No I don't, you are doing this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

I don't believe I am using 9-11 for political gain of any sort. I am using the 9-11 truth movement as an example of a group that asks the same kind of questions you guys do. Like the question you just asked. Truthers ask question like that all the time " Don't you find it funny the owner of the twin towers took out an insurance policy for terrorism a few months before september" the thought process from the avery is innocent camp is strikingly similar to the people in the 9-11 truth movement. You are both unjustified in your conclusions.

I am amazed that anyone thinks the investigation, the confession and the trial were handed appropriately. And it is that behavior that has led people to doubt if SA is guilty. As well as questioning even if SA is guilty, should he be let free if it is shown that there were signification investigatory violations.

The "government" should investigate the process. It is crucial that we have faith in our system. The "government" can and does make changes all the time. Our judicial system has evolved and will continue to be evolve.

See McCarthy and Salem Witch Trials. Backlashes produce change...hopefully positive.

You are wrong about the posters ITT being alike to 9/11 truthers imo. And are unjustly trying to link us Not Guilty crowd in here to them.
Using the worst terrorist attack in human history & comparing that incident to MaM is BAD FORM to say the least, tbh I have stuck up for yourself itt after ppl have attacked you but I now realize that was wrong.

Imho you are the worst for doing this & I 100% believe that you have a vested interest in the SA case.
You believe that the SA case was investigated properly & believe that the removal of the bones without standard operating procedures being used & then the experts trying to justify this is unbelievable.

With the way you write your obviously an intelligent person & an obv Troll imo.
Comparing me & others ITT to 9/11 truthers is the last straw for me, Yep you hit a soft spot.
Good Day & Goodbye &

When did I ever compare MAM to 9-11? Quit being dishonest, I am comparing the avery is innocent crowd to 9-11 truthers, and no.. That is not the same thing. I would also compare 9-11 truthers to anti-vaxxers, young earth creationists, christians against dinosaurs, holocaust deniers and host of other conspiracy theorists. Because you guys use the SAME KIND of arguments and have the same gaps in logic.

I just gave you two examples ON this very page!

The "we are not saying hes innocent, we are just asking questions" attempting to absorb yourself of any responsibility for the implications you and others make about the police officers, TH family and friends, the judge, the fbi and a host of others involved. 9-11 truthers try and pull the same ****. "we are just asking questions, we are not saying X did this".

They also have the same bad logical arguments you and others use many times itt. X happened, then y happened so the two must be related. You and every conspiracy theorist (yes sir, you are a conspiracy theorist) do this all the damn time.

You say-When did I ever compare MAM to 9-11? Quit being dishonest.

Putting 9/11 itt is bad form Fraley. And you know it, in whatever context.

You know exactly what I mean. Every Truth/truther/Ish or whatever you want to call it, is not what I watch, read or wish to listen to.
I hoped to get Actual facts from this case & still believe we can (yup even if it turns out I am wrong) get to the bottom of it.
MaM GOT A HOLD OF ME i ADMIT THAT, but I said to AngerPush that if/when we can get answers to some important facts left out/missing then which everway it turns out I will be ITT to discuss the how/why's of why I was wrong.
Do you ever get that with a conspiracy theorist.
1 piece I rely on as you know is the bones & if it turns out they are in fact TH bones then I am 40%/45% SA done it & if the Blood has never been touched, that will add another 40%45%, but as to date I believe this has not been proved.

You know I am Scottish so why would I want to involve myself with American conspiracy subjects, ( Loch Ness is good for the tourists ) & as to date I have only ever posted about MaM IN REGARDS TO injustice in society. ( Ohh & a few posts about Tamir Rice)
in the 'Here we go again, thread in politic's)

Excuse me for thinking this thread would not bring out the #typical conspiracyist.
And if I gave you that impression then I guess its my fault, my bad.
Get it yet?

Good job again not really addressing any of the questions I posed. I wanna just know what actually happened, that is your answer to the "why" questions.

I don't care if SA is guilty or innocent, I don't care if the police planted evidence or not, I just want to know conclusively instead of getting half-assed explanations that defy common sense.

Except maybe for the tiiiiny fact the very people involved had sent the exact same man to jail for 20years for a crime he did not commit?

How can anyone take anything you say seriously? You said a few posts back anyone who believes the trial was unfair has a motive for thinking so. If common sense is a motive, I agree.

But let me get this straight, YOU with direct contact to people involved in this very case have no motive but random people all over the world do?

(It's rhetorical, I don't care for your answer at all, thanks)

LOL sorry if common sense answers are not good enough for you.

How was there not more blood found in the garage if that is where she was killed? Think about it and I am guessing an answer will come to you.

I realize that many ITT like to pretend it takes a Dexter-level criminal mastermind to clean up blood from floor. In reality, all it takes are 2 murderous dimwits with some rags and some bleach. Hard to believe, I know.

