You seemed to be saying I was assuming there were problems with the way the investigation was conducted without evidence.

That was a wrong assumption on your part.

Other than that it was specifically about Steven and the likelihood that he was innocent in the Beerntsen case:



It definitely does not look good when Manitowoc LE ignore information coming from police that they are holding an innocent man in prison for a crime committed by someone else.

Something well worth paying attention to and taking a note of.

Inorite? I should go solely by tv shows instead like you do.

Please provide the verbatim quote where I said this thanks. This is a blatant conscientious lie by you. You know perfectly well I invited you lots of times to provide evidence of corruption, coercion or unfair due process. I further invited you lots of times to discuss the merits of Hamilton's argument over Duffin & the majority's. You refused each and every time which is your problem, not mine so again stop lying it's doing you no favours. I never once claimed itt that courts are infallible, & I fully and absolutely acknowledged & still do, that Avery is a genuine exoneree who was wrongfully convicted for rape. Again please provide the verbatim quote where I said what you falsely claimed.
If actual real smoking gun evidence was found for innocence of either I'd actually be happy & would welcome it, as I certainly don't wish to see innocents wrongfully convicted, unless you wish to further falsely accuse me of wishing for a miscarriage of justice.
So again provide that verbatim quote for your false claim or stop lying.


Nice Freudian slip

Don't forget the part where I repeatedly invited you to provide evidence the convictions were wrongful.

Already covered you were invited to discuss the merits of each argument & you ran away. I'm not interested in your mere repetition of what was already covered.

I've studied the evidence &read the primary sources & agree with 'em if that's what you mean.

Explain how agreeing with the primary sources is irrelevant when you refuse to provide any examples of how they erred or evidence planting & again explain why MAM had to engage in deception if the issues raised are so relevant...as I already asked you a buncha times...

I don't know the Halbachs and again your veiled dig at them is duly noted with an utter lack of surprise, to go with your attacks on Teresa's friends & advocacy for her murderers & what I strongly suspect is the deliberate misspelling of her name which is what Knox's groupies did all the time, referring to Meredith Kercher as "Merdith" or "Kurcher", yet another murderer groupie trope by you. You truly have no integrity or simple common decency in you at all, do you? Again utter shame on you.

Yep. For life without parole & without parole for 41 years, don't forget that bit.
And again everyone who agrees with the guilty verdicts are all very much aware that you & your fellow advocates have provided absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to back up your murderer advocacy or wrongful conviction claims. Despite being invited to lots of times.
So again it's all good in the hood.

Not quite. I was saying that you are saying evidence was planted without evidence of planting. It is easy to monday night qb anything, including a police investigation.

Lol.

1. If you are interested in joining the discussion, it is about the film and the issues it raises. We understand there was a conviction, but are interested to see if justice was done here. The process is ongoing, so we have a lot to follow.

2. Nobody cares about your "research" (lol) as the issues do not really concern debate around what the trial court found as "facts" or the state of the entered evidence. The process is the issue and it reaches the foundation of those facts and evidence upon which you rely. You clearly do not grasp that arguing the underlying case when issues are raised about the legitimacy of the evidence or the process is a fool's errand. Yet, I suppose I can't expect you to engage in any other kind.

3. Now, given the scope of the debate, it does us no good to declare, "these issues do not exist, the film is fraudulent" when we know 100% at least one material issue raised by the film does exist and is currently with the Appellate court.

You may hold the opinion that Dassey will not succeed on the issue, but that ignore the fact the issue is still in play - and legitimate.

Thus, contrary to your assertion, the film fulfills a legitimate purpose beyond those financial interests of the filmmakers.

4. Nobody really cares to engage you as you are truly insufferable. Beyond being unable to grasp the scope of the discussion, you are not here to "find the truth" of the matter, you are here to shove "your"* opinions down everyone's throat.

* I sincerely doubt you have developed a single independent thought about this case. You may have "read" some source documents, but I am comfortable concluding you have made little use of them on your own. Instead, I am almost certain you get "your" opinion from reading other threads on the internet.

And you know what? That is fine. At this stage of the game, that is the wise move. There are so many pieces to this that it would a complete waste of time to "research" source documents with the hope of divining the truth of this matter.

Some day, perhaps it would make sense, but right now, we don't know if this case will get further treatment in the trial court.

If it does not, then most of what you argue is not necessary - issues would have been raised and then considered by the appellate court. No matter how they rule, we will have a nice opinion to read about how their conclusion was reached.

Until then, I agree with you that Steve was convicted and he is in jail. While you use this to conclude he is factually guilty and that any further challenge by his defense is without merit, I simply understand it to indicate where we are in the process. I am eager to see how this plays out and whether I agree with the result.

Which is wrong.

I did not assume there was planting without evidence indicating planting.

I did not say there was 'planting without evidence of planting'.

It would be best if you leave it to me to say what I am saying and not try to change it to something else.

