Entertainment Rebutting a murderer

Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by DABA, Jan 21, 2016.

  1. DABA

    DABA Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    2,515
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    460
  2. Tipsey Russell

    Tipsey Russell VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    123,502
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    10,930
    Likes Received:
    25,764
    i'm assuming very few replies to this will be related to the link (that surely contains a virus of some sort)
     
  3. suckemnuckledus

    suckemnuckledus Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    20,048
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    4,701
    Will I get the herpies and have my cock wilt away if I click?
     
    Mulletude likes this.
  4. Tipsey Russell

    Tipsey Russell VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    123,502
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2013
    Messages:
    10,930
    Likes Received:
    25,764

    it's unlikely
    but I would recommend being cautious
     
  5. DABA

    DABA Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    2,515
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    460
    I didn't but, I used finger condoms when I put it on the board.

    Btw. The guy doing this is basically restating the prosecutions case.
     
  6. LawyerLarry

    LawyerLarry Mr. Fuckmoney in the Bank VIP

    Reputations:
    -207,968
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2014
    Messages:
    27,904
    Likes Received:
    125,065
    This was very informative.
     
    Mike Huntslooce likes this.
  7. SouthernListen

    SouthernListen I don't follow the crowd. Sorry about that. VIP

    Reputations:
    240,367
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    38,707
    Likes Received:
    39,434
    People love to hear a good yarn about injustice. And for some reason, they take everything presented by a "documentarian" as gospel truth, as if they're above reproach when it comes to agendas or bias. Hint: You're not going to hear a good prosecution case made in a documentary about how a guy is really innocent all along. Nobody takes a case randomly and says "Let's see how it turns out!". They know going in what their agenda is and if they happen to find out $500,000 into the project that their premise is wrong, they're not going to scrap the thing.

    Maybe a less virusy rebuttal can be found.





    Dude threw a cat soaked in gasoline in a fire. C'mon.
     
    Chicken Soda likes this.
  8. Trainwreckjm

    Trainwreckjm Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    11,504
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,001
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Gusbuss, Tracy and DABA like this.
  9. YodaQuiversStern

    YodaQuiversStern Turn and face the strange

    Reputations:
    53,217
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2015
    Messages:
    3,945
    Likes Received:
    8,780
    Been watching it, but am struggling with giving this guy any of my time. I feel the documentary is very biased and that this guy is guilty. Plus, he looks like BTLS - that makes him guilty by default.
     
  10. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,692
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,420
    Likes Received:
    21,420
    I just listened to the first episode and it's extremely shitty so far. It offered nothing new and is just being biased from the other direction. He's trying to make out that the rape investigation was just an honest mistake and that it was reasonable that they would focus on Avery like they did. What bullshit. Also, the whole 10 minutes is spent telling us what a bad guy Avery is. What's that got to do with evidence? It didn't mean he was guilty of rape and it doesn't mean he's guilty of murder. They are also trying to stress how the doc left out this stuff. All while playing us audio that was in the doc. They are saying the letters were glossed over. No they weren't. I plainly saw multiple nasty and threatening letters he wrote in the doc.

    This sucks hard so far. Will try another ep before bailing. I was hoping for an actual rebuttal of the doc where we get some good substantiated info. This is no better than just some guy saying some stuff. Ep 1 gets an F.
     
  11. Punctured

    Punctured Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    21,514
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Whether or not he's innocent, he did not get a fair trial. That's the point.
     
  12. Howchilla

    Howchilla VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    25,713
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2012
    Messages:
    3,108
    Likes Received:
    3,545
    What was unfair about the trial? He had the best attorneys money could buy. Sure, Lenk and Colburn come off as shifty guys. What would be their motive to frame Avery? Who would the MCPD be covering for?

    The Netflix doc fits a great job of poking holes in the prosections case, including the blood vial. However, the EDTA test showed that the blood in the car didn't come from that vial. No Barry Schek, or other DNA expert has come forward (that I have seen) and called the ETDA fraud.
     
    Scarlett Ohara likes this.
  13. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,692
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,420
    Likes Received:
    21,420
    Ep 2 is rebutting info that doesn't even matter and making some real stupid points. He is offering nothing new in the way of real evidence. It's just repeating the same stuff we've heard many times on the net without substantiation and is not adding any validity to it by bothering to back it up.

