Author Topic: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]  (Read 4501 times)

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2018, 05:47:44 PM »
I don't think you prove things in Netflix shows mate, tends to happen in courts.

Yes the never-wrong courts.  And also things are proved by you personally speculating about things, don't forget that faultless process of proving things.

Please never understand why you are funny, biggy.  It would spoil it.

Ballad of Ballard Berkley

  • a hopeless vanity... a stupefyingly futile conceit
    • Me Twitter
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #31 on: October 22, 2018, 05:54:37 PM »

biggytitbo

  • WHAT ABOUT THE GODDAM JAFFA CAKES ASSWIPE
    • theunredacted
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #32 on: October 22, 2018, 08:43:56 PM »
This is linked from your article, and a few of the major points highlighted on there are dealt with in S2.

Dealing with the most pertinent points:

1. The DNA swab under the hood wasn't covered with cag as under-bonnet swabs might be ordinarily, and there was a load more DNA on the swab (was it 10x?) than there would normally be. There is the suggestion that officers took a swab from his gooch which was not officially requested, not recorded, and subsequently discarded by the nurse where an officer picked it up.

3. An expert on fire suggests that the body was not burned in the fire as it would not get hot enough, and would leave an obvious mark in the ashes where the body had been.

6. The bullet wouldn't have had the power to penetrate the skull twice (no exit wound), and there was evidence of cotton fibres on the bullet tip suggesting it was swabbed onto the case.

Can't speak for the other points, as at times I've drifted into half-watching it. Some of the stuff on that article is circumstantial/hearsay I suppose, but the above points are pretty compelling. Once it's evident the police have fabricated all sorts of other evidence, why would it be difficult to believe they have moved other pieces of evidence into his Avery's fire/burner?

The article you linked to is correct in critiquing the circus around it all, but I've watched it and am commenting on it now, so who am I to criticise?


All those points come down to dueling experts, the prosecution have experts that say those things could happen, and the defense found some that said they thought they couldn't. On the burning the body point, the prosecution had multiple experts who said they thought that is what happened, and indeed they even found bits of the metal from the tyres in the burn pit melted into the bones, indicating the body had been burnt in situ. The problem here is the case against Avery is so comprehensive and consists of so many different mutually self confirming elements that even if the defence can cast  doubt on some parts, the case is still way stronger than most murder cases that gain a conviction. As I've said many times before, no police force on earth could have faked all the massively incriminating things Avery does that nobody else could have possibly known about - he could have been convicted on the circumstantial evidence alone in fact.

Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #33 on: October 22, 2018, 09:03:54 PM »
he could have been convicted on the circumstantial evidence alone in fact.
Oh dear.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2018, 09:13:53 PM »
All those points come down to dueling experts, the prosecution have experts that say those things could happen, and the defense found some that said they thought they couldn't. On the burning the body point, the prosecution had multiple experts who said they thought that is what happened, and indeed they even found bits of the metal from the tyres in the burn pit melted into the bones, indicating the body had been burnt in situ. The problem here is the case against Avery is so comprehensive and consists of so many different mutually self confirming elements that even if the defence can cast  doubt on some parts, the case is still way stronger than most murder cases that gain a conviction. As I've said many times before, no police force on earth could have faked all the massively incriminating things Avery does that nobody else could have possibly known about - he could have been convicted on the circumstantial evidence alone in fact.

Coo - a stubbornly stuck record. 

You've had months to research what reasonable doubt is since you were last put right on this subject; what's your excuse for not bothering?

BlodwynPig

  • Throwing two dogs at a goblin
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2018, 09:16:54 PM »

All those points come down to dueling experts, the prosecution have experts that say those things could happen, and the defense found some that said they thought they couldn't. On the burning the body point, the prosecution had multiple experts who said they thought that is what happened, and indeed they even found bits of the metal from the tyres in the burn pit melted into the bones, indicating the body had been burnt in situ. The problem here is the case against Avery is so comprehensive and consists of so many different mutually self confirming elements that even if the defence can cast  doubt on some parts, the case is still way stronger than most murder cases that gain a conviction. As I've said many times before, no police force on earth could have faked all the massively incriminating things Avery does that nobody else could have possibly known about - he could have been convicted on the circumstantial evidence alone in fact.

Watch the documentary. All the pieces fit into place.

