|
Post by Sonny Werblin on Jan 7, 2016 15:55:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Jan 7, 2016 16:30:09 GMT -5
These fuckin disgusting slobs... I hope the devil rapes them for eternity.
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Jan 7, 2016 18:02:27 GMT -5
oh,we can have a whole conversation on how my gut has saved my ass more than once...lol...and u can totally watch something and get a vibe... Yeah, you'd make a great juror. "We convicted that guy because even though the evidence was not convincing, we had a gut instinct that he was guilty." open ur eyes and read what i said...both sides to every issue...open mind...not someone who is emotionally sucked in by slick production...but i digress...
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on Jan 8, 2016 10:12:25 GMT -5
Yeah, you'd make a great juror. "We convicted that guy because even though the evidence was not convincing, we had a gut instinct that he was guilty." open ur eyes and read what i said...both sides to every issue...open mind...not someone who is emotionally sucked in by slick production...but i digress... Just so we are clear, this is what you typed: It is IMPOSSIBLE to know something is biased without first seeing the stuff you read on the internet. You thought it was biased based on what?... the overwhelming bad shit about the police and the evidence in the documentary? What if your internet search did not reveal anything you felt was compelling about the "other side". Then your "feeling" of bias, which was not based on any "evidence" at the time you were only watching the documentary would be unfounded. All I am saying is, that based on the above statement, I would not want you on my jury. You reached a conclusion of bias when the ONLY facts you had seen were those in the documentary. At that time, your conclusion of bias was not based on any actual evidence because you had not yet "did a little digging".
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jan 8, 2016 10:36:03 GMT -5
Apparently the original rape victim was sodomized by Zeus himself with a lightning bolt... What a shitty sketch artist...
|
|
|
Post by BEAC0NJET on Jan 8, 2016 10:43:46 GMT -5
Also, that big homo DA Kratz is such a sleazy fat jerk. And, a complete and total delusional "big time" dick. Here's his text when he was sexually harrassing the domestic abuse women: āIām the atty. I have the $350,000 house. I have the 6-figure career. You may be the tall, young, hot nymph, but I am the prize!ā LOL. Which in NY would make him an average, fat, sleazeball. Being a prize in bumfuck Wisconsin is nothing to brag about.
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on Jan 8, 2016 10:55:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Jan 8, 2016 11:15:09 GMT -5
open ur eyes and read what i said...both sides to every issue...open mind...not someone who is emotionally sucked in by slick production...but i digress... Just so we are clear, this is what you typed: It is IMPOSSIBLE to know something is biased without first seeing the stuff you read on the internet. You thought it was biased based on what?... the overwhelming bad shit about the police and the evidence in the documentary? What if your internet search did not reveal anything you felt was compelling about the "other side". Then your "feeling" of bias, which was not based on any "evidence" at the time you were only watching the documentary would be unfounded. All I am saying is, that based on the above statement, I would not want you on my jury. You reached a conclusion of bias when the ONLY facts you had seen were those in the documentary. At that time, your conclusion of bias was not based on any actual evidence because you had not yet "did a little digging". u answered your own question...it was so one sided that i wanted to see if there was something to it outside of the documentary...whats wrong with that? i don't understand ur puzzlement.
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on Jan 8, 2016 11:22:27 GMT -5
Just so we are clear, this is what you typed: It is IMPOSSIBLE to know something is biased without first seeing the stuff you read on the internet. You thought it was biased based on what?... the overwhelming bad shit about the police and the evidence in the documentary? What if your internet search did not reveal anything you felt was compelling about the "other side". Then your "feeling" of bias, which was not based on any "evidence" at the time you were only watching the documentary would be unfounded. All I am saying is, that based on the above statement, I would not want you on my jury. You reached a conclusion of bias when the ONLY facts you had seen were those in the documentary. At that time, your conclusion of bias was not based on any actual evidence because you had not yet "did a little digging". u answered your own question...it was so one sided that i wanted to see if there was something to it outside of the documentary...whats wrong with that? i don't understand ur puzzlement. How could you know it was one sided before you had any exposure to the other side? It may have SEEMED one sided, but you had no evidence of it when you were watching. Hence you made a conclusion based on no evidence. And the fact that you do not GET this, makes me convinced that I would not want you on my jury.
