They're not, but they did present a reasonable scenario that matches up with the known facts anyway. Oski has only seen the show, so he does not realize this - his opinion should be ignored.

Prosecution's closing rebuttal:

Kratz himself highlighted some of MAM's deceptive editing also.

She keeps getting innocent people out of prison and sometimes getting the actual perpetrators identified so that victims and their families get a little justice.

Exactly the sort of things you'd expect to generate disgust among a certain demographic.

I am not referring to "motive" (the why it happened), I am referring to a narrative that actually uses the facts to put the defendant in the same room as the victim at the same time the crime occurred.

Even using the evidence as allowed at trial - I don't see a reasonable explanation of how this crime happened, much less that SA did it.

We have the blood in the car - that is a huge piece of evidence. Assuming that evidence is legitimate, SA is suspect #1 by a large margin. But, beyond that, the case seems to unravel.

Yet, we have nothing in the trailer - but the prosecutor initially argues Teresa was killed in the trailer. I appreciate that Brendan's "confession" cites all sorts of terrible things that happened in the trailer, but there is no evidence Teresa was ever in the trailer. So the focus turns to the garage after a bullet is found. Yet, the evidence of something happening in that garage is not strong, either. I understand that the trier-of-fact was convinced - and I also appreciate that someone in Kratz position can hold sway over a jury, if not Kratz himself.

That is enough of a problem for me. There are issues with this case, but I do not hold the opinion that what is "there" was not sufficient for a conviction. I am more interested in the investigation and whether that disrupted a fair process.

I am interested to see what happens from here. I hope justice either was done, or will be done, but I am happy to see how it plays out rather than wade through information that I do not completely trust or even know whether it will stand up if SA is granted a new trial.

In some respects, to me, its like being asked to critique a 7-course meal after only having 4.

Did the film accurately portray AC's actions during the investigation into the missing person case and subsequent murder case?

If so, his own actions made him look suspicious. Here you are spewing straw-man propaganda to get your murdering friends off the hook, you murder groupie.

By that logic anyone who doubted SAs rape whould have been "advocates of the rapist" while he was in prison? But not anymore after they figured out he wasnt guilty?

They didnt arrest him right away no. And they had literally zero evidence on him. The only "evidence" they have is when he incriminated himself. Also I guess that young girl who said smth about BD byt later took that back. Dont think there was anything really concrete?

Usual manner? They knew very well that SA needed money VERY fast, that he couldnt afford to wait on a potential bigger settlement, appeal etc so I wouldnt say this was a "in the usuak manner" because of all circumstances around this.

^^ "Clear thinker"

What "murdering friends" off what hook? Wtf are you even babbling about??

How was it possible for them to arrest him if "they had literally zero evidence on him"? Like you said he incriminated himself & his confession isn't the only evidence against him nor am I rehashing the evidence either as that ship sailed.

If you can provide proper valid examples of unfair due process or coercion or even a plausible alternative which would refute the totality of the evidence then I'm all ears.

Otherwise hot interested, sorry.

Anyone who doubts the guilt of both is advocating for them whether justified or not & so far it's a resounding "not".

His incrimination during the first talks with the police is what the "evidence" on him is, before that they had really nothing.

If you cant watch the interviews with the police and BD and realise thad BD doesnt know wtf he is confessing to then not much I can say.

No, there's no quotes around "evidence" as if it's subjective an admission against interest is sufficient to convict you in court. So when he incriminated himself that was evidence as were the jeans.

Except he does know & this was already discussed itt & again I'm not rehashing it, except to say that again, his confession was partially used to secure a second search warrant on Avery's property which led to evidence which supported Dassey's confession.


It's very telling that nobody itt has been able to provide specific examples of unequivocal coercion, despite the transcripts & entire interview available for their dissection.

His use of quotes is clearly to emphasize that the validity of EVERY piece of "evidence" in this case can easily be called into question. Hence we have a docuseries and current legal battle. You fu**ing moron.

No it's simply advocates passing off their own personal & decidedly subjective opinion as actual facts. Just as they raise bars & deem innuendo sufficient for anyone else except the actual murderers.

Still waiting for you to specify on who these "murdering friends" who I "support" are, Saucy. Who are they? Who did they murder? How am I supporting murderers?

You reckon you could get around to this before 2018? Cheers mate.

Sorry, busy.

Right so you still can't back up your Travis Bickle style musings huh? Despite the truth being easy to defend? I'll just comfortably dismiss your ravings so & will also helpfully suggest a room with soft walls & some soothing muzak for you.
Your ability to post whilst clearly wearing a straight jacket is quite impressive btw. Do you use your nose? Honest question.

Did you watch the whole interviews? The 10-second clips shown in the documentary makes it look rather bad, but if you watch the whole thing, you might have a different opinion.

If you don't think the confessions are evidence of Dassey's guilt, it might make sense to ask yourself what behaviour during a police interview you would accept as evidence of guilt? I mean, he has intellectual limitations, but even so he's probably smart enough to know that he should try to minimize his involvement, like anyone else who committed a heinous crime. He changed his story a few times, but how can you tell whether that's just him owning up to what he did, or him making stuff up?

What specifically would you expect to be different in a "real" confession as opposed to Dassey's, which you believe to be "fake"? Can you back up your opinion with actual scientific research on false confessions?

Even the Appeals Magistrate Duffin has explained that other than the coerced statements coached by police interrogators there is no case against Brendan.

When cops have to resort to this sort of manufacturing 'evidence' it becomes clear even they know they have a weak or non-existent case.

Obviously, advocating for justice for American citizens can be wholly justified.

But for some consumers of torture porn like corpus vile advocating for justice = 'murder groupie'.

It's very telling that corpus vile has put people on 'ignore' so that he won't accidentally read answers to his demands and has not taken the trouble to read Duffin's decision granting Brendan habeas relief including many specific examples and case law precedents to back it up.

Since reddit posts have become popular lately, here's something that might be of interest:


That corpus vile chooses to remain willfully ignorant speaks volumes about his agenda here: to make false claim after false claim and never have to be confronted with the copious evidence that he is a habitual liar.

I have watched all materials that I have found on the internet, should be the whole interview.

1: He has no clue whats going on (I have a test in 1H). 2: He is mentally challenged. 3: He gets fed/directed ridic much.

Anything thats not spoonfed/sugested to him. Like BD saying he shot her and not "im just going to go ahead and say it, you shot her right" - "oh.... ehhh, yes....."

He is probably not smart enough, if he was he would ask for a lawyer or deny everything they say. But he REALLY thinks if he says want they WANT to hear its all OK.

I, or any sane person of age that has normal IQ would NEVER ever in a million years "confess" to killing someone by cutting a throut, stabbing, raping etc etc. I dont think anyone with enough age and normal IQ would, except if the person had a total meltdown and wanted guilt of there chest, but BD didnt even seem to be close to a meltdown, just guessing and guessing for hours. [/QUOTE]

Like I said above, a REAL meltdown or something that shows serious and real emotions. Also the person should be able to say atleast a couple of things that happened without havent it spoonfed to him already.

Yeh this. Add to that BDs limited IQ which makes him not realise how serious this is at all, not even close, like he seriously thinks he can go to class after saying all that LOL.