committing innocence fraud?

http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/...125-story.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Porter

This guy is a good example of what you guys are talking about. Was convicted, a bunch of people thought he was innocent, fudged the facts in news reports where they were interviewd and I believe they made a documentary to convince people he was innocent too. Forced another man to confess to the crime, got porter exonerated. Porter then sued the police department and lost and the guy who confessed was later exonerated after spending 10 years or so in prison.

This is just another instance that indicates corpus vile is only here to troll.

He just likes to make things up and try to get a rise out of people with his lying.

Given that the United States manages to incarcerate more of its citizens than any other nation on the planet, you'd think people would be more concerned about 'guilt fraud' since that is a clear and present danger for citizens here.

I think it would be a sure bet that there are more people being robbed of their freedom due to incompetent and malicious cops than the wrongly exonerated prisoners being freed.

AFAICT these are the charges:

(1) 1st Degree Intentional Homicide,
(2) Mutilation of a Corpse,
(3) Felon in Possession of a Firearm, and
(4) False Imprisonment

There is no conspiracy charge among them that I can see.

What testimony was given at Steven's trial about Brendan's alleged involvement?

Thanks in advance!

Steven wasn't convicted with BD as a party, he was convicted "with another party" I don't remember exactly how it was worded but it was clear based on the charge that the state was saying steven had a partner in the crime.

The man who was leading Porter's cause (as well as the cause to get another man, Alstory Simon, convicted) is David Protess, "a renowned journalist and professor who spent three decades fighting to prove the innocence of others".

Protess was fired from Northwestern after an investigation into his work, and he is one of the parties being sued for a combined $40million by the wrongly convicted Alstory Simon. The judge has denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...329-story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/bu...18protess.html


Here's a documentary on the subject of Protess, Porter, and Simon:

Yep, I saw that documentary. Very interesting case that I think shares some similarities with this one.

Simon's lawsuit alleges:

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/docum...COVERSHEET.pdf

I saw in the opening of the trial there was some discussion about whether Brendan or some anonymous perpetrator was supposed to have participated in the crime.

But on reading the instructions to the jury there is no mention of another party.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...structions.pdf

Unless I am very much mistaken these would be the charges Steven could be convicted of.

Paul Ciolino at the center of the lawsuit also wished "eye cancer" on one of the prosecutors in the Amanda Knox trial, on facebook.

Documentary alleges the plan was hatched in part by Porter. Who had an IQ of 59.

Another documentary which has been critiqued for engaging in a deceptive fraudulent narrative which is biased toward innocence (including by the victims who wrote an open letter of protest to the Oscars iirc) is 2003's Capturing the Friedmans




Another TV special which garnered criticism for deceptive fraudulent narrative biased toward innocence was Frontline's "Did Daddy do it" re incarcerated child molester Frank Fuster
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/...02/01-119.html

Then there was Doug Preston & Mario Spezi's massaging of facts & fraudulent deceptive narrative in their book The Monster of Florence: A True Story which was found legally slanderous in an Italian court with co-author Mario Spezi having to pay the head of the investigation Michele Giuttari compensation.

Good to see that it is, in fact, OK to make up one's mind about a case based upon viewing a documentary!

Indeed as both the docutwins & the innocence project involved re Porter seemed to wish for a desire for fame & money

Guy who confessed was specifically not exonerated by the court who nonetheless decreed he was probably factually innocent but refused to exonerate him due to his confessing & tearful false apology to the victim.

Thanks.

By the way, your summary does not match up well with the link. I appreciate it is difficult to summarize a complex series of facts, so I will defer to the wiki page.

Exactly.

Over the years we have witnessed the (rightful) deterioration of blind trust we hold in the system and those holding power within it.

It is no longer shocking to uncover corruption, incompetence, or petty motives in law enforcement. The external checks on the system are necessary.