Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
Occam's Razor states that 'When advancing any argument, one should not multiply propositions needlessly.' It is taken to mean that the simplest explanation consistent with the known facts is most likely to be the correct one.
The known facts indicate that Steven Avery is the murderer. The defence / media explanation / excuse is baroque and implausible and assumes facts not in evidence. It also fails to identify any alternative suspect and therefore falls into the unfortunate category of 'unfalsifiable propositions.'
First of all, the key word that needs to be defined here and applied correctly is "needlessly".
Now:
Let's list some "known facts" shall we?
Key not found until 6th search - fact.
No DNA of Teresa Halbach OR Brendan Dassey anywhere on property - fact
BD confession ruled involuntary and therefore false - fact
No pictures taken of fire pit alleged to have contained bones - fact
Crime Lab lead scientist admits to being ordered to provide results - fact
Crime Lab lead scientist contaminates tests but submits results - fact
Crime Lab lead scientist breaks protocol to allow results - fact
No blood mixtures of DNA ever found, only separate locations - fact
AC called in license plates 2 days before vehicle found - fact
MC announces no participation because of conflict of interest - fact
MC lead investigators present at every major evidence finding - fact
Scott Tadych had means and opportunity to commit crime - fact
Bobby dassey had means and opportunity to commit crime - fact
RH has no solid alibi for time frame of murder - fact
Sheriff herman had means, motive and opportunity to commit crime - fact
Sheriff herman had means, motive and opportunity to conspire to commit crime - fact
SA had no established motive to commit crime - fact
Judge dismissed SA rape and mutilation charges due to lack of evidence - fact
Judge allowed rape and mutilation charges against BD due to his own defense attorney's constitutional rights violating interviewed and coerced confession - fact
This could go on for a long time...
What you call "known facts" once again are plain and simple myopic adherences to anything that allows the jury's conclusion to be correct while purposely omitting the actual known facts which would be contrary to those which resulted in the conviction.
Example: The key was not found until the 6th search because it was not until the 6th search that AC decided to very forcefully twist and turn and pull and shake and bodyslam the bookshelf needlessly during a civil rights violating 6th search warrant. It is due to the twisting and turning and pulling and drop kicking and violently shaking the book case for no reason at all that the key fell out. Yet, despite being in plain view, it still it was not seen until somewhere between 15 and 45 minutes after the violent bookshelf interaction. And that, your honor, is how the key was discovered.
These are not needless propositions, these are known facts backed by witness testimony in court and something the jury should take into consideration.
That is not a simple solution.
If it is AC's testimony that it must be the absolute mayhem he caused on the bookshelf that caused a key to be dislodged and fall into plain site yet we have before and after pictures of the bookshelf and it's undisturbed contents, then the simple solution is that AC is not being truthful about his actions and therefor it is extremely unlikely to be cause of the magical key appearance.