Meanwhile, Zellner has another win in the courts:

Kathleen Zellner‏ @ZellnerLaw

Today we defeated State motion to dismiss Mario Casciaro’s civil rights case. Our id of real killer & Brady viol. won!! A perfect week. #WinningHabit #HappyThanksgiving

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/statu...17779109167104

When will this damn Innocence Fraud end?!

Shillz and his shills getting absolutely smoked ITT.

WTF? No way this whacko has anything to do with anyone even remotely close to the case. His boss is at least 3 degrees separated from whoever is floating the bill...

@ you Sheriff K-Pete.

It was sarcasm.

It didn't raise any hence their engaging in deception, which you're unable to justify.
Still waiting for that verbatim quote where I expressed blind trust in courts Pinnochio


Jasus you're long winded. Justify the docutwins decepetion or stfu.


Which again you refuse to discuss whose arguments have more merit so nobody cares about your mere declaration re provisional & currently vacated HC relief. You gotta justify that sheeit yo. Which you still refuse to do.

So? You still refuse to discuss their actual arguments, nobody denied Dassey was given provisional & currently vacated HC relief. You run away from justifying it despite the truth being easy to defend.
Just because a court hears an issue doesn't mean the issue has objective merit. That's why it tends to be discussed. Which you're unwilling/unable to do.

Except it doesn't as again could be argued that MAM influenced individual judges via its deception hence the piss weak arguments of the which again you run away from discussing.

What passes for point 4 is yet more whinging irrelevant dribble from you ergo ignored .

Couldn't care less what you doubt I invited you to discuss Teresa's case & you ran away. Says it all about how weak your narrative is.

Still regarding Teresa's murder as a "game" I see.


You haven't read either Duffin or the majority's argument or done any research, so I'm not interested in your burbling.

Justify Zellner's motion if it has merit.

More long winded waffle posts without substance from you. Stop attacking a murder victim's friends & family and learn to spell her name right. You scumbag.

Haven't commented on Casciaro nor do I have on opinion on the Brian Carrick case but will accurately state that Casciaro isn't an exoneree nor do the state regard him as innocent.

http://www.nwherald.com/2017/03/17/w...ence/a510ir1//

Innocence Fraudsters will always continue when they have cheerleaders like you to empower them.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/05/prweb12701214.htm

Right, so all defendants freed for wrongful convictions were actually guilty. The Innocence Fraud Project is out of control!

Lol so she won the right not to have her case thrown out there & then.

https://apps.americanbar.org/litigat...s-dismiss.html

Zellner also has a thing for identifying "real killers" too. She's doing the same by blaming Tom Dick & Harry in Teresa's case & blamed a sports journalist in Ryan Ferguson's vacated conviction.

Please provide the verbatim quote where I said that. Still waiting for the verbatim quote where I declared Avery factually guilty solely because the courts said so. You have some neck falsely accusing others of being intellectually dishonest btw.

I said accurately that Casciaro is not an exoneree nor do the state regard him as factually innocent. Please cite where the state regard Casciaro as "exonerated" thanks.

People are freed for all sorts of reasons. Some like Steven Avery for rape are genuinely exonerated & factually innocent. Others plead guilty & cop Alford Pleas. Others still have their convictions overturned on technicalities.
As a proclaimed lawyer I thought you'd be aware of this.

They don't spell her name in the show.

He knows her name is & how to spell it & indeed admonished me for mentioning Teresa earlier. (I don't think he likes her murder being referred to as the Teresa Halbach case, he'd probably prefer if it was called The Steven Avery Case or possibly The Wrongful Conviction of Brendan Dassey).

I got called on in a semi contemptuous manner itt earlier for spelling her name correctly & it was also intimated itt that I somehow knew her or her family, simply because I referred to her as either Teresa or Ms Halbach.

Again this is a standard trick of hybristophilliac murderer groupies. Again many of Amanda Knox's groupies consistently spelled Meredith's name wrong. It's a veiled dig at the victim just as the sudden outa the blue mention of the Halbachs by Oski is a sly dig at them. He'll vehemently deny this or express disinterest or try to deflect just as Knox's groupies did, when this was pointed out to them by more than one person.
Another trope is to express faux concern for the victim & state that they're only looking for justice for her, such as Sauce did for Teresa during one of his semi coherent rants where he accused all and sundry including yourself of being paid shills, neo-nazis & MCLE of being murderers, who we supported. (These are the types of people Oski considers "clear thinkers" btw)

Cases like Teresa's attract many types. Not all of them are altruistic or have good intentions. As several of the comments in this very thread highlight adequately.
His misspelling of Teresa's name is quite deliberate, he simply has that patented lack of self awareness/tone deafness to see how he appears to others via his veiled digs. It's another trait of murderer groupies in general, regardless of whatever killer they're advocating for.

