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

01-10-2016 , 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Sorry smacc25 but all of your points have already been addressed pretty thoroghly with good counter theories or ideas by PoorSkillz. It's a long thread, but its all there.

Also, SA DNA not found on the bullet.

Hood latch was used in this case, just not shown in the documentary as Mr. Kratz has pointed out whenever he gets a chance. A few others including myself have stated why this bit of evidence is so ridiculous that it should possibly be used for the defense. Just read the thread.
I did read the thread, sorry my bad that I missed the latch & Sorry for the Bullet(without blood) but It did have DNA.

I was just so mad after watching this doc that i could not believe 1. Just how bad the investigation was handled at EVERY TURN(I think you said this).
2. The comment by an officer when he radioed in to base to ask if SA was in custody when no body was found.
3. After seeing all the equipment used by the P.D to investigate the crime in the doc on the Avery's grounds that MCPD still could not take a step back.
4. After the confession of G.Allen Not 1 statement by MCPD to apologize to the victims of violent rape that happened because of them convicting a innocent person.
To me 4 is the worst part, so forgive me but I will not let poorskillz forget these poor unfortunate women.

Last edited by smacc25; 01-10-2016 at 04:23 AM.
01-10-2016 , 04:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I've been reading Mr. Griesbach's book and it's a doozy:





Facepalm.
Yup its a joke to these people. I dunno who's worse Lenk&co or Mr Griesbach since he needed to make a few more $ out of this misery. Seen his interview too & it contains nothing but hey were stand-up guys (MCPD).

If he had gave the profits from the book to a rape crisis center or similar then I would have commended him.
01-10-2016 , 04:36 AM
Quote:
That she'd been raped by her assailant was a safe assumption, but the details of the assault and her subsequent torture went beyond what anyone had imagined
More gold from Mr. Griesbach.
01-10-2016 , 04:41 AM
Quote:
I did read the thread, sorry my bad that I missed the latch & Sorry for the Bullet(without blood) but It did have DNA.
According the the testing technician, the test for DNA on the bullet resulted in both the testing technician's DNA and Teresa Halbach's DNA.

Steven Avery's DNA nor blood were found on the bullet.
01-10-2016 , 04:51 AM
Quote:
4. After the confession of G.Allen Not 1 statement by MCPD to apologize to the victims of violent rape that happened because of them convicting a innocent person.
If you read this book by Greasebach, he berates the sh*t out of MC Sheriff's dept for this. He makes himself look like an absolute hero for his work in exonerating an innocent man.

He does fry Vogel and Kocourek pretty hard though.
01-10-2016 , 04:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
According the the testing technician, the test for DNA on the bullet resulted in both the testing technician's DNA and Teresa Halbach's DNA.

Steven Avery's DNA nor blood were found on the bullet.
Sorry again lostinthesaus...... You are correct it was TH DNA that was found to be on the bullet.( and should have not been permitted after she contaminated it with her own DNA).
Also since the same technician was involved in SA 1st case why was the testing not outsourced? And I wonder was she pressured by the MCPD that she would also be liable for some of the lawsuit.

Sorry about my misinformation Been a long NT here thanks for the corrections.

Last edited by smacc25; 01-10-2016 at 05:03 AM.
01-10-2016 , 05:00 AM
So it didn't matter that there was no evidence of a rape & SA got those charges dismissed he still want to berate him for it. Or is he only talking about the BD case?
Mr Greaseback indeed.

If the MCPD started to make restitution to the victims then & only then should anyone in that town give the officers involved so much as a Nod when walking past them on the street.

Last edited by smacc25; 01-10-2016 at 05:10 AM.
01-10-2016 , 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet Making a Murderer
You think they need to fill out a TPS report at a little family operated junk yard to crush a car?
I guess it's possible Avery didn't get the memo.
01-10-2016 , 06:34 AM
Anyone else find Michael Halbach's and or Ryan Hillegas's behavior creepy?





https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...chy_interview/


I just finished up watching the series and searched for him that came up.
01-10-2016 , 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Pretty sure I read it could be done with the steel belts from tires used as accelerants... which I think is what they found mixed with the bones...

Edit: Here you go: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd..._hours/cyhsdra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeti Making a Murderer
more comments by strang, including some stuff we haven't seen before:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...DB&via=FB_Page
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Hey mark, I guess you're referring to me.

