Maybe just summarize your reasons why youd think he would get almost 3 times as much as the majority of previous suits of this nature then.

Among the problems with all this armchair spitballing about what might have happened if the lawsuit was allowed to proceed is that

a) Even now we don't know how it would have turned out.

b) The people under investigation for sure didn't know what would be uncovered and what their liability would be.

Therefore it just makes sense to me to talk about the amount the lawsuit was seeking, since that is what the people involved were seeing in the headlines of their morning paper.



Actually, when you think about it $20 million is a pretty strong motive. $10 million is a pretty good motive. Even $5 million is a strong motive. Plus saving the reputations and careers of the people who were involved are pretty good motives.

And the reputation of the whole department would be stained. Steven would be riding high and these formerly respected cops would be living under a cloud of shame.

****, we live in a country where cops are willing to kill when they get 'disrespect' from uppity civilians!

All this blather about the motive suddenly becoming 'weak' because in the end the amount won by Steven might be less than the full $36 million plastered on the front page of the newspapers is what's weak.

I can't recall ever writing anything along the lines that you can't call him a murderer.

I myself don't call him a murderer because in my view the evidence we have proves he is innocent of crimes against Teresa in 2005 just like he was innocent of any crimes against Penny in 1985.

I was simply demonstrating the folly of your screaming about Steven being a rapist when it is very easy to make allegations. Just like I can use the allegations about Kratz to call him a serial rapist.

If the logic I am using is bad, remember I am just showing you where your logic leads.

Maybe just do a ****ing search for it.

Fraley, just to be a nice guy, I decided to find my posts.

However, once I discovered that I had already linked you to these posts once before, I decided I won't do it again.

I had not only linked you to these posts previously, but you have discussed them ... previously.

The only reason I would do it now is to see if your responses now will be more ******ed than the ones you gave before.

But ... alas! I am not really that interested.

Please don't use that word it is disrespectful.

So I imagine this was quite a while ago when this was discussed because I don't remember it. Unless, was it the post where you pointed out to me that he could received more than 500k because I misunderstood a state law?

Disrespectful to whom? ******ed is a perfectly acceptable word. If you are claiming it is disrespectful to mentally challenged people, I disagree. I don't believe it applies to them whatsoever as they and others operating on their behalf have specifically distanced themselves from that word.

I don't really care if you agree, using that word toward me offends me because I have aspergers syndrome and have been called ******ed by others who do not understand what aspergers is.

This explains everything...

People with aspergers generally have an above average intelligence, so **** off.

So you are a dumb asperger. Bad luck

Yes but they also have a variety of other issues that go a long way towards explaining your behavior and failings itt.

I'm legitimately not using this revelation to call you an idiot even though I do not think highly of your intelligence.

Well, i didnt know that you have aspergers (nor do I care). What does that have to do with your ******ed posts?

Im willing to take an IQ or general intelligence test with any of you. We can wager money or some other stakes. Don't really care. Trust me when I say, I am not ******ed, my posts are not ******ed and none of my thoughts are ******ed. My brain works very differently than someone who is neurotypical so sometimes my thoughts may appear weird or out of place to you because you don't understand them and I do not take kindly to that word in general and especially don't appreciate it being thrown my way.

So please, stop using it toward me.

My point is that you make that thread unreadable by having stupid arguments all the time,

Will you flip out when we ll talk about your autistic behavior ?
You are having the same pointless arguments for 1 year and a half being stuck on some details no one care about, you keep asking questions that you dont really want to get answered since you ignore the answer, you get stuck on some details that are ultra obvious(exemple ken kratz being a sexual predator and got fired because of it)
No one care about your opinion because your opinion makes no sense because you dismiss alot of really bad stuff, you have no notion of ethic or integrity.

Absolute gold. WP.

A word offends Frailty, guys. Stop.

As far as I understand, Asperger's is a condition that involves thinking in a coldly rational way - missing out on emotional content or social cues. This is exactly the way a person should think when weighing the evidence in a murder case (as well as when analyzing the behavior of people with psychopathic tendencies). So basically your brain is working just fine.

It's the rest of the people here that are sidetracked by "neurotypical" thinking. For instance - "That cop looked really nervous on the stand, he must be hiding something." "The cops must have been really pissed that Avery made them look like idiots by getting off on the rape case, they must have wanted to frame him." "Avery was about to get a million dollar settlement, why would he blow it by committing a rape and murder?" This type of thinking is how most people think most of the time, and in the vast majority of situations it works just fine, it's just not appropriate in a criminal investigation.

But because it is their natural mode of thinking, people just go along with it, without realizing that they are on the wrong track. So basically, it's them, not you. Don't waste your time with the trolls.

I appreciate this post very much. Thank you

Doubtful you understand most of my arguments. As can be demonstrated by the following response from you.

There was no conversation about kratz being a sexual predator. The conversation was bout why he lost his job. I looked up and just read the docs from his removal. He was removed from his position due to pleading no contest to charges of misconduct. I personally believe these advances were unwanted by the women in question. However, that wasn't what was being discussed. As to calling him a sexual predator, I wouldn't say that either. I would define a sexual predator as someone who commits a sex crime. Which as far as I can tell, kratz didn't do nor was he even accused of committing a sex crime.

What is even worse is avery was accused of rape from multiple women, and the allegations were substantiated by family members. Avery denies them of course, but kratz also denies these were unwanted advances from him.

The logic as to what should be considered fact only applies to avery with you guys. Hence the claim of special pleading.

So no to the iq test or general intelligence challenge against me? Since you abstained from answering that question I take that as a no.

yea, lets get our philosophical ideas from stephen fry lol. Seriously?

Is it also ok to call black people the n word or gays the f word iyo?

Listen: I am sorry that you have asbergers and for some reason associate yourself with being "******ed" (as directed towards a person's intellect). I don't think think they are the same thing, but I will defer to your sensibilities on that subject.

New television series: Asperger CSI: Solving Cases in a Coldly Rational Way.

What ****ing personal information do you have to hold this position? That his "misconduct" was for being a sexual predator is really beyond debate.

Jesus. I'm not going to give you a pass because of your condition. Get smart, or get the **** out.

Here is a comparison: The allegations against Avery for "rape" were investigated and declared "unfounded." Kratz lost his ****ing job. Go on with your "special pleading."

We also don't know how a small-town jury would rule on the liability of their own Sheriff's department. I don't think they would want their own city in bankruptcy or their taxes raised. I don't think it would be an automatic multi-million verdict. I imagine that both sides would settle for ~$3-$5 million and put it to rest.

I don't consider myself ******ed. But I appreciate your understanding. thanks.

Because I don't consider texting someone vague sexual innuendos or making passes at someone a crime (neither does any state as far as I know), and I don't think calling someone who does this a "sexual predator" is a applicable description. Kratz was removed from office because of who he was and who he was texting. Mainly a DA making inappropriate comments toward someone whom he would have a conflict of interest with. It had nothing to do with him committing a sex crime and according to kratz, the feelings were mutual.

To be clear, I am not defending what kratz did. i think its wrong for someone in his position to display this kind of behavior and agree he should have been removed. I think calling him a sexual predator is an obvious attempt to defer blame from avery.

Also, avery's rape case wasn't "unfounded". you already know why they didn't prosecute. It was because of his ongoing murder case. This has already been linked to you and you responded to it. Kratz has said in other interviews that if by some miracle avery was found not guilty of murder he was going to be prosecuted for the rape of his young niece.

This would have been a jury trial? I guess I hadn't thought about that.