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

01-21-2016 , 11:03 PM
Like fraley, fruit snacks, and others really need to read up on false confessions. They're quite common, especially among young people, and often imaginatively detailed in a "how the **** could they make this stuff up if it didn't actually happen" fashion.

And from watching the videos of the 12/27 and 3/1 Brendan interviews, it's hard to believe anyone familiar with the practice wouldn't see them as an obvious candidate.
01-21-2016 , 11:11 PM
Won't bother with the whole thing, just a couple quick corrections:

Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
If anything, this helps the argument that the jury pool was poisoned. They only get to strike so many potential jurors, not every juror with a conflict. The fact that they struck 6 others and left this guy speaks volumes as to how tainted the pool was to begin with.
No, you're wrong. They have unlimited chances to strike for cause. If they attempted to strike the deputy's dad for cause and were denied, that would have been valid grounds for appeal.

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


Quote:
Avery decided, not his lawyers. I'm not sure what you think a mis-trail means. They would have re-tried the case with the same judge, but different jury. I'm not sure how you think that helps.
Yes, Avery decided based on the advice of his lawyers.
01-21-2016 , 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
If anyone who read the BD transcripts thought that BD kept referring to a Suzuki in the garage and just mistook a Suzuki for Teresa's RAV4, he actually did mean Suzuki.

This is interesting, I definitely thought Suzuki meant the Rav4. Just one more element that points towards it being a false confession imo. Why would he have this story in the 12/27 interviews about helping to push a jeep from the side of the garage into an empty garage (except for a moped) when his supposedly "true" confession involved Teresa's vehicle already being in the garage when he arrived? Same with so many other details in the 12/27 interviews that don't really help or hurt his own involvement. Seems exceedingly like he's just trying to give them a story they want to hear.
01-21-2016 , 11:19 PM
The circumstances and manner in which he killed the cat are important in my opinion. If he was drunk and with friends and things kind of got out of control, that's different from someone who gets enjoyment out of torturing animals.

I'm curious how he got caught doing that. Someone must have reported him to the police.
01-21-2016 , 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Won't bother with the whole thing, just a couple quick corrections:


No, you're wrong. They have unlimited chances to strike for cause. If they attempted to strike the deputy's dad for cause and were denied, that would have been valid grounds for appeal.

So just the one actual correction then?

I apologize for using the incorrect vernacular, as I meant a peremptory challenge.

Yes, they can strike for cause, assuming they can prove cause. Proving actual conflict of interest, and pointing out the likely hood of a conflict aren't the same thing.

Again, if anything, that's a potential knock on avery's lawyers and their effectiveness, a point that could be brought up at appeals.
01-21-2016 , 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyRavishing Making a Murderer
The circumstances and manner in which he killed the cat are important in my opinion. If he was drunk and with friends and things kind of got out of control, that's different from someone who gets enjoyment out of torturing animals.



I'm curious how he got caught doing that. Someone must have reported him to the police.

Why, it wouldn't have been / wasn't brought up at trial. This isn't minority report.
01-21-2016 , 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by legend42 Making a Murderer
This is interesting, I definitely thought Suzuki meant the Rav4. Just one more element that points towards it being a false confession imo.
Glad I wasn't the only one.
01-21-2016 , 11:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Why, it wouldn't have been / wasn't brought up at trial. This isn't minority report.
I'm not saying it should have been introduced in the trial, but there is evidence out there of people having done terrible things having histories of torturing animals as well. I tend to think it was possibly something that just got out of hand. Pouring gasoline on a cat and throwing it in a fire does seem pretty vicious, though.

And I am curious about how he got caught because it seems like to have gotten caught for something like that, someone that was there would have had to have 'ratted' him out. (Probably a bad assumption, but I'm assuming it happened in the junk yard as well.)