Bobby was a sick mentalist who looked up pictures of dead girls and had paedophilic interests. He was the "witness" to Teresa going into Steven's property. This is now revealed as a lie. Andrew Colborn was told the whereabouts of Teresa's 4x4 before it was mysteriously moved onto Avery's property (by possibly Tadych and/or Teresa's ex-boyfriend). And so much more. The only villains in this piece or those who act like villains.

Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2018, 09:53:39 PM »
On the burning the body point, the prosecution had multiple experts who said they thought that is what happened, and indeed they even found bits of the metal from the tyres in the burn pit melted into the bones, indicating the body had been burnt in situ.

It has been scientifically proved that the temperature required to incinerate the bones to that extent is impossible to be achieved outside.
You will claim that this "comes down to dueling experts", but the prosecution just claimed that accelerants were used. At no point did they specify what temperature the burn pit reached, let alone offer an explanation as to how this temperature was achieved.
This isn't "dueling experts" as the prosecution didn't have an expert on this issue - just someone explaining how the fire could have been started. Dismissing this as 'he said/she said' is showing your refusal to accept facts*.

The bones were burnt elsewhere and moved to the burn pit.
This is important.


*this is a fact as in 'proven to be true', rather than 'what I choose to believe'

Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2018, 05:09:39 AM »
So, Biggy, the cover up is too elaborate and requires too many people involved not making any mistakes to be remotely plausible?




What are your thoughts on 9/11?

biggytitbo

  • WHAT ABOUT THE GODDAM JAFFA CAKES ASSWIPE
    • theunredacted
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #38 on: October 23, 2018, 07:20:21 AM »
It has been scientifically proved that the temperature required to incinerate the bones to that extent is impossible to be achieved outside.


No it hasn't been 'scientifically proved', there is no such scientific experiment, it's various broadly relevant experts trying to draw parallels between very broadly similar cases. That's why they have scientists testifying to opposite things under oath, nothing is proven. What, unfortunately for Avery, is proven is that he also had a bonfire on the night of her murder and lied about it (even though if was innocent he couldn't possibly have known she was burnt) and that the metal radials from tyres in his burn pit were found fused into tiny fragments of halbachs bones.


The problem for Zellner, and she knows it by the way she's behaving, is she's never going to get Avery off by merely casting doubt on guilt. That works in cases where the evidence against someonebis confines to one  two main things, casting doubt on those can make the while thing collapse. Here, the list the evidence against everyone so huge that the best she's ever going to do is merely chip away at it around the edges. That's why she's had to pursue the alternative more risky strategy of finding someone else who did it. But again her problem is she can't decide on any one suspect, or indeed make a case against anyone that is remotely as good as the case against Avery.


Regardless of what you think happened, it's likely Averys very slim chances of ever been released now rest entirely on them finding some inctrovertible and undeniable evidence that someone else did it.

Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #39 on: October 23, 2018, 08:19:58 AM »
No it hasn't been 'scientifically proved', there is no such scientific experiment, it's various broadly relevant experts trying to draw parallels between very broadly similar cases. That's why they have scientists testifying to opposite things under oath, nothing is proven.

You are very wrong indeed.

No scientist appeared for the prosecution. Just a police officer whose 'expertise' was in arson and how fires are started.
He stated that the reason that the temperature was able to get so high was that accelerants were used in the fire.
That such a temperature is unable to be achieved outside was not something they have ever commented on.
However it has been proven that oxygen prevents fires from reaching (or even nearly reaching) the required temperature to incinerate the bones to that extent, so they cannot have been burned outside.

Maybe you need to search a different Reddit article on this one...

Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #40 on: October 23, 2018, 08:27:12 AM »
She doesn't have to prove who else did it though. Just that the evidence suggests that it didn't happen in the way that the prosecution have argued. The Denny argument isn't about proving that someone else did it but rather casting doubt on Avery's guilt and highlighting that the deck was stacked against him by the state.

Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2018, 08:29:13 AM »
She doesn't have to prove who else did it though. Just that the evidence suggests that it didn't happen in the way that the prosecution have argued. The Denny argument isn't about proving that someone else did it but rather casting doubt on Avery's guilt and highlighting that the deck was stacked against him by the state.