The documentary was about Prosecution Fraud and corpus vile wants to talk about something else.

So nice he condescends to take time out from drooling over his precious torture porn films to rant and rave over how much he hates real life people fighting for justice.

Yup. Winning court decisions and getting some justice for wrongly convicyed citizens and sometimes getting real justice for victims and their families.

You know corpus vile just hates that.

LOL @ corpus vile for demonstrating once again he doesn't understand how Brady violations work.

Zellner does understand the law, which is one way she keeps winning freedom for innocent people while corpus vile does nothing but ***** about her on the internet.

Lol. Quite the analysis.

I spelled her name wrong on accident. If you notice, I also called Steven, "Steve" a few posts back. I guess I am a secret Ken Kratz lover now?

After your hysteria breaks, you should read some of the nonsense you type. You could not be more of a dope if you tried. Whatever you are attempting to do at this point is anyone's guess.

I don't pore over this case all day, every day as you apparently do. I have other things to do.

Anyhow, carry on. I'm more than satisfied to wait for.the Dassey decision and follow actual developments through the news and from this thread.

I have no problem scrolling past your irelevant and unfounded "opinions." We get it:

1. Avey was convicted;

2. Therefore, he is factually guilty.

3. Anyone interested in the issues raised in the film are murder groupies and participating in "Innocence Fraud" and violating the victim and her family.

Cool.

4. You are not here to discuss the issues raised by the film, because the film did not raise any issues.

5. The film also fraudently influenced the Federal Court of appeal (ahem, "please state, verbatim ..." ah, never mind).

6. So, your self-appointed role here is to simply remind us that Steven Avery was convicted an remains in jail, meanwhile, the film is fraudulent because (despite not claiming to have answers) the issues raised have yet to be proven.

Whatever discussion you appear.to be seeking doesn't seem to exist in this thread. I'm sorry you carpetbagged onto this site, but have found that nobody seems to enjoy your company. Maybe you should go back to whatever site you came from

Well, yeah. He even tried.to start a few threads here, but the reception is lukewarm.

I think people were uncomfortable witj him describing the slasher film Hostel as "delicious" (or something similar).

I always found it odd in the AK thread how CV would rant about solecittos torture porn, etc, but finds similar items."delicious." A total nutter - and a grossly unpleasant personality as.well.

I was making a joke.

I haven't seen what Oski said, but I think Hanlon's razor clearly applies in this instance.


Confirmation bias.

Oski:
Again provide the verbatim quote where I claimed Avery was factually guilty because he was convicted.

No just you Loudz, Sauce & Mitchel, so far are murderer groupies. I disagree with Golf who seems to feel an unfair due process occurred, but would not consider him an advocate & certainly not a groupie.

Already invited you to validate MAM's deception. You refuse.
Already invited you to validate the majority argument. You refuse.
Nobody cares about your revisionism or falsehoods.

The film is fraudulent for the deception they engaged in which has already been covered & thoroughly highlighted itt. You refuse to address it.
These are among the many reasons your opinion is worthless.

To quote your good self:
Stick me on ig if you have a problem with me lawboy. Back to pissing your diddies repetition I see.

Good use of autnorities there.

1. In a case where one of the objectives is to have the defendant declared "factually innocent" you inform us the opposing side does not agree. Thanks for sharing.

2. To support your point, you quote the prosecutor stating the prosecutor still believes he did it.

3. Finally, you "forget" that one of the key issues in the ongoing case was that the prosecutor is alleged to jave unduly influenced a co-defendant's testimony to create a stronger case against the defendant suing in this case.

I guess I am surprised by all this. I figured the prosecutor would just spill the beans to the reporter and admit defendant was wrongfully convicted due to his office's misdeeds.

Please cite where I said that. I said this.
Yet more selective editing & omission from you, just like the docutwins, yawn.


Please cite where I ranted about Sollecito's torture porn. You wish to resurrect that thread due to your butthurt? Go ahead mate provide the verbatim quote where I ranted about Sollecito's torture porn. Or stop lying.

I wouldn't judge that little misogynist scumbag on his fictitious tastes or his knife collecting.
Put it against the backdrop of the brutal sexually aggravated murder of a young woman, for which he was trial convicted for, combined with a police investigation into his allegedly attacking a classmate with a scissors combined with his own proclaimed desire for "extreme experiences" though, combined with his despicable facebook comments on Ms Kercher & female murder victims in general, combined with his posed photo of him prominently displaying a knife, after his illegal acquittal for knife murder and yeah it tends to set off red flags... Guess why? All about the context lawboy.

I take it you'll be shilling for him next?

I'm a horror nerd & absolutely proud of that fact btw so am disinterested in your opinion of me in this regard. Actual real murder repulses me though as do real murderers. Hence the reason I don't cheerlead them or raise bars for them or accuse innocents of the murderers crimes or stick it to murder victims families. Unlike you and your sorry immoral ilk.