- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Making a Murderer - Part 2
Posted on 10/31/18 at 6:49 pm to CajunTiger_225
Posted on 10/31/18 at 6:49 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:
It shows that the documentary is focused on presenting a compelling story and not compiling facts which leads to omitting details and inaccurate descriptions of characters and thats exactly what we got.
It also shows that the state was focused on presenting a compelling story and not compiling facts which led to omitting details and inaccurate descriptions of characters and thats exactly what we got.
1
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:02 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Okay so just going to be ignorantly dense? Got it. 
Posted on 10/31/18 at 8:16 pm to CajunTiger_225
Your posts have narrowed to "you just bought into Netflix, derp." I'm good with the effort I'm giving you. If you want to have a real discussion, I'm not stopping you from doing so.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:35 pm to UpToPar
According to the forensic anthropologist....yes
Posted on 11/1/18 at 8:21 am to UpToPar
quote:
I’ve seen several people discuss the lack of bone fragment on the bullet, and I’m sure this is addressed in the documentary, but is it inconceivable that a bullet that travels through a human skull would have no bone fragment on it? I honestly don’t know.
they tested it with a setup that modeled a human head with bone, soft tissue, and bone layers. Not only would the bullet likely have bone fragments embedded, but it also would not likely have enough oomph to exit the head when fired be a 22
Posted on 11/1/18 at 9:39 am to DisplacedBuckeye
The documentary is no more biased than the cops and prosecutors. That obvious bias on behalf of the state should be frightening to everyone watching.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 10:13 am to Jester
quote:
The documentary is no more biased than the cops and prosecutors.
This isn't really any sort of defense, though. I haven't gotten into Part 2, but the first season was the defense team's trial package edited for broadcast. Period.
quote:
That obvious bias on behalf of the state should be frightening to everyone watching.
The state has to be biased during a prosecution. They shouldn't be during the investigation, but to say that in an adversarial trial setting that one side cannot be biased is ludicrous on its face.
Where we should all be concerned and where the pro-Avery folks (and, those defying classification, for example DisplacedBuckeye) have a solid point is that the evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct hasn't been fully explored, to my knowledge (and, in Dassey's case, the misconduct of his original attorney).
In my opinion, that should be evaluated separately, independently - it should be outside the charged issue of the guilt or innocence of Avery of Dassey. It is possible to frame a guilty person. That almost certainly happened in the OJ Simpson case. That may have happened here.
Just because they got the "right" perps should not excuse misconduct. So, insofar as that is possible, that should continue to be investigated - however decoupled from the potential of releasing Dassey or Avery (although I accept that there is the legal concept of "fruit of the poisonous tree" and may provide for some post-conviction relief, depending on Wisconsin and potentially Federal law and rules of criminal procedure.)
This post was edited on 11/1/18 at 10:16 am
Posted on 11/1/18 at 10:15 am to Jester
quote:
The documentary is no more biased than the cops and prosecutors. That obvious bias on behalf of the state should be frightening to everyone watching.
I don't disagree. From the start, there was a bias there. That doesn't mean Avery didn't kill her, but I do think it means he was never given a fair trial.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 10:19 am to Ace Midnight
All of my points are solid. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't change anything.
I'm still just baffled that you admit they likely didn't receive fair trials, but oppose them receiving new trials.
I'm still just baffled that you admit they likely didn't receive fair trials, but oppose them receiving new trials.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 10:30 am to VinegarStrokes
quote:
they tested it with a setup that modeled a human head with bone, soft tissue, and bone layers. Not only would the bullet likely have bone fragments embedded, but it also would not likely have enough oomph to exit the head when fired be a 22
Exactly. We know for a fact that that 22 bullet did not pass through Halbach's skull. Doesnt mean that Avery didnt murder her. But he didnt shoot her in the garage. Which raises the question as to how the DNA got on the bullet.
One question i have is to why Avery would randomly figure out how to systematically clean a crime scene (the garage wasnt coated in blood) but will just leave his blood all over a car and prop leaves against it. That doesnt make sense. Either hes a moron on hes not (he is)
In fact i think a big issue with Avery was he was just to dumb for the jury to relate to. When he was talking about the blood he left in the sink before going to Menards and then waking up in the morning and it being gone i thought "wait, are you claiming that you just bled all over the place and left it for 12 hours in your house?" But then i remember that this dude is a fricking trailer trash hill billy that lives on a junk yard.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 10:32 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I'm still just baffled that you admit they likely didn't receive fair trials
I didn't say that. Certainly it is possible, but I didn't try the case. I wasn't a juror on the case and I haven't heard their appeals or post-conviction hearings.