He's been told that plenty of times. I doubt it's going to sink in now.

biggytitbo

  • WHAT ABOUT THE GODDAM JAFFA CAKES ASSWIPE
    • theunredacted
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #42 on: October 23, 2018, 09:02:14 AM »
You sound like a 9/11 truther banging on about how jet fuel can't melt steel beams. No such thing has been proven, and as stated at the trial the combination of the tyres and the polyurethane car seats - which are effectively solid petrol and burn very hot, would have provided enough accelerant to burn the body, along with Avery using implements that were found nearby to break the pieces up, and moving the larger pieces to the burn barrel. But I notice you don't have much to say about Avery lying about having a bonfire on the night of Halbach's disappearance, and how he could have known this would be incriminating unless he was guilty? Or the tyre radials fused into the bone fragments?

imitationleather

  • "The French... are famous... for their kissing"
    • http://last.fm/user/ImiLeathr
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #43 on: October 23, 2018, 09:08:27 AM »
I've watched four episodes of the second series so far and haven't found it anywhere near as engaging as the first one. The fact it came out on Friday and I'm still on episode 4 tells it all, really. I was honestly a bit shocked to find it was ten episodes long. I thought it'd be like The Staircase updates. Anyway, it's to be expected that this one wasn't going to really match up or be as compulsive viewing. Considering that with s1 I had no idea about the case at all and now it feels like every on-going development has been in the news for the past three years, it doesn't feel anywhere near as fresh.

Bit disappointed by biggy's stance of "This might present evidence I'll find it difficult to dismantle so I won't watch it". I expect more from him!

biggytitbo

  • WHAT ABOUT THE GODDAM JAFFA CAKES ASSWIPE
    • theunredacted
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #44 on: October 23, 2018, 09:23:32 AM »
She doesn't have to prove who else did it though. Just that the evidence suggests that it didn't happen in the way that the prosecution have argued. The Denny argument isn't about proving that someone else did it but rather casting doubt on Avery's guilt and highlighting that the deck was stacked against him by the state.

It's not untrue, but in practise it often is not enough, as here. If it were, and she doesn't have to prove someone else did it, why is she trying to prove someone else did it? Zellner is a slightly more experienced defense lawyer than you are, and she knows full well she's not going to get Avery off solely by chipping away at the massive, comprehensive list of evidence against him. You could remove 50% of it and still have a formidable case that would convince any jury in the land. She's no dummy, that's why she's trying to find an alternative suspect, it's not a particularly uncommon defense strategy in cases like this, especially in the US. The problem with it is there are diminishing returns the more suspects you introduce, as it starts to look like your randomly flinging shit and hoping something will stick, rather than having some level of compelling, focused case against someone else. But what it is more than anything, is a tacit acknowledgement that the 'we just have to cast doubt on his guilt' strategy is too weak to work on its own.

Cuellar

  • Push off my wire
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2018, 09:44:31 AM »
Why DO Americans just burn their rubbish in big holes in the ground.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #46 on: October 23, 2018, 10:48:06 AM »
You sound like a 9/11 truther banging on about how jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

I mean crikey.  You’re a mountain spring of ironic utterances sometimes.

Cuellar

  • Push off my wire
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2018, 11:22:59 AM »
Or the tyre radials fused into the bone fragments?

'Fused' seems to be editorialising slightly - the person who mentions this says the fragments were 'intertwined' with the wire, not that the wire had melted onto the bones. One of the expert witnesses for the prosecution even says that it's possible the bones were moved to the fire pit.

Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #48 on: October 23, 2018, 11:26:30 AM »
It's not untrue, but in practise it often is not enough, as here. If it were, and she doesn't have to prove someone else did it, why is she trying to prove someone else did it? Zellner is a slightly more experienced defense lawyer than you are, and she knows full well she's not going to get Avery off solely by chipping away at the massive, comprehensive list of evidence against him. You could remove 50% of it and still have a formidable case that would convince any jury in the land.

She's a slightly more experienced lawyer than you are too! She states in the show that her strategy is to both disprove the prosecution story while using the evidence to create a more credible alternative, and that obviously includes pointing the finger at others who may have had motivation.
 
I'm asking what this compelling 50% is because I can't be arsed with going down a Reddit K-hole. I see the bones mentioned, but remain unconvinced that his fire would be hot enough to burn human remains, and puzzled as to why they would be moved there (unless planted).

biggytitbo

  • WHAT ABOUT THE GODDAM JAFFA CAKES ASSWIPE
    • theunredacted
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #49 on: October 23, 2018, 12:56:29 PM »
She's a slightly more experienced lawyer than you are too! She states in the show that her strategy is to both disprove the prosecution story while using the evidence to create a more credible alternative, and that obviously includes pointing the finger at others who may have had motivation.
 