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jan 8, 2016 11:34:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Jan 8, 2016 11:42:26 GMT -5
u answered your own question...it was so one sided that i wanted to see if there was something to it outside of the documentary...whats wrong with that? i don't understand ur puzzlement. How could you know it was one sided before you had any exposure to the other side? It may have SEEMED one sided, but you had no evidence of it when you were watching. Hence you made a conclusion based on no evidence. And the fact that you do not GET this, makes me convinced that I would not want you on my jury. it didn't SEEM one-sided...it WAS one-sided...just like stories u hear on 60 minutes or an article you read...again u can get a vibe...a definite road a producer or writer wants to take u on...which is why i investigated the story further...and why wouldn't u want a person who wants BOTH sides of a story on a jury...i didn't reach a conclusion on whether Avery was guilty or the cops were corrupt or not...i reached a conclusion on which way the producers were taking us emotionally...i don't think you're getting the distinction...
|
|
|
Post by jetswin on Jan 8, 2016 13:07:25 GMT -5
How could you know it was one sided before you had any exposure to the other side? It may have SEEMED one sided, but you had no evidence of it when you were watching. Hence you made a conclusion based on no evidence. And the fact that you do not GET this, makes me convinced that I would not want you on my jury. it didn't SEEM one-sided...it WAS one-sided...just like stories u hear on 60 minutes or an article you read...again u can get a vibe...a definite road a producer or writer wants to take u on...which is why i investigated the story further...and why wouldn't u want a person who wants BOTH sides of a story on a jury...i didn't reach a conclusion on whether Avery was guilty or the cops were corrupt or not...i reached a conclusion on which way the producers were taking us emotionally...i don't think your getting the distinction... How is it you were never a mod at JI, what a lucid and rational presentation
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on Jan 8, 2016 14:30:51 GMT -5
How could you know it was one sided before you had any exposure to the other side? It may have SEEMED one sided, but you had no evidence of it when you were watching. Hence you made a conclusion based on no evidence. And the fact that you do not GET this, makes me convinced that I would not want you on my jury. it didn't SEEM one-sided. ..it WAS one-sided...just like stories u hear on 60 minutes or an article you read...again u can get a vibe...a definite road a producer or writer wants to take u on...which is why i investigated the story further...and why wouldn't u want a person who wants BOTH sides of a story on a jury...i didn't reach a conclusion on whether Avery was guilty or the cops were corrupt or not...i reached a conclusion on which way the producers were taking us emotionally...i don't think you're getting the distinction... I get it now. So, you knew it was one-sided BEFORE you confirmed it.
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Jan 8, 2016 15:05:26 GMT -5
it didn't SEEM one-sided. ..it WAS one-sided...just like stories u hear on 60 minutes or an article you read...again u can get a vibe...a definite road a producer or writer wants to take u on...which is why i investigated the story further...and why wouldn't u want a person who wants BOTH sides of a story on a jury...i didn't reach a conclusion on whether Avery was guilty or the cops were corrupt or not...i reached a conclusion on which way the producers were taking us emotionally...i don't think you're getting the distinction... I get it now. So, you knew it was one-sided BEFORE you confirmed it. you're almost there...i knew they were Advocates for Avery very early on...like the first episode...its a great documentary...they do a great job...i don't know where the 'confirmed' comes in...i wasn't confirming anything when i went on line...just wanted to see a bigger picture of the situation...oh and if we're ever on the same jury can we be roomies...
|
|
|
Post by Sonny Werblin on Jan 8, 2016 15:32:23 GMT -5
I get it now. So, you knew it was one-sided BEFORE you confirmed it. you're almost there...i knew they were Advocates for Avery very early on...like the first episode...its a great documentary...they do a great job...i don't know where the 'confirmed' comes in...i wasn't confirming anything when i went on line...just wanted to see a bigger picture of the situation...oh and if we're ever on the same jury can we be roomies... Confirmed comes from you saying you typing "while i was watching it i thought of how biased it was for Avery". I'm unsure why you don't get this. All I said is I would not want you on my jury because you arrived at a conclusion i.e. "bias" before you had any evidence of it, i.e. your internet investigation. It's pretty simply, juries are supposed to render decision based on the evidence in the courtroom and nothing else. Perhaps an extreme example will help you understand my somewhat nuanced point. It's like a juror concluding that the prosecution was biased because it had so many witnesses saying the defendant committed the crime, and even though the defendant chose to rest without putting on any evidence, the juror chooses not to believe the prosecution's witnesses because the case was biased.
|
|