Lol now the entire state is corrupt too...anyone but the convicted killers! Anyway keep holding your torch.

Good to see you White Knighting criminal frauds who lie to secure convictions!

You're a meltdown that never stops giving sardonic amusement.

Do you see now why you're considered an irrational semi paranoiac conspiracy theorist nutjob Loudz? Or is ignorance still bliss?

?? I have no need for a meltdown. Justice has been upheld, remember? Avery's gonna die in prison & Dasey's going nowhere until possibly 2048 assuming parole granted that is, & not denied. So it's all good in my world Loudz
Btw did LE plant the blood against Avery or is Avery correct when he now claims that LE are totally innocent? "exonerated" you might say? How many times have you refused to answer this question now?

I know exactly why trolls say they think those things - they are bat**** insane.

Who else but a dangerous lunatic would stand up -as you do - for a scumbag like Duane Deaver to lie on the witness stand?

Did LE plant the blood...or not, Loudz?

Asked and answered.

Here's some questions that haven't been asked and answered yet...

As an avowed slasher film groupie, who is your favorite serial killer?

Freddie or Jason? Jigsaw or American Psycho?

Or do you have a preference for 'real life' protagonists like Henry Lee Lucas or Ted Bundy?

Do you also find BTK or the Golden State Killer to be 'cuddly'?

Do you prefer films where young women are sexually exploited, raped, and murdered or ones where young children are the disposable victims?

You're making Ken 'The Prize' Kratz very sad.

Won't you join him in attending an autopsy and wear high heels for him?

Dude was innocent right?

No you didn't. Did LE plant the blood or not?

Nah both are GAF

That's the way it looks.

The cops were so intent on ****ing over Steven Avery, they ignored evidence that pointed at other suspects - such as Bobby Dassey who may have been the last person to see Teresa Halbach alive, even though he was in possession of disturbing and violent pornography about raping and murdering young women (including child porn in violation of Wisconsin law).

The prosecution appears to have buried this evidence discovered on Bobby's computer, which is a violation of the law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure

^^Still waiting on you to answer whether LE planted the blood or not & whether Avery is correct when he exonerates LE in this regard. Still getting bluster from you. (Still laughing at your inconsistent burden of proof standards for Bobby Dassey or Ninja Ryan, compared to Special Little Guys like Dassey & Cuddly Bear Steve. )

you are mentally ill

You're a murderer groupie scumbag.

Yes

Do you have any evidence to support this? Actual evidence as opposed to failed defence argument? Or failing that, a credible plausible reasonable scenario for LE planting the blood, that successfully refutes the totality of the evidence against both convicted murderers & explains why they chose that route rather than legally arresting Avery for firearm possession or planting drugs on him, instead of going the legal arrest route?

Why does Avery & Zellner now do an abrupt about face on this & now claim it was his relatives that planted it, in their latest waffle?

Are Avery & Zellner now wrong when they go out of their way to specifically absolve LE of wrongdoing & blame Avery's relatives instead?

How are they wrong if LE did plant it as you claim? How is their reasoning flawed specifically in this regard?

Did LE also plant the hoodlatch DNA months later? Did they plant the .22 shell containing Teresa's DNA, in your opinion?

Why has Zellner gone from LE to Ryan to now Avery's relatives wrt suspects?

Do you think it's possible she'll blame other parties still at a later date?

Do you think it's potentially possible she could eventually blame Brendan Dassey as the killer?

It's called desperation.

Loudz, still waiting on you to answer whether Avery is correct absolving LE or not when he now claims they didn't plant the blood. Are you willing/able to answer or are you going to continue to stall & evade & bluster like all you groupies do?

I have nothing to be desperate about as again justice has been upheld & as was already saliently pointed out, I correctly predicted both outcomes. I correctly stated that Rovner's argument was off base re the facts & law, specifically the AEDPA. So again it's all sunny in my world, thanks. (And again I really don't blame you for trying to slither your way outa even attempting to defend the indefensible, such as Avery's abrupt U-Turn, just for the record like )

How else would it have gotten there?

No. Avery and Dassey very, very obviously did it. You shouldn't believe everything you see on TV. 'Cops arrest right people, court duly convicts' isn't a story. But 'innocent people condemned' is always a story, and there's money in that, and the people writing the newspaper articles and making the TV shows literally do not care a damn what the truth is, long as they get paid. I know those type people and I know what they're like.

