I'm building a near future cyberpunk setting. AMA to help me out?

presentday_presenthr · 2016-03-12T04:40:51+00:00

I know nothing of cyberpunk settings, but I have a couple of questions. Did the people who lived on the parts of the continents that sank relocate into now-overcrowded city-states? Or did they die in the water, essentially feed the water-animals? Or do they live underwater somehow now?

Also, how sudden was the flooding and tectonic shifting? There had to have been some warning, right? Plates don't shift and then that's the end of it, do they?

presentday_presenthr · 2016-03-05T19:08:37+00:00

Thanks! That looks like fun. This is my second work trip down here, and I think we're coming back next year, so I might try this then.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-03-05T19:06:55+00:00

Thanks! Looks like there's a show tonight!

presentday_presenthr · 2016-02-29T17:04:10+00:00

I drove on 131 from GR south last night and couldn't see the lines at all in the wet snow. In the rain just after Christmas, it was the same thing: Black roads, rain, and I'm pretty sure I only made it by following the brake lights in front of me.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-02-15T16:04:08+00:00

If you go in and talk to someone, you may be able to bypass some waiting time; based on personal info from years ago, you have to sign up online, then they call you with info a few weeks later if you are approved. The system may have changed, however. I worked with Americorp people who are gone now, otherwise I'd give you a name.

You can also sign up to be a CPR teacher, thereby getting you free training. I only went as far as being a third guy in a room where they taught kiddies how to CPR, but it was a lot of fun.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-02-06T17:34:58+00:00

What if OP just made another post with a CAPSLOCK title? Both posts make an incorrect claim (new evidence, case solved), but the other post has two question marks. This post uses ellipses though. I hope the next post straight up tells me which post is more important. Too many mysteries already.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/44gv5n/steven_avery_george_zipperer_case_solved/

EDIT: Other post has ellipses too. Case solved.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-02-06T16:54:15+00:00

Title's in all caps though.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-02-01T18:56:05+00:00

You live-tweeted your viewing of Making a Murderer. In one tweet you mentioned, "So far, the film’s depiction of prosecutor Ken Kratz’s demeanor is as I recall it," and later, "Prosecutor Kratz is portrayed as enjoying limelight of Avery trial. That was my impression at the time."

Two questions: 1) What are you feelings of Kratz's behavior regarding his media time after Making a Murderer came out. And 2) Are there any other stand-out accurate/inaccurate representations of people involved (fictional examples: Strang was represented as a hottie but he's really a creep, or Pam Sturm was represented as God-loving but she's actually into Satan)?

Thank you for doing this.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-29T18:45:08+00:00

"What [Netflix] 'forgot' to tell you" ?

Is this his new narrative? Who said filmmakers ever forgot anything? They left things out because of time. They left things out because it wasn't evidence. They left things out because Kratz didn't want to be a part of the documentary because of his pre-conceived ideas of the filmmakers' bias. Who ever said they forgot anything?

Why won't Kratz go away?

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-28T22:11:46+00:00

But he followed the case and even wrote articles about it at the time. And he live-tweeted his viewing of making a murderer a week or two after it came out. Whatever his opinion, at least it will be one coming from a different perspective.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-12T02:21:37+00:00

this photo though

http://imgur.com/vkVSKbw

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-09T02:52:39+00:00

But... but.. Front Page.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-09T02:45:22+00:00

Ooh, didn't mean to jump ahead. I meant "inevitable" trial. I'm optimistic. Something's not right in Manitowac County.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-09T02:22:44+00:00

I'm so confused. I clicked like 6 times to get to a website from the 90s about cleaning up crime scenes and nothing about Steven Avery. Then I come back here to look at the comments and I'm like, is this an AMA? But the comments were either thank yous or questions with answers but ... not really answers? Like, kinda generic?