FWIW, I don't think his family really did a good job of standing by him in his first trial. If your son is on trial to do serious f'ing time, and he's looking you in the eye and telling you he didn't commit the crime, you sell your property and get him a lawyer.
01-21-2016 , 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I watched the confession on march 1st. That is the only one that matters because everything after that he tried to lie then gave up when pressured.
I can't tell, did you ever read or watch the 12/27 interviews where he confesses to involvement but with a totally different narrative with contradicting events? In which the cops feed him plenty of details that will become part of the "confession" two days later? And which cover most of your 'gotcha' "how did he know Teresa's blood was in her car?", "how did he know she was shot in the head" points?
01-21-2016 , 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Glad I wasn't the only one.
lost, you're doing great work itt. I was reading through pages on my phone and was kind of annoyed with your quoting technique and some of your petty back-and-forth for awhile, but you've definitely hung in there versus all comers. And I even agree with you about Avery's character. I don't think he's a despicable person. The cat incident is deplorable, but drunk hillbillies do some stupid ****.

Anyone who 18 years in prison for something he didn't do and holds no ill will towards his accuser and gets out of the car and addresses everyone the way he did in the opening scene of the series. You get a little attaboy from me.
01-22-2016 , 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Except I have said before I believe he is innocent.

Lol at all the people thinking because I call the documentary biased I think he is guilty. Not even close to what the word bias means.
Yes, the documentary is biased. It even has an agenda, which is a dirty word among the ignoramuses who don't seem to realize that every work of art has an agenda.

The concept of "objectivity" in documentaries is practically impossible in the first place. Every cut, every camera angle, every musical cue, etc. is inherently subjective. There's been much written about this, and how much responsibility docs have to presenting an "objective" POV.

The filmmakers have acknowledged they were massively influenced by the Paradise Lost series, The Staircase (both told from the perspective of the defense team) as well as presumably Capturing the Friedmans, Murder on a Sunday Morning, The Thin Blue Line, and many others.

Should they have covered the part about Avery's sweat DNA, Brendan's other confessions, some of his darker domestic incidents, etc. Maybe, maybe not. They did include some negative material, and even the most ardent prosecution supporters haven't punched the kind of holes that the dissenters did with Paradise Lost, Michael Moore docs, Serial, etc.

They wanted us to question a process that was used to convict and incarcerate two individuals. And they did so in an honest way. They were not trying to make a larger statement about systemic corruption, though the concerns that might arise from it are nonetheless valid.
01-22-2016 , 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngerPush Making a Murderer
Watching his very consistent and quick responses when he was on the stand leads me to believe BD is not ******ed.
Funny. Watching his admission to reading a James Patterson novel when he was on the stand leads me to believe he is.
01-22-2016 , 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
They asked how far in the knife went when he cut her neck and he shows a considerable length with his fingers. This would produce a massive amount of blood regardless of what part of the neck he cut her in and it would pool around her head if she was lying down when it occured
This is another crucial point for anyone believing the Brendan confessions.

He doesn't show a considerable length, because he doesn't understand what they mean by "length". Instead he makes a motion all they way across his neck, as that's the "length" they're referring to. So this 16-year old kid just slit this woman's throat basically from ear-to-ear. Even though in this confession, Brendan said Steven didn't threaten him at all (in his previous confession, he did threaten to stab him to death if he said anything).

Like this is just so wtf:

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
He didn't say he "slit her throat" watch his confession. He said he cut her throat and cut her hair and after stevan strangled her for two minutes. Clear indication that he didn't cut her throat in a way that would kill her it was to **** with her.
Seriously, what kind of speculation is this? He cut her throat to **** with her? Explain this precisely, please.
01-22-2016 , 01:50 AM
What I would love to see is a split-screen video of Wiegert and Fassbender in some other room high-fiving each other and laughing about what else they can get this poor sap to confess to while simultaneously in the interrogation room, Brendan eats a wax paper wrapped sandwich thinking he's going home pretty soon because he said what what these *******s goaded him into giving whatever story they fed him, having no idea that he is about to serve his next 35 years in prison.

Pathetic.
01-22-2016 , 02:13 AM
I'd really like to know who was repeatedly calling TH in the weeks before her death.

Presumably, it wasn't Steven Avery as the prosecution would have used that at trial.
01-22-2016 , 03:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake (The Snake) Making a Murderer
I'd really like to know who was repeatedly calling TH in the weeks before her death.

Presumably, it wasn't Steven Avery as the prosecution would have used that at trial.
Yeah, that seems like yet another lead that the investigators never followed up. Maybe it was the ex-boyfriend. He was suspicious as hell.
01-22-2016 , 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Won't bother with the whole thing, just a couple quick corrections:



No, you're wrong. They have unlimited chances to strike for cause. If they attempted to strike the deputy's dad for cause and were denied, that would have been valid grounds for appeal.

