I mean, you can call my opinion irrational. You can call me wrong, or whatever you like. But I think I have added actual substance to the thread. And the same should be said about poorskillz.

The thread was dead when I joined anyway. I just offered my thoughts. I see no reason I should be banned from the thread.

If anything, you should be banned from the thread. What have you contributed?

Do you need bullet points? Your buddy seems to love them so I can go ahead and give them a spin.

• You link that article.
• I say the article is dumb.
• You respond by quoting a part of the article where Beerntsen states why she chose to not appear in the documentary.
• Based on this asinine response, I state that it would be futile to explain why the article is, in fact, dumb.

The best I can do is say my use of 'explain' was imprecise, but it's readily apparent you don't seem to fundamentally grasp how a discussion/debate/argument even works on a functional level. This is all well before you can even get to the point of being right or wrong.

Internet isn't fun when everyone agrees. Don't ban them.

Although this had to be intentional trolling:

I can't lie, I love me a good GIF, but come on... Refer to blackize's recent post.

For the record I'm not really arguing anything with you, so, sure, I'll stop. I'm just pointing out in passing you guys seem to have stuck yourselves in a recursive loop, like:

nobody refutes my points --> except maybe the people I ignore --> but I'm ignoring them so --> nobody refutes my points

Wait,

I'll refer you to your first post directed towards me:

That's some pretty prickish dismissal.. So when in Rome but now u mad because I'm better at this than you.

Poorshillz has really fielded a team of all-stars up in this bitch.

Hot ass takes from Det. Wiegert:

redirect



recross

Yep, that's a rake, boys, lock him up.

I think you should be banned if you don't stop harassing Theresa halbach's family.

So funny. Just additional proof they had no independent corroborating evidence to Dassey's confession. "We find the bleach in the garage and the rake and shovel by the fire bin." This is where these items likely ALWAYS resided and Dassey has been to those places an untold number of times.

Would be nice if they had corroborating evidence to connect to Theresa Halbach. I guess they found a pillow in Steve Avery's bedroom right where Dassey said it would be.

The fact that the interrogators use those as examples of corroboration makes it even more laughable than I previously thought. I guess the facts Dassey knew Avery had a trailer, a bedroom and concrete in the garage also corroborate his confession. Lololol

He is 100% not guilty based on the trial he got. I think a significant percentage of people who think he is not guilty feel similarly.

The failures by law enforcement and the judicial system were egregious in this case. It's not a matter of weighing evidence. It is a matter of the system screwing up so badly there was nothing at all legitimate about his trial. So 100% not guilty is the only reasonable conclusion to draw based on what happened.

Q: So, Brendan, is Steven Avery an actual real human being that is alive and exists?

A: ... Um... Yes.

Q: You heard it, boys, lock him up!

lol yeah it's the film making that was unethical.

Aye, like I said more than once, if I hadn't read all this I would've thought it was 98% bull**** and not a neat 100%.

Weird they never found any evidence of her being stabbed or ever even being in Avery's trailer. Yet when Dassey was left to his own devices that is the story he told.

They had to keep steering him back onto the evidence they had, over and over and over again.

This was an incompetent interrogation from the standpoint of trying to find the truth. It was a roaring success in terms of getting two people convicted with no eye towards Justice.

For entertainment I'd recommend the cross of Det. O'Neill. He's the detective who interviewed BD on 11/06:

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townn...e32eef.pdf.pdf

It starts at page 126.

Unfortunately it's somewhat insubstantial, as all it really does is highlight how they were going hard to try and discredit or flip BD as an alibi witness and doesn't tie in fully to the later interrogations.

But, it's great as Edelstein absolutely picks this dude apart throughout. Not my favorite but one of the shortest:

shhh it's a trap

I explained in more detail what I meant by that.

That is interesting. Where is that from?

Okay, you believe reasonable doubt was established at the trial and as a result the correct verdict was not guilty.

But based on everything you know of the case, what probability would you assign to Avery actually having committed the murder? I mean, it's fully legitimate to say "I believe it's x% likely that he is guilty, but that is not sufficient to convict him." What ballpark figure would you assign to x - above 80, above 50, lower? Or would your position be that he is likely or almost certainly innocent of any involvement in the murder? It's even possible to say that you are virtually certain he is the killer but should have been acquitted based on the trial.

Any of the other posters are welcome to chime in. Basically, it makes sense to define as precisely as possible what position you are defending. If you are saying it is 90% likely he is guilty but 10% is enough for reasonable doubt, that is very different from arguing for his innocence.

I've never ignored anyone in my 6+ years on 2p2

Jesus ****ing Christ

I'm not asking about the god damn trial. Are you brain-damaged? I'm asking about what you actually THINK. Not whether SA got a fair trial or how you would vote.

I'm asking WHETHER YOU THINK HE DID IT OR NOT

Isn't that the crux of what we're debating here? And you're response is he didn't get a fair trial. Deep-down you think he's guilty. Just admit it. He was treated unjustly, but he's guilty. It's ok to say that.