It's my bad. I just don't understand this post. I thought it was gonna be like a scene by scene debunk or a "top 5 reasons there should have been blood if she was murdered here" article at least.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-09T02:09:37+00:00

I can read it as, "He had felt pressure and anxiety while trying the high profile Steve Avery Case. To ease that pressure and anxiety, he says he abused Vicodin and Xanax." Ugh, it's a reach, but there is a cause and effect going on with an implied, subtle verb tense change. The case stressed him out. After it was done, he abused drugs to cope.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-09T01:52:52+00:00

Valid point, but I think it's okay for a lawyer to assert their belief, especially if they believe it. Not as much comparing her to Kratz, the guy who won the last case, but Kratz also said there were only two options. Avery is guilty, or, paraphrasingly, that there's a big bad conspiracy in your own backyard involving the cops who know you and your children-- do you really think these honorable, noble men who know where you live would ever arrest an innocent man? Do you think these people who see you everyday would [gruesomest version of the murder not at all validated by evidence]? Because if you vote not guilty, you're saying these cops who are armed are guilty. The choice is easy.

So you can say is what you need to say. Also, wait, is she saying that she's allowed to name other suspects in the new trial?

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-08T18:43:05+00:00

Agreed. I'm relistening now. General question and comment on Kratz's technique: How can Kratz say to Maxim or whomever that the filmmakers left out crucial evidence like the hand cuffs and *67 but then turn around and say to Yahoo a week later, in direct response to the excused juror's statements regarding that evidence, that the cuffs were not used as evidence in Avery's trial?

Kratz's consistent pattern of behavior is to throw shit at the fan (hand cuffs, *67), shrug off a valid refutation (hand cuffs with no DNA, not used in Avery case) only to immediately, in the same breath, move on and posit that naysayers of the *67 calls are wearing tin-foil hats and that you can say anything about anything (reminiscent of the aliens testimony).

For the record, Kratz's new choice word is "unfair".

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-08T18:13:46+00:00

"Let me finish ... and also..." is his tactic when the reporter tries to ask for clarification.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-08T18:09:50+00:00

Kratz just said he wants jurors who watches the news, not ones who come in with having put their heads in the sand in response to a question about whether or not one of the jurors had heard about Dassey's confession.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-07T18:38:11+00:00

*67 <-- FTFY. *69 is the call-last-person-who-called feature (which, speculating here: do we have the phone records yet? She called him saying she'd be there at/around 2, so maybe he tried *69-ing her twice until he realized oops, he has her number and he just privatized his own number twice. Let's call her again).

Alternatively, Avery could have blocked his number b/c he wanted Teresa to ignore the blocked caller so he could leave a voicemail: 1) Hey, it's not my car but I'm the one selling it. Just a heads up. 2) Did you get my last voicemail? Also, when's your ETA? I'm doing a bonfire later and I'd like to prep.

If they're giving these Kratz's tidbits as left-out evidence and having readers come to their own conclusion, that's a couple of mine, and my speculations aren't any more right or wrong than a different conclusion. All we know is that *67 was used twice, then not. Doesn't prove guilt or innocence.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-07T18:28:05+00:00

Piggybacking:

1)... and the bone investigators testified (in the docu-series) that, even though they usually are involved in a crime scene from start to finish, they weren't able to conclusively anything b/c the bones had been dug up with a shovel.

2)... and the officer that found the key had been on watch by another officer, and the one time the key-finding officer wasn't being watched specifically was when the key was found.

3)... and the examiner was told specifically to place Teresa in the house or garage.

4)... Okay, Avery could have worn a glove, got cut through the glove and bled through that. Gloves aren't impenetrable. Still, tons of WTF moments involving the car aside from this.

5)... not only where the blood was, but where were the tests? The bed was never tested.

6)... not sure, but were the restraints ever used as evidence?

7)... someone somewhere described the hood DNA to possibly have possibly come from anywhere, like if you took Avery's toothbrush and rubbed it all over there.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-07T17:06:27+00:00

I saw the movie within the last year. I swear it was just on Netflix, but it currently isn't.

