I have not made any claims in this thread. Zero.

I have only stated my opinion, upon what my opinion is based, and my thoughts about others attempting to persuade me and others that those issues raised in the film are not legitimate.

I believe such is consistent with the purpose of this thread which is to discuss the documentary and its aftermath.

It seems only you and a few others are struggling with understanding the difference between a stated opinion and advocacy.

It may be YOUR choice to dig down and argue the actual case, but it is not mine - at least not at this stage as it is a fool's errand since the case is not over. Of course, you have demonstrated that you are more than eager to embark on such.

Furthermore (and I appreciate that you cannot comprehend this) nobody gives a crap about your attempts to validate the trial verdict. Almost all of the volume posters "defending the film" are simply asserting that they agree with the film that there appears to be issues with the trial - at this stage, they are not all that concerned with factual guilt or innocence.

They are interested in the question: "Did SA and BD receive fair trials?" Beyond that, as this process has continued, there is (what I believe is obvious) a bona fide issue as to the conviction of BD on material grounds - not just the process. You can disagree with that all you want, but meanwhile, there are other Courts considering this very issue and thus far it is going BD's way.

That alone justifies the intent of the film. As of right now, it appears at least one of the film subjects, BD was wrongfully convicted. Even if he was not, it very much appears that beyond the point of it being arguable, that there are legitimate issues of public concern over the "confession" and the manner in which is was produced.

You may disagree with that, but that is up to you. Just understand that almost nobody accepts your arguments here. Despite your arguments to the contrary:

1. The decision to make this film has been proven justified beyond simple financial motivations.

2. One or more of the issues it raised is bona fide.

3. One or more of the issues raised may be decided in a manner which will overturn one of the film subject's murder conviction.

From what I can tell, no amount of your childish antics and bullying is going to sway anyone from holding those opinions.

Yes, again going with my statement about you and a few others misrepresenting statements. As stated before, this is dishonest.

Here, for some reason, despite your efforts to misrepresent again, the quote begins with me stating "here is what I think ..." Do you understand what that means?

If you need the context: I was providing my thoughts on what may have happened. I do not believe anyone who did not intentionally misread the post (or related posts) believed my post was an attempt to PROVE something. I believe they took it as represented - as an idea. Whether they believe there is anything to that idea is up to them.

Just from your posting in this thread, I hold the opinion that you are emotionally disturbed and an all-around miserable person. I would really hate to know you in real life. I could not comprehend being forced to be in your presence in real life or having to deal with you on any matter. I simply could not see any way that you would be able to conduct yourself rationally or treat others fairly.

By all means, please do.

The fact that you cannot distinguish between a person stating an opinion as formed by a documentary and one arguing the merits of the underlying matter speaks more to your deficiencies than anything else.

The fact that someone holding an opinion contrary to yours gets you so riled up, speaks even louder.

... and yet, here you are.

You seem to know a lot about this.

The courts are going BD's way? What?

... while ignoring the actual p.r. impact the film and its aftermath has had (and is having) on the prosecutors, et al.

gee, you think their public image is in need of a touch up? I do.

I think it is beyond obvious, but I guess not to those strenuously arguing in favor of Kratz, etc.

I can understand being committed to the idea that S.A. killed T.H., but I don't understand why that seems to prevent these people from acknowledging what a horrible person Kratz has proven to be. I guess that would not work if Kratz and others are using p.r. to rehabilitate their image.

I wonder how Kratz's business ventures related to this case have been going? How is his book doing? How did his lecture tour do?

Maybe if his public image was something above "reprehensible slimeball" he would have some success.

What? (head in sand).

But for an emergency appeal by the prosecution, BD would be out of prison right now.

What?

It is my understanding that it is extremely rare for an En banc review to be granted on a particular ruling than that ruling stand because when one is granted it means the majority of judges on the panel have problems with the decision. Am I wrong?

Secondly, one could hardly say the courts are ruling in his favor. At best its still up in the air.

1. Based on the documentary, I believe SA did not receive a fair trial. Nothing more to it. I have responded to other posters attempting to justify THEIR belief that S.A. is factually guilty. Most of what they have posted in that regard is not compelling to me and I have explained why. At the end of the day, it matters very little (or shall I say, will matter) to my opinion as to whether S.A. murdered T.H. I don't need to go into the weeds on that issue since I am watching the challenges to the process unfold at this point.