Did you see that garage? There was **** everywhere, and apparently bullets with DNA flying around. Yet not a single peck of blood remained, even deep within the cracks of the concrete. What percent of murders do you think involve blood evidence? I'm gonna guess it's over 99%.


And the same person couldn't even bother to wipe up blood from plain view right on the damn dashboard of a car.


Sorry but you're on the wrong side of common sense there.

Why would you bring 9-11 into an argument for any reason? There are 16% of Americans supposedly that don't believe in the government's version of events for that day.

In regards to the % of Americans that believe that the handling and conviction of SA and BD were appropriate? I am going to guess 16%.

You are in the minority. It doesn't mean you are right or wrong. You are doing a terrible job of convincing people though. You deflect answers. Bringing 9-11 into this conversation is an example.

You should attempt to understand why the majority of people think the prosecution of SA & BD may be viewed as unjust. The reason for that belief may be that they are not smart, have a vested interest, manipulated, brainwashed, coerced, naive, etc.

There are many people that believe the prosecution should try:
-Remain neutral
-Ensure a thorough investigation of all potential suspects
-Collect evidence in a manner above reproach
-Provide a reasonable narrative how a crime occurred with supporting evidence
-All suspects have a right to an attorney
-Anybody under a certain age should not be allowed to talk to the police without an attorney present.

SA/BD may be guilty. It may be a completely different story of how they killed her and where. Does that merit their release? Probably not. A new trial? Probably. Let whatever evidence is available to be used and let a jury of their peers make a final decision.

Makes way more sense that some things would be cleaned well and others not so much rather than all or nothing.

Smacc, cmon.. I only brought up 9-11 truthers because I am sure you agree they are illogical. I am trying to help you understand how you are illogical for the same reasons.

Also, yes. I would guess that the overwhelming majority of conspiracy theorists claim what you just claimed "I hoped to get Actual facts from this case & still believe we can (yup even if it turns out I am wrong) get to the bottom of it." The problem is, they do not want to be held to the same standard of evidence they ask everyone else to be held to.

For example, you want me to prove that the bones are TH, there are several ways we can do this to any reasonable person, however, you will not attempt to tell me whose bones you think they are because then whole argument (whatever it is) will start to fall apart. You won't start arguing they are animal bones, every expert is saying otherwise, you won't argue they are the bones of another human because then we have a huge problem on our hands and the implications are lol silly.

I answered all your questions to the best of my and everyones knowledge. Are you going to start arguing because I am ignorant on one question there is a problem proving this mans guilt?

O, really? Who involved in this case had Steven Avery or any innocent man for that matter sent to prison? Tell me 1.

****ing bull ****, I am starting to get pissed now. I never said that. I never said "anyone who believes x" I said, **PEOPLE** that implies at best a lot of people... I will start saying "NOT ALL" every time I draw a generalization. Will that help you? Holy ****ing tomatoes.

Um, no? I only talked to some of TH friends because they are members of a facebook group I am in. Two groups actually, a steven avery guilty group and a TH support group which has a lot of the members from the first group. It isn't as if I was seeking these people out. I joined a bunch of innocent groups on facebook and told them what I thought and the guilty crowd reached out to me and invited me to these groups. This whole thing has gotten out of hand and taken way out of context, even though I have explained it 4 or 5 times on here.

Well don't talk to me if you don't like what I have to say. Its pretty simple.

I understand why people think what they do. Most have been mislead by a doc, it is tough when someone is subjected to propaganda like this to overcome it.

The % of people who believe 9-11 was an inside job was actually much higher a few years ago. Reason has taken over. It will here too friend. It will just take time. Loose change had the same effect in 2005, it thankfully wasn't as popular as this doc was though.


And I have convinced many fence sitters, and even some innocents since taking an interest in this case. So take with that what you will...

You brought up 9-11 to try to link the beliefs/thoughts with the biggest terrorist act on American soil with Steve Avery, a guy who lives in a trailer.

Your thought process reminds me of Chief Magistrate William Stoughton during the Salem Witch trials in 1692.

***The accusation by Ann Putnam Jr. is seen by some historians as evidence that a family feud may have been a major cause of the witch trials. At the time, a vicious rivalry was underway between the Putnam and Porter families, one which deeply polarized the people of Salem. Citizens would often have heated debates, which escalated into full-fledged fighting, based solely on their opinion of the feud.

Good was a homeless beggar, known to seek food and shelter from neighbors. She was accused of witchcraft because of her appalling reputation. At her trial, she was accused of rejecting Puritan ideals of self-control and discipline when she chose to torment and "scorn [children] instead of leading them towards the path of salvation"***

I am not saying that if you lived in Salem in the year 1692 you would support executing people engaged in the practice of witchcraft. It just appears to be the same thinking process. And molding all evidence to fit the preconceived notion of a crime and/or person.

