Once that period hits in your "I call BS" sentence, it looks like you are just stating misinformation as facts after that. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Still think you're opinion is completely wrong, and I have already posted reasons why.

Did you know when people describe being raped by Steven Avery that is considered evidence of Steven Avery being a rapist?


Why do you consider Kratz to be guilty of sexual harassment/assault/abuse when it has not been proven in a court of law? (he is guilty of sexual harassment in my book, but so is Steven Avery guilty of being a rapist in my book, but neither is in the eyes of law)


Why do you consider inappropriate text messages to be sexual assault/abuse rather than sexual harassment?


Do you think Brett Favre is closer to being a rapist than Bill Cosby because he sent an unsolicited dick pic?

So
A) you can't read
B) you agree Avery is not a rapist


Thanks.

You have zero ability to differentiate what is a fact and what MAY be a fact

And I already answered your last question

"We the jury find the defendant, Brendan R. Dassey, guilty of second degree sexual assault as party to a crime on October 31st, 2005."

Here is what 2nd degree sexual assault means in Wisconsin: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/doc...utes/940.225(2)


Sorry, I missed it before. Steven had rape charges against him too in the Halbach case before they were dropped. Neither one has been found guilty as far as I'm aware, and I believe both maintain their innocence.


It's a fact that multiple people have claimed Steven Avery raped them, abused them, or sexually harassed them.

It's a fact that these claims were made, and these claims are considered evidence, despite any idiotic claims otherwise by people like you.

It's a fact that Steven Avery was found guilty of murdering a young woman and that his accomplice, Brendan R. Dassey, was found guilty of raping her.



Why do you consider Kratz to be guilty of sexual harassment/assault/abuse when it has not been proven in a court of law? (he is guilty of sexual harassment in my book, but so is Steven Avery guilty of being a rapist in my book, but neither is in the eyes of law)


Why do you consider inappropriate text messages to be sexual assault/abuse rather than sexual harassment?

The fact you have misinterpreted his statement this badly proves that you're the one lacking reading comprehension.

Yeota wow. Actually arguing this

I would also like to point out that courts decided to deny Steven Avery access to his children while in prison because he was sending letters through his children threatening to kill and sexually mutilate his ex-wife/their mother.

I hope this shuts the door on any debate as to who is "closer to being a rapist based on factual history"...

I would rather trust my college-aged daughter alone with Avery than with Kratz.

Lol just straight-up trolling now I guess.

Thankfully I'm pretty sure TH's family doesn't read this trainwreck of a thread. Although I'm sure they've had to deal with similarly ******ed statements from strangers who never knew their daughter, and who believe whatever TV shows tell them to.

You must not care about her welfare

Ridiculous argument. A corrupt prosecutor is much worse than a single murderer. Innocent people are put to jail and real criminals are allowed to commit more crimes.

Case in point is first SA "conviction". How many rapes did Greg Allen commit when he should have been in jail? Disturbing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...ys_confession/
He forgot to update his shills in this thread

This is a really terrible argument and seems just a way for the NG crowd to downplay what they know is obvious.

You do realize that Ken Kratz wasn't the prosecutor when avery was wrongfully convicted don't you? Who did Kratz wrongfully convict?

horrible father itt. You are basically saying you would rather have your daughter be raped,murdered or beat up than sent a dirty text message.

Fraley, if a girl who you've never raped accuses you of raping her would you say that counts as "evidence" that you raped her?

Testimony is evidence

This is a false equivalency.

A better question would be this:

Is it highly probable that if two separate people who have no affiliation with each other are claiming the same men raped them with no motive to lie, he is a rapist?

With no other evidence, even though other circumstantial evidence does exist he raped these people, the answer is yes.. It is highly probable he is a rapist.

Kratz has 0 people claiming he raped them btw.

It was the same judge who presided over his false conviction that denied him. "Courts" make it sounds like many people/institutions were involved. One person. He could still, of course, be right.

Weighing all the facts (including the recent fact I posted about Steven sending messages to his ex-wife threatening to murder and "sexually mutilate" her) do you now agree that "Steven Avery is closer to being a rapist than Kratz based on factual history"?

Keep comparing a convicted felon to an elected prosector. I would hope SA is closer to any crime.

I will give SA a slight pass on any letters he wrote while incarcerated. The frustration of being held mostly for a crime he did not commit is unthinkable.

The judge's verdict on him is interesting. SA never changes his story in regard to his guilt over his cousin and his innocence of sexual assault. Unwavering.

SA may well be a terrible person. And guilty of everything he is accused. And then more tat we don't know. That does not absolve the prosecution of conducting a fair investigation and trial. More reason to run it by the book so there is no doubt.

Ya. I suppose it's entirely normal for someone that is wrongfully convicted to vent out their anger and frustration by sending threatening and graphic letters about mutilating and killing their wife via their children, lol.

You guys are insane comparing Avery with Kratz. Kratz was more than likely just an ego riding big dick swinging attorney who thought his **** didn't stink. He probably felt he was doing those battered women a favor by giving them a chance to ride with the top dog. I'm not arguing that sexual harassment wasn't an issue here and not trying to defend Kratz's character but you guys are a bit thick headed if you are going to crucify Kratz over some sexting messages but then on the other hand "give Avery a pass" on the life threatening letters to his wife.

a) It is not entirely normal being falsely convicted. Very few people know what that it is like.

b) Kratz did not send "some" sexting messaging. He harassed domestic abuse victims in the middle of a trial.

Arguing that a skeevy lawyer who sent some lewd text messages is equivalent to someone who lured a young woman to his house, imprisoned her, shot her point blank in the head, and burned her corpse...

might be the dumbest argument yet, in a thread full of dumb arguments.