I'm asking what this compelling 50% is because I can't be arsed with going down a Reddit K-hole. I see the bones mentioned, but remain unconvinced that his fire would be hot enough to burn human remains, and puzzled as to why they would be moved there (unless planted).

If someone wants to burn some human remains in the same circumstances, with tyres and solid petrol as an accelerant, whilst been broken up with rakes and spades, and can't replicate it, then that's definitely something. But nobody has done that.

As far Zellner, yes that is what she is doing, the question is why? The Perry Masons in the thread claim she's not obliged to do anything other than cast doubt on Avery's guilt, which is technically true. But defense attorneys usually start flinging shit at other subjects in a scattershot way when they know they can't cast enough doubt, in a sufficiently convincing way, on the their clients guilt. At least not enough to reverse the conviction (even if its enough to convince netflix viewers).

As we've discussed on here many times, theres a massive list of circumstantial evidence against Avery that is incredibly damning and incriminating that couldn't possibly have been faked or planted by anyone other than Avery himself. That evidence shouldn't exist if he's innocent, and for it to all have happened purely by chance at the exact same time as the biggest frame up job in criminal history was setting him up in the exact same direction is so mind boggling unlikely I just can't believe anyone buys it. Either he's the unluckiest man to ever live, or the bunch of hicks, misfits and dumb cops portrayed in MaM are actually fiendish geniuses, playing an elaborate game of 4d chess in a way that would shame fictional masterminds in detective novels.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2018, 01:13:36 PM »
As we've discussed on here I have unthinkingly reiterated, without taking onboard anyone else’s valid points many times, theres a massive list of circumstantial evidence against Avery that is incredibly damning and incriminating that couldn't possibly have been faked or planted by anyone other than Avery himself. That evidence shouldn't exist if he's innocent, and for it to all have happened purely by chance at the exact same time as the biggest frame up job in criminal history was setting him up in the exact same direction is so mind boggling unlikely I just can't believe anyone buys it. Either he's the unluckiest man to ever live, or the bunch of hicks, misfits and dumb cops portrayed in MaM are actually fiendish geniuses, playing an elaborate game of 4d chess in a way that would shame fictional masterminds in detective novels.

Again, being a stuck record on this is nothing to be proud of.  When people dispute your understanding of law and the reasoning you’re copy-pasting from Reddit, what they’re not doing is saying “please repeat all the same stuff as if I didn’t understand it”.

Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2018, 01:19:15 PM »
If someone wants to burn some human remains in the same circumstances, with tyres and solid petrol as an accelerant, whilst been broken up with rakes and spades, and can't replicate it, then that's definitely something. But nobody has done that.

As far Zellner, yes that is what she is doing, the question is why? The Perry Masons in the thread claim she's not obliged to do anything other than cast doubt on Avery's guilt, which is technically true. But defense attorneys usually start flinging shit at other subjects in a scattershot way when they know they can't cast enough doubt, in a sufficiently convincing way, on the their clients guilt. At least not enough to reverse the conviction (even if its enough to convince netflix viewers).

As we've discussed on here many times, theres a massive list of circumstantial evidence against Avery that is incredibly damning and incriminating that couldn't possibly have been faked or planted by anyone other than Avery himself. That evidence shouldn't exist if he's innocent, and for it to all have happened purely by chance at the exact same time as the biggest frame up job in criminal history was setting him up in the exact same direction is so mind boggling unlikely I just can't believe anyone buys it. Either he's the unluckiest man to ever live, or the bunch of hicks, misfits and dumb cops portrayed in MaM are actually fiendish geniuses, playing an elaborate game of 4d chess in a way that would shame fictional masterminds in detective novels.

So couldn't Avery be guilty and then had the police fake evidence against him to make sure he was convicted? I don't think Avery's guilt or innocence would really come into it if the police were desperate enough to fake evidence.

BlodwynPig

  • Throwing two dogs at a goblin
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2018, 01:57:07 PM »
Why DO Americans just burn their rubbish in big holes in the ground.

It was close to Bonfire night. Actually it was Halloween wasn't it. Spooky.