    This rebuttal feels like it had zero effort put into it and is just being done to get in on the buzz the doc has created. You want to rebut an in-depth documentary which had trial footage, interviews and research work? Then you need to put the same kind of effort into doing so. Not just repeat what you can read anywhere on the net and give no reason as to why someone should believe what you are saying.

    He's also going so overboard in the other direction. The rape conviction was a total setup and you lose any creditability as being impartial when you say otherwise. Unless of course you could provide any evidence as to why the doc gave us the wrong idea that it was a setup (despite basically proving it), but he doesn't do that. He just says it wasn't a setup and that's somehow supposed to hold water. This guy sure has an inflated idea of the value of his personal opinion.

    I'm out, this guy has nothing.
     
    jrstinkfish, Tracy and DABA like this.
  14. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,692
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,420
    Likes Received:
    21,420
    It's been stated by experts that the test is not reliable enough to prove blood didn't come from a vial. Only to prove if it did. They also only checked 3 swabs. Why didn't they check the others? Maybe the EDTA levels varied from each swab and wouldn't been detectable in one or some of the others.

    However, there was the article I posted in the main thread which really brings into question the idea that the vial was tampered with (and if there's no evidence of tampering, there's no evidence of planting, imo). It's claiming that the prosecution had a witness ready to testify that when she drew the blood from Avery, she used a syringe to put it in the vial. One problem I have with that is that the article states the reason she didn't testify is that the prosecution decided the defense didn't bring up enough doubt to bother. What?? You have the defense showing a vial with an unexplained hole poked in it and making the claim it proves the vial was tampered with and you have a witness who will state under oath that she made the hole when depositing the blood and you don't use them? Sounds fishy. It's exactly this kind of info that adds nothing but more questions. It's interesting info, but is it true? We need something to back it up. Not just claims made in articles.

    What was unfair about the trial? I think some of the moves by the judge were unfair (like handicapping the defense when trying to dispute the prosecution's timeline). I also feel the trial should've been actually moved and not just transplanted elsewhere. Those jurors surely heard a lot of things on the news which weren't supposed to be known to them at trial. Is it possible any of them hadn't already heard all about Brendan's confession on that ridiculous press conference?
     
    Hough and Tracy like this.
  15. Punctured

    Punctured Well-Known Member

    Reputations:
    21,514
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    Messages:
    1,512
    Likes Received:
    1,966
    Are you kidding? The cops shouldn't have been anywhere near the crime scene as it is a clear conflict of interest. How on earth were they allowed to continue to go back when the case was handed over?! That's just one instance.
     
  16. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,692
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,420
    Likes Received:
    21,420
    They removed themselves voluntarily, so there was nothing stopping them from going back. However, they are fucking liars, at the very least. They made it a point to say they weren't involved in the investigation after the car was found, but then had a couple guys still noising around. And it just so happens they were involved in the discovery of key evidence. Evidence which wasn't seen by the other department in their previous search. Hell, there's even a photo showing the empty area where the key would later be found by Lenk. It's possible there was somehow no funny business, but that's exactly why they should've stayed the fuck out of it. It taints the investigation. We now have a department who admitted there's a conflict of interest, so they publicly stated they were removing themselves from the investigation. But they lied and didn't remove themselves and were the ones who discovered some odd evidence under suspicious circumstances. They personally validated the accusations of their corruption.
     
  17. kingofallmessicans

    kingofallmessicans Sandy Cunt

    Reputations:
    17,748
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,720
    Likes Received:
    4,585
    The thing that makes me mad about "Making a Murderer" is the conclusions some people jump to. I think the documentary did a fine job of showing some pretty shitty aspects of our American legal system and how it can be manipulated by unscrupulous characters. If anything is worth getting mad over, to me, it's how the system works in practice. So when I see people now calling for Avery to be freed (not even retried), or I see Brendan Dassey on TMZ getting support from a WWE wrestler, it pisses me off. Because people are so fucking reactionary, they see something that is wrong, and instead of addressing the issue (big, scary and difficult) they reach out to the perceived victim (easy small gesture with no potential consequence).