On the face of it, the cops appear dicey. I have little question that Dassey's original attorney committed sanctionable misconduct, unless that interview by the investigator and subsequent actions were misrepresented by the documentary filmmakers. But, beyond that, there is a lot of innuendo, conjecture, speculation and, frankly, conspiracy theories. I don't say that to dismiss concerns, but that's just where I'm at on it. I also don't mean to say that to cut off further analysis.
But, according to every defense lawyer, the defendant is either innocent or the state hasn't proven its case. That can't be the end of the analysis.
NO court or jury has agreed with the defense or documentary filmmakers. NONE that have been asked to rule on the case.
This post was edited on 11/1/18 at 10:33 am
Posted on 11/1/18 at 10:42 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I didn't say that.
In more words, you did. You didn't come out and say it, but you agree with the information that shows the trials weren't conducted properly. That's good enough for my point.
quote:
But, according to every defense lawyer, the defendant is either innocent or the state hasn't proven its case. That can't be the end of the analysis.
In a trial, that should absolutely be the end of the analysis. The state has either proven their case, or they haven't. It isn't on the defense to prove that their client is innocent.
quote:
NO court or jury has agreed with the defense or documentary filmmakers. NONE that have been asked to rule on the case.
That's not true. Dassey was ordered released. Twice.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 10:45 am to Hester Carries
quote:
But then i remember that this dude is a fricking trailer trash hill billy that lives on a junk yard.
Yeah. The dude routinely burned tires, car parts, chemicals, and other junk for a bonfire. For recreation. There's nothing that could be said that I'd think Avery was too stupid to do.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 10:46 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The state has either proven their case, or they haven't.
How many jurors voted to acquit in either Avery or Dassey's case?
Posted on 11/1/18 at 10:48 am to Ace Midnight
Zero. What's your point?
I mean, you didn't even know about the Dassey rulings...
I mean, you didn't even know about the Dassey rulings...
Posted on 11/1/18 at 12:34 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
That’s because the way you’ve argued through this thread that’s exactly how it looks. You keep bringing how proud you are in the points that you’ve made but I’ve yet to see you make any besides open ended statements and answering questions with questions and just playing the priority game as well as multiple sides.
First page there’s a list of evidence where you say all of that was either debunked or Kratz made it up which is so absurd because a lot of that was unchallenengable facts of the case and Kratz can’t just invent evidence, that’s not how it works. It’s not unusual for the prosecution to take the evidence they have and paint pictures for the jury however off they might be that isn’t anything new.
First page there’s a list of evidence where you say all of that was either debunked or Kratz made it up which is so absurd because a lot of that was unchallenengable facts of the case and Kratz can’t just invent evidence, that’s not how it works. It’s not unusual for the prosecution to take the evidence they have and paint pictures for the jury however off they might be that isn’t anything new.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 12:41 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
NO court or jury has agreed with the defense or documentary filmmakers. NONE that have been asked to rule on the case.
And that’s because they’re both omitting details to change our perception.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 1:07 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:
That’s because the way you’ve argued through this thread that’s exactly how it looks.
That's how you want it to look, or maybe more accurately, how you need it to look. It would suck for you if I actually did know what I was talking about. That's why you made up some nonsense about us discussing this before.
quote:
First page there’s a list of evidence where you say all of that was either debunked or Kratz made it up
Right, and that's completely accurate, which is why no one has bothered to challenge me on it.
Posted on 11/1/18 at 1:07 pm to CajunTiger_225
Well, for starters, that's not even an accurate statement...
Posted on 11/1/18 at 2:08 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Zero. What's your point?
Because you have to convince jurors or appellate judges to make a difference in a case. Now, with the West Memphis 3 - eventually they got a negotiated release, with overwhelming public opinion in their favor.
quote:
I mean, you didn't even know about the Dassey rulings...
I was generally aware he was ordered released. But those were blocked and reversed by the folks with that authority, right? I mean, he's still in jail, right?
Page 15 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News