I heard fraley is a rapist and a stalker.

Not from people that know me or claimed I raped them you didn't.

I fully understand people claim they were raped and lie about it. There are some people out there that do this. However, those are usually not underage girls, and they are usually not people who make up having sex. Even if this was consensual SA raped her based on her age.

Could she have been lying? Sure, although its more likely shes telling the truth.

Fraley, in the same way you believe Oski is very biased, I myself feel you are extremely biased as you've made up your mind SA is guilty of everything he's ever accused of.
Your second paragraph basically reads, I know he wasn't convicted of anything but a couple of people said and heard things so more than likely it's true.
All anyone was stating earlier was we can't know for sure the only reason the rape case was dropped was because of the TH charge.
Even in the excerpt pasted higher on this page as proof of the rape, it clearly states Calumet County officers investigated the first instance and said the claims were unfounded, so perhaps the case was not as solid as you would like it to be. We don't know.
Yet you still try and assert as fact the only reason the case was dropped was because he was already going away, again because someone on your side said it, so it must be true


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't say that was the only reason the case was dropped. I was specifically responding to someone who said that it was droped because they didn't have any evidence and said essentially "maybe you're wrong".

I am not biased, I am very open minded and my first conclusion since hearing about this was that avery was framed. I have since, after willing to admit I can be fooled by documentaries, have discovered anyone claiming he is not guilty is unjustified. And likely people who think this are not consistent with other cases. Hence why I asked how many think Casey Anthony should have been aquitted, or OJ because avery has a mountain more evidence to convict than those two.

Not only did Steven get a raw deal in this case, I also happen to think Steven is not guilty of any crime against Teresa. And I am perfectly justified to think so.


I don't see how my reasoning in this case is inconsistent with other cases. However, each case is unique, so it is true that in some cases I think police and courts got it right, and in some cases I think may have gotten it wrong.

Why your bother arguing with people who trust Ken kratz and think Zellner is the bad one.
We know enough about both of them that without even looking at details we should know which side to lean on.
And when you look at the whole case it's really not pretty.

No, you're not justified in thinking this. You can make an argument for guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt vs. probably guilty, but "I believe he is not guilty of anything" is not a conclusion that is supported by the available evidence.

This is called an ad hominem fallacy. Whether the DA is a good guy or not doesn't have anything to do with the facts of the Avery case.

Zellner is someone I would want on my side if I was ever wrongly convicted. It doesn't mean she's going to be right about every case. In fact, it's to her credit if she's on the wrong side once in a while. If she only took the cases where it's a slam dunk to overturn the conviction, then she's going to miss false convictions where the evidence is less clear. But by taking on these marginal cases, she's opening herself up to ending up on the wrong end.

Sort of like in poker - if you never make a bad call, then it means you're probably folding too often.

Strawman.

Obviously theres no national poll or anything but it appears on facebook groups the numbers of guilters are slowly starting to match the number of truthers. This is exactly what happened with 911 after loose change came out.

In a few more years all we will have are a very small group of people who think he is innocent and a larer but still small group who thinks he deserves a fair trial.

In this matter, it is not an ad hominem fallacy. Kratz is one of the parties responsible for developing the "facts" of the case, and his moral turpitude certainly plays a factor in analysing the case.

Nah a guy ready to exploit abuse victims is morally fit to prosecute while abusing drugs.

Who itt has even said anything reflecting positively on Kratz's character? And why does it matter? The facts/evidence is all that should matter, addressing anything else is fallacious.

It's pretty clear there's something hinky about the whole deal.

Now that Brendan's so-called 'confession' has been recognized as the frame up job it is, there's no excuse for anyone to put any credence in the other dubious 'evidence' ginned up against Steven.

Ok.

I'm afraid it is supported by key evidence in the case: the murder site.

If there is anyplace on planet earth we know beyond a reasonable doubt that is not where Teresa Halbach was killed it is Steven's house or garage.

No sign of TH in house or garage. We know Steven was there, zero evidence Teresa was. She must have been killed somewhere else.

Since Steven cannot be in both places at once, Steven must be innocent of any such crimes against Teresa.

We don't even know where her remains were found.

Not one single picture of the most important discovery -- the victim!

Nah you guys are right.

Zellner solved it, RH snuck into SA bathroom and collected blood from his sink and went and planted it inside TH rav 4 in 6 different locations using both dripping and contact to plant the blood.. All before avery's blood clotted.

Then he burned her, disposed of her body and carried her remains to avery's burn pit and dumped her there. All this as an elaborate ploy to make it look as if someone was trying to get rid of her when in all actuallity he wanted her found. Forget just idk, shooting her and dumping her in the woods by avery's house. Or in the car that he already planted avery's blood.. Nah, hes too crafty for that.

Well, that was deliberate: the County Coroner came to do her job, and the cops kept her out.

Another blatant piece of evidence of bad faith.

Coupled with the coerced statements points heavily in the direction of a frame job, pure and simple.

How do you know she was dumped there? 180 people on site and there is not a single photograph of her remains.

If we are going to send people away from life in prison, there should be a little more evidence then, "trust us, this is the place where she ultimately died."

I am not saying that was not her ultimate resting place. It raises more doubt about the entire investigation though.

All we see is a hole in the ground and are told she died and there were bones.

How do you know? The bones could have come from anywhere. A hundred miles away. Why not take pictures to remove all doubt?

How do you know there are no pictures? And it would be next to impossible to have all those people there and pretend bones were found when they were not. You're on the slippery slope of uber conspiracy madness to suggest otherwise.

Where are these pictures? If there were pictures you'd think KK et al would use them as evidence to strengthen their case

How many people and how long does it take to dump a couple of pounds of ashes on a pile of other ashes?

The only pictures we have are the ones from the trial, why would those pictures be used in trial? No one was questioning whether or not the bones were there when police got there in trial. Nor would anyone with an ounce of critical thinking.