Making A Murderer

[peplaw06]

Listen, there was no misunderstanding. A disagreement, obviously.

Yeah, there was a misunderstanding. I took your posts as assertions of fact, and after going round and round about it for a few pages, you finally got around to saying it was your opinion. Sounds like a misunderstanding to me. There's a chance you are just trying to save face, but at this point, I'll take you at your word.

We're obviously on polar opposites of certain issues which, quite frankly, you should know better.

I should know better than what? Disagreeing with you? I don't even know what this means.

If you don't like how I presented an opinion on an open forum, I could care less.

As evidence by your going on and on about it.

 

[Dodger12]

Yeah, there was a misunderstanding. I took your posts as assertions of fact, and after going round and round about it for a few pages, you finally got around to saying it was your opinion. Sounds like a misunderstanding to me. There's a chance you are just trying to save face, but at this point, I'll take you at your word.

There were some assertion of facts that, no matter how you want to spin it, are facts. Where one stands on the idea of a conspiracy or coverup is an opinion. I would think that would obviousness as folks raise question that point them in one direction or the other and form their belief

I should know better than what? Disagreeing with you? I don't even know what this means.

The idea that a judge/jury convicted someone where they thought reasonable doubt existed. And you pointing to deliberations to prove your point.

If a jury comes back with a guilty verdict, is your next response to your client, "don't worry champ, it took several days to deliberate your guilt, so there was reasonable doubt and you're still a winner!!!!"

As evidence by your going on and on about it.

Consider it a public service. I'm trying to help you.

 

[peplaw06]

There were some assertion of facts that, no matter how you want to spin it, are facts. Where one stands on the idea of a conspiracy or coverup is an opinion. I would think that would obviousness as folks raise question that point them in one direction or the other and form their belief

It's like you don't even know what we're talking about. This whole thing did not start over where you or I stood on the idea of a conspiracy or a coverup. Our conversation started when you declared that no reasonable doubt existed because the jury found him guilty.

The idea that a judge/jury convicted someone where they thought reasonable doubt existed. And you pointing to deliberations to prove your point.

This is where you're wrong. Juries can and have convicted people even though some jurors believe there is reasonable doubt.

If a jury comes back with a guilty verdict, is your next response to your client, "don't worry champ, it took several days to deliberate your guilt, so there was reasonable doubt and you're still a winner!!!!"

This doesn't have anything to do with winning or losing. It's about whether reasonable doubt existed... and a jury verdict doesn't absolutely mean there was no reasonable doubt.

Consider it a public service. I'm trying to help you.

Thanks for the help... I've learned that in the future I should ignore the dumb shit you say and assume you're talking out your ass. My apologies for taking you seriously. Won't happen again.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

If you don't like how I presented an opinion on an open forum, I could care less.

I think you mean you couldn't care less.

 

[Dodger12]

Thanks for the help... I've learned that in the future I should ignore the dumb shit you say and assume you're talking out your ass. My apologies for taking you seriously. Won't happen again.

I was mistaken on one thing. I assumed that I was communicating with someone who had a basic understanding of criminal law. I won't make that mistake again.

 

[Iamtdg]

Did shit just get real? It feels like shit just got real.

 

[SixisBetter]

Did shit just get real? It feels like shit just got real.

What'd I tell ya?

 

[NoShame]

Did shit just get real? It feels like shit just got real.

Getting the same vibes..

 

[peplaw06]

I was mistaken on one thing. I assumed that I was communicating with someone who had a basic understanding of criminal law. I won't make that mistake again.

You wouldn't know criminal law if it face-fucked you till your gums bled. I actually do the shit for a living... you read some articles on the internet.

 

[Sheik]

This is exactly what I was aiming for when I started this thread.

 

[Dodger12]

You wouldn't know criminal law if it face-fucked you till your gums bled. I actually do the shit for a living... you read some articles on the internet.

You have no idea what I do you arrogant fuck and just by your answers I question the very fact if if you've ever dealt with a criminal case or saw the inside of a criminal court room beyond a field trip. Stick with divorces, estate planning, wills and trusts.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

We're gonna have to set up some sort of squarin'-off place.

 

[peplaw06]

You have no idea what I do you arrogant fuck and just by your answers I question the very fact if if you've ever dealt with a criminal case or saw the inside of a criminal court room beyond a field trip. Stick with divorces, estate planning, wills and trusts.

That's rich... You're in here claiming I don't know the shit that I do, and I'm the arrogant one.

You can question the very fact if if I've ever dealt with a criminal case all you want. You haven't said anything in this thread indicating that you know anything about it, beyond what you googled.

So what do you do, Dodger?

 

[Iamtdg]

This is exactly what I was aiming for when I started this thread.

You are one sick sick man. I think I love you. #maybealittlehomo

 

[Dodger12]

That's rich... You're in here claiming I don't know the shit that I do, and I'm the arrogant one.

You can question the very fact if if I've ever dealt with a criminal case all you want. You haven't said anything in this thread indicating that you know anything about it, beyond what you googled.

So what do you do, Dodger?

Your assumptions about you being the end all authority because you do this for a living is arrogant. The facts of the case can be Googled. That's obvious. The transcripts can be Googled. The videos of the interviews can be Googled. Just about most anything related to this case can be Googled. No shit. But the legal strategies and the legal maneuvering, along with the evidence and how it can be challenged, how it was used at trial, how it was attacked at trail, etc. are something that, while you can certainly read opinions on line, folks can offer some other insights.

This is not pre-OJ Simpson where everyone just took the word of the prosecution for the most part. Trials are getting the post-CSI jurors who look at evidence with a lot more detail and scrutiny. When I see some of this stuff and it interests me, I dig a little deeper than to assume 12 or 13 impartial people put an innocent man in prison with reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

I know what you do and I can respect that, believe it or not. I choose to keep my employment anonymous on the internet. But that doesn't mean one should assume that other folks haven't been involved in the prosecution of criminal cases and have some experience in the court system, juries, etc.