    If SA is completely innocent, it is more important to fix the system that convicted an innocent man, than it is to comfort the perceived victim. Now I'm sure some smart ass will argue they are doing both, reaching out to SA and trying their best to correct a broken system. But I don't see that. I see people who scream about police injustice and corruption, and use this case to prove what they already perceive. Or I see authoritarians defend the police and the state without watching the doc claiming it's biased.

    I feel the documentary should have mentioned the previous interactions SA had with Teresa Halbach. I think the story would have been just as good, and for those that go digging for more information, it would have been less of a shock.
     
    Tish, Scarlett Ohara and Chatsworth like this.
  18. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,692
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,420
    Likes Received:
    21,420
    I have no life, so I continued to listen. I'm on Ep 3 now. Holy shit, it's bad. He's now commenting on how the doc makers went into a bar to get local opinions. A couple locals state how they feel Avery was framed and then the narrator says:

    "There is literally no way that this barfly could possibly have any evidence to support this conclusion."

    Well, no shit. Is he serious? Is this guy retarded?
     
  19. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,692
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,420
    Likes Received:
    21,420
    The part that kills me is that this is leaning pretty heavily on stuff that was actually included in the documentary. Like a part in Ep 3 where the narrator says that the doc showed Brendan's mom saying they didn't ask her for permission to interview him. The narrator then points out that the doc did show an onscreen graphic stating the police had asked her for permission. They make it sound like the doc was trying to hide this fact. If so, why include the graphic? It was right there for anyone to read. I plainly saw it. The other side wasn't talking to the doc makers, they couldn't have them on camera stating their side. So they pointed out in a graphic that the police had asked permission from her one of the times. The narrator then says something like "Wouldn't that mean she's lying?" Well, I guess so and it was the doc makers who gave us the evidence to come to that conclusion. What's his fucking point here?

    How is this guy exposing the doc for leaving stuff out by pointing out it was there? This is really goofy shit.
     
  20. killallposers

    killallposers VIP Extreme Gold

    Reputations:
    152,692
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    13,420
    Likes Received:
    21,420
    I'm actually bailing this time. He's now white knighting Brendan's doofy lawyer. I can't take anymore of this and it's silly to keep rebutting this silly rebuttal.

    One thing I will leave here that this rebuttal made me look into. He quickly mentions at the end of Ep 3 that Brendan came home with bleach stains on his clothes that night. That was mentioned a few times in the main thread, but no one ever backed it up. The guy in this rebuttal didn't expand on it either (unless he brings it up again in a later episode). So I looked it up and it seems that it was not only brought up at trial, but that the clothes were recovered. Now that's a glaring omission from the doc.

    This is Fassbender's statement in court. Brendan's mom also gave him a statement saying she saw the bleach stains that night and asked what happened. To which he told her he was helping Steven clean the garage floor with bleach.

    Q. And, finally, Exhibit No. 54. Tell us what that is please?

    A. It's a pair of blue jeans that, uh, Mr. Dassey, himself, um, located, or took me to in his residence, um, indicating that those are the pants that he wore that evening.

    Q. On the photograph, uh, appears to depict some stains on them. Do you see that? And can you show us that on -- on the screen?

    A. Yes. Um, white stains on the lower right-hand pocket area of the blue jeans, and also on the upper, uh, left-hand pocket area of the blue jeans there's some white staining.

    Q. Some stains around the, uh, bottom portions or around the knees as well?

    A. Yes. Spots and stains that are white.

    Q. Now, we'll get into the statements of Mr. Dassey, uh, much more detail later this week, but did Mr. Dassey describe for you what those stains were?

    A. Yes.

    Q. What did he tell you?

    A. He said they were bleach stains.

    Q. Did he say how those bleach stains got on his jeans?

    A. Yes.

    Q. How?

    A. He said that he got them on when he was helping clean up the garage floor in Steven Avery's garage, and that -- because they use -- utilized some bleach to clean that area.

    Q. Now, the jeans, themselves, uh, has Mr. Wiegert provided you with, uh -- with those?

    A. Yes.

    Q. What is that exhibit number?

    A. Exhibit 58.

    Q. Tell us what Exhibit 58 is, please?

    A. Exhibit 58 is the pair of jeans that, uh, Brendan Dassey, urn, took us to in his residence on February 27, 2006 and consented to us taking them.

    Q. And do those jeans still appear, as you see them today here in the courtroom, to have bleach stains on them?

    A. Yes, they do.