First of all, I'm pretty sure Griesbach is still a Manitowoc ADA. He was even in the news just a few days ago! http://fox6now.com/2016/01/05/manito...threats-daily/

Can you provide any info otherwise?

You call him a "weirdo" too, but it already seems you know very little about the man. I guess you attack his character because you don't like what he's said about Avery. I understand.

Regarding "primary sources", I'm not writing a dissertation here. I often refer to reddit because it's a convenient summary, like referring to wikipedia. The posts I link to often include opinions from people who work in a certain field or provide sources from articles/trial transcripts/etc. It seems at least a few people are interested in them, and that's why I do it.

But if you prefer masturbating to the latest theory about how Scott's the murderer, I won't judge you.
I called him a weirdo because he claimed many people considered Avery a hero, which is absolute nonsense. He is a weirdo. Him still being an active prosecutor makes it even worse, so good job taking my softening of circumstances and putting him back in the worst popular light.

I realize between him and Reddit you get all excited but as dumb as Reddit is it is better than using a Wisconsin prosecutor on a case that involves systematic corruption and/or incompetence for pretty much every level of law enforcement in the state.

If all you are going to do is quote him, quote redditors and claim the doc is biased just stop. You clearly are unable to put the facts into context of how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. We all watched the documentary. Huge red flags of doubt. We have all seen the purported evidence the filmmakers "maliciously" omitted from the documentary. The totality of thst evidence is NOT compelling. It doesn't even move the needle a little bit. So we are still back at the same point of a huge miscarriage of justice in two separate cases.

I do most appreciate him talking about Avery's bad behavior since he was exonerated too. lol starts out with a speeding ticket. But then does descend into some bad stuff for a guy who was imprisoned for eighteen years. Where is the social responsibility in that. Not just the nonsense about a parole officer (although jurisdictstions should be required to pay for special counseling and Assistsnce programs for exonerated felons). This making people worse in prison factor is something that is tolerated when people are guilty. Much harder when they should not have been there.

Keep chirping, I am sure you will love the Nancy grace and discovery Id specials that are going to trod down this same silly path. I am just going to assume you are greisbach at this point as it makes the most sense.
01-10-2016 , 07:07 AM
One of the things that really confused me is why didn't Steven Avery take the stand in his own trial. Was this likely a decision that he took himself or one that his legal team advised him on? As the Halbach brother said it seemed counter-intuitive for him to say that everyone knew he was innocent and therefore he wasn't going to open himself up for any questioning. He may not have a high IQ but he's Einstein compared to his nephew so I don't think he would have incriminated himself through a lack of comprehension in perhaps the same way that Brendan did at his trial.
01-10-2016 , 08:02 AM
read the thread / google it
01-10-2016 , 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfing_Stud Making a Murderer
Anyone else find Michael Halbach's and or Ryan Hillegas's behavior creepy?

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...chy_interview/

I just finished up watching the series and searched for him that came up.
They act like this because the chances of them being tipped about the location of the car are very high. That's why the cousin found it within 30 minutes later on.
01-10-2016 , 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brussels Sprout Making a Murderer
One of the things that really confused me is why didn't Steven Avery take the stand in his own trial.
There are very good and understandable reasons why innocent defendants don't testify, especially someone with his history and perceived demeanour.
Unfortunately, given the average grasp of scientific evidence, the concept of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence - as illustrated by the 3 trials showed in the show - the decision to testify or not is damned if you do, damned if you don't way too often.

Last edited by chytry; 01-10-2016 at 08:44 AM.
01-10-2016 , 09:51 AM
Hi mark, comments in bolded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
I called him a weirdo because he claimed many people considered Avery a hero, which is absolute nonsense. He is a weirdo. Him still being an active prosecutor makes it even worse, so good job taking my softening of circumstances and putting him back in the worst popular light.

I realize between him and Reddit you get all excited but as dumb as Reddit is it is better than using a Wisconsin prosecutor on a case that involves systematic corruption and/or incompetence for pretty much every level of law enforcement in the state.

Again, you do realize he was the one who exposed this corruption in the first place in the 1985 case, he serves on the board of the Innocence Project, and speaks very critically of Manitowoc County's actions in the book, right? Also, many people did consider Avery a "hero" at the time - the series even shows this.