I mean ffs, me and skillz have private messaged about wacko conspiracy theories regarding this case (like the bolo date on the police report) and I argued with him that no one will be silly enough to post that in the thread. No way, not our fellow 2p2 community.. And not even a few hours later its posted.. It is very concerning to say the least. This is supposed to in large part be a very intelligent community.

NO!! I made no comparisons of 9-11 to steven avery. I made no comparisons of this case to 9-11. The only and I mean ONLY comparison I drew was the truthers (people who believe 9-11 wasn't carried about by an islamic terrorist group) to the innocent crowd. That is it.

How do you not see this subtle yet important distinction?

You brought up 9-11. You could have brought up 100,000 other examples. You chose the largest attack by a foreign entity on American soil. You use the word "truthers" knowing that carries a negative connotation.

Let's assume Teresa was indeed murdered. I think so.

Who would be a more likely suspect.

a) Ex-boyfriend who hacks in the victim's voicemail. He can't recall what he was doing that day or even remember the password he used. How about we give him the exact same phone with the same password and provide him 100 opportunities to crack the password. He did it once. Can easily do it again.

b) Guy who met the victim a few times.

I don't care what city this takes place in America. Ex-boyfriend is 100x more likely to have committed a crime like this. Ex-bf certainly shouldn't be ruled out or allowed anywhere near the crime scene.

It is the brother of the victim that vouches for him that allows him to avoid suspicion. He should have been the number one suspect immediately. It doesn't matter when, why or how she was murdered.

The zeal they used to investigate SA should have been the same used to investigate other much more likely suspects. Statistically it is not even close. Ex-boyfriend in charge of the citizen's search team?! Brilliant.

I brought up 9-11 to draw a comparison of the truthers to the innocent crowd, wtf? What do you not understand? I an no way tried to exploit the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Detectives quickly found out that avery/zippler were TH last appointments of the day. They find this out minutes after she is reported missing. No one has seen her after this time and she has made no phone calls after this time. They should have been the main suspects to start. Not just someone who knew her.

Under normal circumstances Ryan should have been a suspect until we realize that TH went missing somewhere between 3:30 and 4:00. There were only a handful of people who saw her anywhere near this time.

Zippler around 2, avery around 3:30, those two and anyone close to where those two live. should have been a suspect. Once the car is located on the salvage yard you can for the moment focus your investigation on avery and the people around avery. And temporarily rule out zippler, once her bones were found in averys burn pit and her personal belongings burned in a barrel outside averys front door, it is safe to say at that point that avery did it. Now you just have to prove it.

Simple, there is nothing fishy here. There is no reason at any point passed maybe the first couple of hours that Ryan or any of TH friends/family etc.. Should have been a suspect. Especially with what we know now, you suggesting that they should still be looked with some kind of suspicion is really ****ed up of you.

Curious why truthers has a negative connotation to you anyway? After all, they are just asking for answers, pointing out errors by police, fire fighters etc.. and demanding a new investigation. Sound familiar?

There was no body, significant evidence, or confirmed alibis. For a host of people.

I am not saying her specific ex-boyfriend should be looked upon with suspicion. I am saying ANY ex-boyfriend who illegally accesses a victim's voicemail should be viewed as a high-potential suspect.

It is ridiculous that you think an ex-boyfriend should be excluded very quickly. Statistically, an ex-boyfriend is much more likely to commit a crime like this. In Manitowoc, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Minneapolis.

SA is pretty much a stranger to her. Kidnapping, rape, murder, molestation, etc. universally are much more likely to be committed by close relatives and friends. SA is the only Innocence Project exonerated person to ever be charged with a violent crime.

Statistically, there is a lot more historical data that would indicate multiple parties should have been investigated. Police should gather up evidence and evaluate it in an orderly and impartial fashion. If there is a public safety concern, suspects can be fitted with a GPS device and monitored.

The word is commonly interchanged with words like hoaxers, conspiracy theorists, and deniers. The majority would view a "UFO Truther" in a negative fashion. The "truth" that "truthers" provide usually isn't even consistent among themselves which further erodes their credibility and the word itself. The other side can just label them "crackpots" to silence discussion.

"Truthers" also tend to be in the minority regarding their opinion. In the SA/BD case, if you want to label groups, the supporters of unequivocal guilt should be known as the "truthers" and the others should be viewed as the reasonable evaluators.

That's exactly the point. The best based know the current knowledge, and none of the questions were answered.

Just because you quote the question I ask and then type "why" underneath doesn't mean you addressed it.

Yeota, you still haven't answered my question to you: why do you believe that the bones were "most likely moved to the pit" when Eisenberg thinks the opposite?