Anyway, Biggy watch the documentary and report back to my office.

biggytitbo

  • WHAT ABOUT THE GODDAM JAFFA CAKES ASSWIPE
    • theunredacted
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2018, 02:10:26 PM »
So couldn't Avery be guilty and then had the police fake evidence against him to make sure he was convicted? I don't think Avery's guilt or innocence would really come into it if the police were desperate enough to fake evidence.


Yeah I agree that's possible, that is often the justification bent cops use for 'helping the evidence' along in fact isn't it?

Cuellar

  • Push off my wire
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #54 on: October 23, 2018, 02:39:52 PM »
It was close to Bonfire night. Actually it was Halloween wasn't it. Spooky.

Anyway, Biggy watch the documentary and report back to my office.

But they're all at it, all the time!

Mark Kozelek wrote a long rambling song about a second cousin of his who died in a trash burning accident. Someone had thrown an aerosol into bin and when she set it on fire it exploded and killed her.

Includes a lyric like: "You don't just take out your trash and die" - well no, if you just take it out you don't! If you set fire to it all bets are off I reckon.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #55 on: October 23, 2018, 04:40:17 PM »
Yeah I agree that's possible, that is often the justification bent cops use for 'helping the evidence' along in fact isn't it?

HE’S CRACKING OPEN, FELLAS.  SOMEONE SHOVE IN A WEDGE.

Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #56 on: October 23, 2018, 06:10:19 PM »
By the end I was finding this as compelling as the first season. If anyone's on the fence about watching this because the focus is on the minutiae of the Avery case, that's true, but there's also a fair amount of time devoted to Dassey's predicament and the implications of the AEDPA Act of 1996, which is Kafkaesque.

If I've understood correctly, you may have evidence that your constitutional rights were violated in a way that lead to your imprisonment, but a Federal court must refuse to grant relief when the State court that did so, didn't do so unreasonably. "Well, whatever the case is now, the judgment was a reasonable one based on the information available at the time. So get fucked." There is a bigger picture.

mojo filters

  • Mueller heavy
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #57 on: October 23, 2018, 11:14:16 PM »
But they're all at it, all the time!

Mark Kozelek wrote a long rambling song about a second cousin of his who died in a trash burning accident. Someone had thrown an aerosol into bin and when she set it on fire it exploded and killed her.

Includes a lyric like: "You don't just take out your trash and die" - well no, if you just take it out you don't! If you set fire to it all bets are off I reckon.

In the Midwest it's very common for trash to be disposed of in burn barrels, as they don't have the same MSW collection infrastructure as urban and coastal areas. You do "just take out your trash and die"!

Given Carissa shared "the same fate" as Mark's unlucky truck driving Uncle, it seems slightly less shocking or unusual. Plus the song was neither overly long, nor rambling.

The bigger question seems to be in respect of regular trash disposal etiquette. Was it just Carissa's "kids just being kids" and "the weight they will carry around forever"?

Personally I'm more interested in the table full of prescription drugs. Ohio still legally RX's one of the highest rates of quality pharmaceuticals in the US. Who was leaving the fine oxys and benzos on that table?

Seems like a wasted opportunity for a straight-edger like Mark. He doesn't have to take them, but I can guarantee they'll assist him in cheating on Caroline when out on tour!

Cuellar

  • Push off my wire
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #58 on: October 23, 2018, 11:33:04 PM »
Well she was an RN in Wadsworth so presumably she could lay her hands on drugs.

And I didn't say it was 'overly' long, just long and I think it's rambling because it's quite discursive, almost like blank verse, not neat couplets or whatever.

Also, the line about his uncle made me think the whole thing wasn't real, thought it was a joke: "two relatives died burning rubbish! Ha! How would that happen"

Must be awful for the environment

mojo filters

  • Mueller heavy
Re: Making a Murderer - Series 2 [split topic]
« Reply #59 on: October 24, 2018, 12:20:02 AM »
She was an RN in Wadsworth, but she "vanished up in flames". Fortunately not the same hospital in which John Wise saw fit to make multiple attempts at discharging a firearm, terrifying all the staff in the vicinity.

There's more rhyme than blank verse in that song. A quintessential blank verse lyric would be more like Paul Simon's epic America.

Both relatives of Mark's died in the same way. No wonder his lyrics are so well informed by melancholic experiences!