You can accept that, or not. I can assure you that I have no basis to form a competent opinion as to whether he did or did not do it. Usually, I am comfortable relying on the result of a fair process. The trier-of-fact has the ultimate job of determining the "facts," period. If the process is properly administered (i.e. the trial is fair), I generally accept the verdict. Why wouldn't I?

2. I provided you my opinion on the civil process and the settlement as well as insights as to how that process works. This insight is based on the fact I am a civil litigator who works on all aspects of cases usually involving insurance policies.

I acknowledge that other "attorneys" disagree with my opinion, but I was very careful to explain why I disagree with theirs. Again, if you don't agree, that is fine with me. Personally, I am very confident that what I have to say regarding the insurance/civil litigation issues in the underlying case is accurate.

There are a variety of reasons an en banc review can be issued. First of all, anything to to with a Court of Appeal is "rare," so applying "rare" to the fact this matter was granted an en banc review does not really say anything (understand that Appeals are rarely GRANTED, much less heard at this level).

So, you can accept spin from whatever source you want. I don't read anything into it other than the Court accepts is has a bona fide issue on its hands.

As to my comment you address:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/us/mak...ase/index.html

The fact remains that absent the emergency filing, BD would be out of prison right now. That certainly means, in plain terms, that at least one Court that had authority to do so, ordered his release.

Whether you want to accept that the documentary had anything to do with this, or not, is your business. I don't know one way or another, but I suspect it did.

Let me ask a simple question and maybe you can or cannot answer.

Do you agree with this statement? It is most likely the case that If the majority of judges on the panel agreed with duffins decision they would have rejected the request for an en banc hearing.

Disagree. The request was not sua sponte, it came from the prosecution.

In any event, this issue appears to be one of national importance, which is a legitimate reason to grant the request.

The question itself is what is important to making the decision to have the matter heard en banc.

I guess I am confused, how else would this be reviewed but with en banc? Neither side was asking for a new trial. Really what I am getting at is if the majority of judges on the panel agreed with Duffin there would be no hearing to begin with. Or at least it seems that is most likely the case.

1. The prosecution asked for an en banc review.

2. The court can request one on its own, but that did not happen here.

3. The request is not going to depend on whether a particular judge or judges agree with the initial opinion, it is a policy decision tied to the issue itself. Im sum, if the question is of particular importance then it is more likely to be afforded an en banc review.

It would simply be foolish to attempt any insight as to what the decision to grant reveals about the Court's leanings, if any, towards the merits.

Missed this.

It would not be reviewed, otherwise. The initial opinion would stand and the next step would be to appeal to the supreme court.

This particular process is essentially a do over and the initial opinion, vacated.

Thanks for your responses. I suppose what you're saying makes sense. It just seems to me that unless there were some disagreements with Duffins decision that they would reject the request for an En Banc hearing and just let Dassey go free.

To kinda bring this back full circle though. This conversation between you and PS started because you were saying there are problems with the investigation that are currently being reviewed by the court. I disagree with that statement. I do not think BD court situation as far as I understand it, has anything to do with a poor or bad investigation. The argument by BD's attornies seems to be that BD confession wasn't voluntary because of his IQ (mostly among other things) this is not to say that the police did anythin wrong or coerced him in anyway. This is just to say that he wasn't voluntarily giving police information because of his intelligence.

Your opinion is based on a biased doc which you freely acknowledge so is therefore worthless. You've claimed the DocuTwins raised legit issues yet have refused to justify this by discussing the 7th circuit arguments or the selective editing & omissions the series engaged in.
So no you haven't supported your spurious claims or worthless opinion.

This thread isn't solely about MAM. I know you really wish it was as your knowledge on Ms Halbach's case is worthless.

You are an advocate I've seen some of your quotes & victim bashing & your opinion is worthless.

I asked you about the fraud of the documentary you refuse to discuss it. I asked how they raised legit issues by asking you to compare Hamilton & Rovner's argument. You ran away. You seem to think that merely stating your opinion is sufficient. Meanwhile those who know the facts of Ms Halbach's case either laugh at you or dismiss your opinion

Already validated as both convicted, try to keep up

. Which they're unable to back up, it's why nobody rational takes you lot seriously.

[quote]at this stage, they are not all that concerned with factual guilt or innocence. [quote]
Stop lying

Yeah they did. I've asked you groupies to list any legal procedural or systematic errors the courts engaged in. I got bar raising from you instead. It's one of the many many reasons your opinion & comments itt are worthless.

More waffle from you provide examples of coercion specifically.