Why do you hate the guy? You really show your ignorance and confirmation bias here.


If all you are going to do is quote him, quote redditors and claim the doc is biased just stop. You clearly are unable to put the facts into context of how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. We all watched the documentary. Huge red flags of doubt. We have all seen the purported evidence the filmmakers "maliciously" omitted from the documentary. The totality of thst evidence is NOT compelling. It doesn't even move the needle a little bit. So we are still back at the same point of a huge miscarriage of justice in two separate cases.

I'm providing facts, opinions, etc that support an alternative perspective that maybe you only watched 10 hours of a Netflix show and aren't smarter than the jurors, the judge, and others in the justice system (and no, they're not all corrupt either) who spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours on this trial and dealt with way more information than you have. It's a crazy thought, I know.

Meanwhile, all you've done ITT is opine about the justice system and smell your own farts. You clearly think very highly of yourself, but your ignorance shows in your posts (especially regarding Griesbach) and is clouded by your confirmation bias . Have you even read Dassey's trial transcripts?


I do most appreciate him talking about Avery's bad behavior since he was exonerated too. lol starts out with a speeding ticket. But then does descend into some bad stuff for a guy who was imprisoned for eighteen years. Where is the social responsibility in that. Not just the nonsense about a parole officer (although jurisdictstions should be required to pay for special counseling and Assistsnce programs for exonerated felons). This making people worse in prison factor is something that is tolerated when people are guilty. Much harder when they should not have been there.

Again, you're spouting rubbish. Maybe you should read his book, mark. You'll learn some things.

Keep chirping, I am sure you will love the Nancy grace and discovery Id specials that are going to trod down this same silly path. I am just going to assume you are greisbach at this point as it makes the most sense.

Anyway it seems you're both ignorant and rude, a true snob, so let's end this conversation. Toodles.

Last edited by PoorSkillz; 01-10-2016 at 09:57 AM.
01-10-2016 , 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brussels Sprout Making a Murderer
One of the things that really confused me is why didn't Steven Avery take the stand in his own trial. Was this likely a decision that he took himself or one that his legal team advised him on? As the Halbach brother said it seemed counter-intuitive for him to say that everyone knew he was innocent and therefore he wasn't going to open himself up for any questioning. He may not have a high IQ but he's Einstein compared to his nephew so I don't think he would have incriminated himself through a lack of comprehension in perhaps the same way that Brendan did at his trial.
There was no point to it, because he had nothing much to say except "I didn't do anything". Plus I think he would have been awful on the stand, he's a dim bulb who loves to talk way too much.

Brendan HAD to take the stand to try to explain away his confession.
01-10-2016 , 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Sorry smacc25 but all of your points have already been addressed pretty thoroghly with good counter theories or ideas by PoorSkillz. It's a long thread, but its all there.

I think PoorSkillz is just convinced that SA is guilty, not that it was correct that he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm pretty convinced he's guilty, yes. There's plenty of evidence there that supports this, and the only possibility of his innocence involves a ridiculous frame-job and cover-up combined with Steven's own incredibly bad luck.

I'm of the opinion that none of us can really know whether we would find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the trial based on watching a slanted 10 hour show. I defer to the judge & jury who saw all the information we did and much more and saw the complete arguments from both side and made their judgments. The series has shown me no evidence to believe they did not do this effectively and with integrity. I find the petitions and other nonsense very disturbing and weep for America.

Also, I'm happy you're reading Griesbach's book.
01-10-2016 , 10:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'm pretty convinced he's guilty, yes. There's plenty of evidence there that supports this, and the only possibility of his innocence involves a ridiculous frame-job and cover-up combined with Steven's own incredibly bad luck.
To convict beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecutors must show and prove how things unfolded to this standard.
The fact that there were 2 cases regarding the same murder describing 2 different versions of events means that at least one of them should have been acquitted by default but ideally both because the prosecution obviously can't prove either beyond reasonable doubt.
And that's before we get to all the other things showing that the standard of reasonable doubt can't be satisfied.
01-10-2016 , 10:30 AM
Were you so hasty to reply that you didn't read my very next paragraph?
01-10-2016 , 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'm pretty convinced he's guilty, yes. There's plenty of evidence there that supports this, and the only possibility of his innocence involves a ridiculous frame-job and cover-up combined with Steven's own incredibly bad luck.