In England, the late Paul Foot, still regarded as a hero journalist by idiots, made a career out of claiming James Hanratty was innocent of the 'A6 murder' he was hanged for in the 1960s. He wasn't innocent. He did it. Decades later, DNA proved this beyond doubt. Paul Foot still refused to admit he was wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hanratty

Foot also agitated on behalf of the Bridgewater Four, who murdered the young newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater when he interrupted them in the course of a robbery. They blew him away with a shotgun. Their convictions were much later overturned on appeal, but not because they didn't do it, only because the police broke Judge's Rules during questioning. (Police forged a confession by one of the killers to extract a confession from another one whom they rightly judged to be a softer touch. You can't do that.) It makes no difference to the men's factual guilt. They very clearly did it, as the Court of Appeal outlined in their report. Idiots often think an overturn on appeal means innocence, but it doesn't.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1997/2028.html

And you, proudfootz, are literally incapable of understanding that Lee Oswald murdered President Kennedy, and that he had a very easy shot from that window in the Texas School Book Depository, and that it got easier as the car moved away and its apparent progression across the gunman's field of view decreased, so you don't really have a rational leg to stand on.

If the term 'murder groupie' is going to have any kind of meaning, it would have to meet two criteria:

a) Does the alleged 'groupie' believe the object of their devotion committed murder?

b) Does the alleged 'groupie' have some kind of devotion to the person because their idol is a murderer?

Nobody who thinks Steven Avery (or Brendan Dassey) is innocent can possibly fit that definition.

So when corpus vile accuses people who are not murder groupies of being murder groupies, Corpus is either an idiot, a liar, or some combination of the two.

In fact, the only person itt who seems to find Steven both 'cuddly' and a murderer is corpus vile.

I think you are mistaken, as do a great many informed people.

I don't, so your warning is wasted on me.

You couldn't be more wrong. Just about every cop show, detective series, forensic scientists drama is about cops arresting the right people, detectives discovering the culprit, the cleverness of the lab techs in correctly identifying the guilty party. It's a multi-million dollar industry entertaining folks with stories about how they always get their man.

I don't know anything about your friends. But if it is a fact that journalists don't care whether the accused are innocent or guilty, that means there is no bias either way. Again, your line of argument collapses because it seems to be missing some vital parts.

So what? Just because some bad actors claim to be innocent does not require anyone to believe that all persons who protest their innocence must be guilty.

Sometimes people we might believe to be guilty do get off on a technicality'. This principle has a long history in Western Civilization - often expressed in the maxim that "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

Why? Those 'technicalities' are there to protect the public against police corruption. People who think about law enforcement and the justice system know this, and build in these safeguards for good reasons. Try to comprehend this reality.

IMHO police forging a confession (much like they did with Brendan Dassey in this case) is not a good thing.

To sum up: corpus vile is wrong to accuse anyone on this thread of being a 'murder groupie', and you are wrong to suggest corpus vile is correct to keep repeating this unhinged falsehood.

You are wrong is claiming that there isn't big money in 'cops arrest right guy, who is convicted. This is extremely stupid sort of thing to believe, because anyone with even a mild interest in stories about the justice system knows your claim is not true.

Likewise, most stories about crime and law enforcement in my local paper is just about cops arresting folks, and prosecutors securing convictions. I sure don't see reporters going out of their way to try and contradict cops, prosecutors, judges, or juries. Only rarely does the coverage entertain the possibility that the wrong guy was arrested/tried/convicted.

Asked and answered. You inability to comprehend plain English is your problem.

I'm not a 'groupie' as you should well know if you're not a complete imbecile.

I've already pointed out your 'murder groupie' accusation fits you better than it fits me. Your resorting to an obvious lie is a sign of desperation IMHO.

But what has triggered you to suddenly jump up and start blathering about the case? It seems like you are a 'sore winner' - someone who can't take their alleged 'win' with the kind of sang froid that would indicate an easy conscience. It seems the mere fact that many people hold different views than yours you treat as an existential threat.

F'rinstance, you insist on raising the bar for the defense should they improve their arguments based on new evidence, while at the same time defending the prosecution for changing their mind about what allegedly 'must have happened' .

So, yes - spreading lies as you do is desperate.

Yes, your insisting on maintaining a 'double standard' indicates you can't bear the idea of trying to sell you wares in a marketplace of ideas that did not unfairly advantage your 'position' (cops can lie if they want, prosecutors can make indefensible U-turns in their theory of the alleged crime, etc).

Wisconsin is one of the most corrupt state’s in the country. This has been a given from the onset.

Pretending one of them was not previously locked up for years on a wrongful conviction is lol.

For most Avery advocates, their bubble will never burst. They've completely insulated themselves from reality, and there will always be someone for them to baselessly accuse of corruption.


+1

From the gash on his finger (photo taken 9 days after the crime), the same way he left his blood in his own GrandAm.

Imagine how silly this whole framejob would have looked if Steven just hadn't had a large cut on his finger at the time or hadn't had a large bonfire capable of burning a human body the night Teresa went missing?