Yet more waffle. Who's argument has more merit lawboy & why? Buncha times I've challenged you to respond to this. Why not simply admit you haven't read it?


No it hasn't as you've yet to justify the fraudulent methods used or Duffin's argument. You've nothing but hot air you semi troll.

No it wasn't you've yet to support this with anything tangible

WHo's argument is more on point lawboy? Still unwilling/unable to answer I see.

Bullying? You're the one bashing victims here, demanding bans & wailing at people to gtfo when you're not whinging that you don't have to explain anything to them you nutjob you really are the epitome of projection aren't you?

Yet more wall of text bloviating from our proclaimed lawyer murderer advocate, yawn.

Glad you find rape& murder enjoyable.

[quote]2. Based on the film and nothing else,[quote]
Yes it's already been pointed out how your opinion is worthless since it's based solely on a "film".

It's universally laughed at by people who have done more research than you have.

4. Yeah you were falsely accusing others of being "obstinate" earlier...

Lucky for you as yet again your opinion is worthless.

In the meantime everyone will just continue to dismiss your opinion as worthless. You sure do spend a lot of time advocating a doc and for a murderer, for someone who has no interest.

You called it a shame trial provide evidence of this.

You're the one being dishonest with yourb ar raising & lies re evidence.

Provide valid examples thanks

. F
You're required to prove it wasn't a fair trial. Whenever you're ready.


The you need to prove that too whenever you're ready. And nobody sane cares about your beliefs anyway as they're based purely on a fraudulent documentary.

That's why you should read the primary sources instead of watching netflix docs, you big eejit.

Lolwut? Onus isn't on us to prove guilt again to your satisfaction you headcase, onus is on you to prove innocence seeing as you're claiming it. See how that works lawboy? (I'm starting to disbelieve you're really a lawyer btw)

,
Again onus not on us to do anything you've got it ass backwards.

I don't believe you've read the court reports or Duffin, Rovner or Hamilton's arguments, you keep running away whenever challenged to discuss the merits of their arguments.

Again nobody rational cares about your silly stupid beliefs as they're based on a fraudulent documentary.

You see now why you're regarded as long winded btw?Just a loada hot air waffle with nothing of substance to it.

"Problems with the investigation" means the confession and how it came to be.

Ad for your other point, I disagree. If the request for an en banc hearing is denied, the prosecution would just appeal and seek a stay.

So, again, there is little value in using the fact the en banc was granted to determine how the court is leaning.

Prove it. What legal procedural or systematic errors did the trial engage in & how come the appellate court didn't see them?

Nobody cares about your mere assertions or beliefs. Support your belief with evidence or else run away & bluster some more, troll.

Stop trying to justify your victim bashing it's completely disgusting. You deem innuendo okay for some & reject courts for others while refusing to specify how the court screwed up. How was Avery's trial unfair for example?

You're attacking an innocent person for whom no evidence exists to even arrest. You're a scumbag as far as I'm concerned.

Couldn't care less about your opinion of me but only if you can back up your bs & reprehensible attacks on innocents. And you can't. You're a low life & again the epitome of projection as you have to be a particularly miserable human being to attacks people who lost their friends to murder.
You truly are a bottom feeding worm.

Uh, what now?


[quote]2. Based on the film and nothing else, You sure spend a lot of time not caring about my opinion - an opinion, which, by the way, I have not asked anyone else to agree with, including you.

Beyond that, wow, talk about missing the mark. Your inabilty to understand the post you were responding to is baffling.

I suggest that instead of responding line-by-line immediately, that you actually read the post first.

I would saved you the trouble of "proving" the exact point I was making.

Again, you seem to have no concept of the difference between an opinion and an assertion/advocacy.

You have some serious emotional issues. I found it hilarious that you are threatening to report my posts to the authorities. Lolwut?

Its not my job to prove anything. I have not asked anyone else to adopt my opinion (indeed, that is actually the purpose of the film - they set forth a premise and the viewer can accept it, or not), nor do I care if they do.

Apparently, you are unhappy that I don't agree with you, but instead the film. If you have been reading the thread and if you have watched film, you are aware of what issues were raised.

Despite your efforts to convince others that the film does not raise proper issues, I don't believe you have swayed anyone's opinion. But, so what? Nobody really cares what opinion you have, they do seem to care when you are overly invested in ramming it down everyone's throat.

That is why you are despised. Yet, you are aggressively tone deaf to what a twit you are.

What are you even talking about? Victim bashing? When did this happen?