I'm of the opinion that none of us can really know whether we would find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the trial based on watching a slanted 10 hour show. I defer to the judge & jury who saw all the information we did and much more and saw the complete arguments from both side and made their judgments. The series has shown me no evidence to believe they did not do this effectively and with integrity. I find the petitions and other nonsense very disturbing and weep for America.

Also, I'm happy you're reading Griesbach's book.
Hardcore trolling talking about integrity when at the very least most evidence have been found by people that should never have been anywhere close to the investigation at all to prevent that huge fiasco wether or not they planted them.
I agree that the documentary looks super biased but the investigation looks even worse on that area.
01-10-2016 , 10:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Hardcore trolling talking about integrity when at the very least most evidence have been found by people that should never have been anywhere close to the investigation at all to prevent that huge fiasco wether or not they planted them.
I agree that the documentary looks super biased but the investigation looks even worse on that area.
AFAIK the investigation didn't break any legal rules with regards to allowing certain people to be involved. Regardless, the jury takes all of this into account. I would like to know if/how the prosecution addresses all of this at the trial.
01-10-2016 , 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'm pretty convinced he's guilty, yes. There's plenty of evidence there that supports this, and the only possibility of his innocence involves a ridiculous frame-job and cover-up combined with Steven's own incredibly bad luck.

Is this the 1st trial you're describing you know the 1 where he LOST 18F***ING YEARS of his life,like 25-30% of his whole life, or the 2nd trial before a trial was even sat they had spoke to the media & the media did a news show on it every night on every channel, totally unethical what those prosecutors did or even the lies told about the TH murder on live t.v when obv her family was watching & a number of other stuff. CONFORMATION BIAS INDEED.


I'm of the opinion that none of us can really know whether we would find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the trial based on watching a slanted 10 hour show. I defer to the judge & jury who saw all the information we did and much more and saw the complete arguments from both side and made their judgments. The series has shown me no evidence to believe they did not do this effectively and with integrity. I find the petitions and other nonsense very disturbing and weep for America.
WELL YOU KNOW WHAT PLENTY OF DECENT FOLK IN THE US would have found SA not guilty based on the fact of BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
Which BTW was WHY THE DOC WAS MADE.
But you seem to think these to ladies went into the project knowing the verdict, I know they are smart ppl but REALLY.
The whole prosecution team was asked multiple times to do an interview for the doc but only wanted to do media news that they could control at there side so as to get the lies they told to influence the jury.(yeah go on tell me that the jury would not dare watch the news at night lol)

1st count 7 not guilty 3 guilty 2 undecided, IMO someone else got to them.
01-10-2016 , 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I'm pretty convinced he's guilty, yes. There's plenty of evidence there that supports this, and the only possibility of his innocence involves a ridiculous frame-job and cover-up combined with Steven's own incredibly bad luck.

I'm of the opinion that none of us can really know whether we would find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in the trial based on watching a slanted 10 hour show. I defer to the judge & jury who saw all the information we did and much more and saw the complete arguments from both side and made their judgments. The series has shown me no evidence to believe they did not do this effectively and with integrity. I find the petitions and other nonsense very disturbing and weep for America.

Also, I'm happy you're reading Griesbach's book.
PoorSkillz is right.

And it's shocking to me how many of you allowed yourself to be emotionally manipulated by a documentary. You guys would have acquitted OJ too. Ironically enough, the fact that so many people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by this show and demonstrate fairly low levels of critical thinking makes me have even less confidence in the American legal system. I do think, fwiw, the show did a good job of showing many of the failings of the system.
01-10-2016 , 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalerobk2 Making a Murderer
And it's shocking to me how many of you allowed yourself to be emotionally manipulated by a documentary.
Kony 2012

Avery 2016
01-10-2016 , 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalerobk2 Making a Murderer
PoorSkillz is right.

And it's shocking to me how many of you allowed yourself to be emotionally manipulated by a documentary. You guys would have acquitted OJ too. Ironically enough, the fact that so many people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by this show and demonstrate fairly low levels of critical thinking makes me have even less confidence in the American legal system. I do think, fwiw, the show did a good job of showing many of the failings of the system.
OJ did it.

Reasonable doubt though.

      
m