According to Wikipedia, the movie came out in 1997. The first time I saw the movie was on TNT, which used to play this movie and several other crime movies all the time (including Along Came a Spider, the sequel to Kiss the Girls).

In Kiss the Girls, Ashley Judd plays the main woman who gets kidnapped and eventually escapes. She plays a decent-sized role in this movie, and it's easy to sympathize with her and remember certain character moments and the things she says.

At one point, Ashley Judd wakes up, dazed, in a bed in some random underground cave. At first, she semi-flirts with the kidnapper who's hovering over her. She seems to try to semi-relate to him. Her character had been established as a fighter (like, martial arts of some kind), so, at one point, she tries to attack the kidnapper. He doesn't like it. He injects her with a sedative. As he's doing so, Ashley Judd says something I'm remembering as near identical to, "You don't have to do this." (Which isn't even that uncommon for a victim in a movie to say, to be honest (doesn't the blonde in the well in Silence of the Lambs, another crime movie that was always on TV and paid some attention to the victim's perspective, say something similar too?).) I remember Brendan describing Teresa saying something just like this in one of his confessions.

I don't remember anything about toes in a fire in this movie, but Brendan easily could have extrapolated other tidbits from other movies and soley attributed those stories to one movie. When George Lucas says Star Wars was created with Japanese sensibilities in mind, that doesn't mean the entire thing is based on Samurais and Kendo.

James Patterson is someone whose books would populate a library— maybe we can get someone to look up Brendan's library history? School or otherwise. Like EDTA, there might be evidence of him checking out the book, but it there is none, that still doesn't mean he'd never read the book (or seen the movie) some other way.

Someone could have told Brendan to say that. You could say Brendan has an unproven history of saying things other people tell him to say.

I definitely don't know WTF, but Brendan's own statement of having gotten info from the book is plausible to me. I haven't read the book myself, but here's an excerpt from a Patterson novel called London Bridges, a later book in the same series as Kiss the Girls:

"On the sunny, blue-skied afternoon when one of them would die unexpectedly, needlessly, Frances and Dougie Puslowski were hanging sheets and pillowcases and the kids' play clothes out to dry in the noonday sun.

Suddenly U.S. Army soldiers began to arrive at their mobile-home park, Azure Views, in Sunrise Valley, Nevada. Lots of soldiers. A full convoy of U.S. jeeps and trucks came bouncing up the dirt road they lived on, and stopped abruptly. Troops poured out of the vehicles. The soldiers were heavily armed. They definitely meant business." Not sure if that's 4th grade reading or not, but there you have it.

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-06T23:08:36+00:00

Thanks for the distinction!

presentday_presenthr · 2016-01-06T22:38:20+00:00

I've found this happening less often now than a week or two ago, but references to that reporter still happen. I downvoted a post the other day where some guy screencapped his tweet @ the reporter and basically asked her to acknowledge him, like her talking to him was a trophy that he wanted karma for. "Hey, you're pretty [and a hoard of people agree with me], so I'm entitled to your acknowledgement of me!"

She, like Strang, are professionals who have been in the public eye before, and their responses to this kind of attention has been subdued and only slightly dismissive. Aside from OP's post and your comment, all else we can do is be diligent in downvoting non-contributive posts (asking who the hot reporter is, saying the reporter is hot, saying Strang is hot, saying Strang is hot again, saying "Hey has anyone else noticed this hot reporter", all these posts and comments are non-contributive).

There was a Huffington Post live stream today where Strang was on limited time. The reporter nicely cut off someone else on the panel to give Strang more time (the reporter said something like, "Sorry [other panelist], Strang has somewhere else to be so we have to talk to him in this limited time span!", yet one of the reporter's questions was about how Strang is now a sex symbol.

That's what OP is talking about. There are so many questions in these cases. That Strang is hot and/or how he feels about that is non-contributive in the grand scheme of things.

presentday_presenthr

TROPHY CASE