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




Yes, Avery decided based on the advice of his lawyers.
More accurately his lawyers were straight up with him and said if they had a mistrial he would end up with a public defender because Avery could not afford to pay them to retry the case.

So in a perfect world retrying the case would have been his next option but opting to retry with a Wiscinsin Public Defender is not really a viable option so he had to roll the dice.
01-22-2016 , 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Anyway, I didn't mean to get in a debate, just wanted to defend fraley and the other "trolls".

My main point is this:

If you're basing your opinion off watching the series, you're probably wrong.

If you're criticizing others who read the trial transcripts or did other outside research, and calling them trolls for presenting the actual facts from the case that **** up your narrative, then you're an ignorant jackass who thinks way too highly of himself.

Bye.
If you base your opinion off Reddit and Wisconsin prosecutors you are definitely more wrongerer.
01-22-2016 , 04:28 AM
Buy your "WhatisReasonableDoubt" Russian Nesting Dolls. The largest doll is named "Poorskillz". When you remove the top of his skull you will find the next doll named "fraleyight". This once in a lifetime offer can be yours now for a very low price (plus shipping and processing). *ACT NOW* as the molds for these once in a lifetime collectibles have been destroyed, much like the DNA was destroyed by the Wisconsin State lab.

Order now and get an autographed copy of Prosecutor Greisbach's next book entitled "Police are good some of the time". All this for only three payments of $19.95. If you are one of the first hundred to order you will also receive a FREE Krantz Drink Coaster*.

ORDER NOW! OPERATORS ARE STANDING BY!

"This was the best gift I ever bought for myself - Anonymous Reddit poster"


*warning do not actually place drinks on the Krantz coaster as it is slimy and your drinks will likely slide onto the floor.
01-22-2016 , 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
More accurately his lawyers were straight up with him and said if they had a mistrial he would end up with a public defender because Avery could not afford to pay them to retry the case.

So in a perfect world retrying the case would have been his next option but opting to retry with a Wiscinsin Public Defender is not really a viable option so he had to roll the dice.
He could get Brendan's first lawyer.
01-22-2016 , 06:23 AM
of all the things to rage at in this documentary, the #1 hate from me is LEN. That guy singlehandedly AS A DEFENSE LAWYER with zero thought behind it sent a 16 year old ******ed boy to prison for 35 years.

I stalked his facebook, it made me even more infuriated.
01-22-2016 , 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
says who?

Neither of those are entirely true. It is possible he arrived before they started the sign in protocol.


yes, lenk was involved in the case.. SO what? Why do you think this was not allowed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
There was no law, no nothing that said lenk or anyone from manitwoc county couldn't be there. What happened was the DA didn't want them there because they thought it would present doubt at the trial and the DA told the media they were not involved. Besides that there was no requirement that they couldn't be there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Andro Making a Murderer
This thread really went down the dumpster ever since fraley started trolling the **** out of it. A shame because the start of the thread was very interesting.
Yup.
01-22-2016 , 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capone0 Making a Murderer
fraley has also repeatedly pointed out incorrect things as well.



http://time.com/4167915/making-a-mur...n-avery-juror/



http://www.people.com/article/steven...es-a-new-trial

HMmmmmmm.....
Wtf? What does this have to do with anything I have said?
01-22-2016 , 10:07 AM
This is crazy to me. I came in here at first to offer my opinion. Then was called stupid by like 3 different people just on my first post alone. Now I have multiple people trying to find things I said that are wrong. So far you guys have had no luck. If you fact checked the stuff I said you may understand why I have reached the conclusion I have but I see discourse is not possible for the simple minded people of OOT.

It is not my fault the thread sucks now, it is all the people trying to kill the messenger. Or at the very least not trying to understand how someone could have reached the conclusion I did.

I have seen tons of updates on this case I could share with everyone if they were interested.

Including brendan moving prisons, stevens new lawyer posting twitter updates about his appeal, and I intended on sharing those things and other stuff as well. But holy **** it has just turned into bash fraley because he doesn't agree with us. That is really what is going on here.
01-22-2016 , 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Wtf? What does this have to do with anything I have said?
that was someone else who claimed the fear claims by the jury could be ignored.

      
m