...almost as embarrassing as the 1985 case where LE ignored Steven's 16+ alibi witnesses and did everything in their power to convict the wrong man.

Cuz Avery & Dassey are guilty, that's how.

@Loudz- zero evidence Avery was framed for rape.

Wisconsin is a corrupt state ergo was corrupt here? That's like saying that wrongful convictions occur ergo Avery was wrongfully convicted. And that doesn't wash as again no evidence for it.

?? Who's pretending? Avery is a genuine fuhreelz no foolin' exoneree who was genuinely wrongfully convicted for rape. He wasn't wrongfully convicted of murder though as he's truly guilty.

No you didn't, at no point during our exchange have you answered this- link it. Link where you specifically answered whether LE planted the blood showing Avery to be wrong when he absolves them, since it's so true. Or else stop blatantly lying your ass off, typical murderer groupie behaviour from you. But your refusal to answer& continued bluster, & pathological lying that you have answered when you haven't, despite the truth being easy top defend is duly noted & duly laughed at.

Would love to see corpus vile arguing Avery's rape guilt post conviction. He'd use the same arguments he's posting about murder. He was convicted of rape, therefore he's guilty. What evidence do you have that he's not guilty?

No the evidence for his guilt was clearly highlighted itt. I have never once stated that Avery was guilty of anything because he was convicted by a court or opined that courts were infallible (I stated the exact opposite in fact) & indeed gave an open invitation for valid examples of unfair due process via errors or corruption, as well as open invitations to specify valid examples of coercion for his creepy-ass nephew. I also gave invitations to refute Hamilton's dissenting argument & to justify Duffin, Rovner et al. I invited discussion re the law & AEDPA & re the initial verdicts which provisionally overturned Dassey's conviction.

Nothing was forthcoming & outright refusal to discuss Diffin ensued along with proud proclamations from certain posters how they never even bothered researching & were solely going by a netflix doc. So your utterly false claim simply doesn't wash. Avery's wrongful conviction for rape has also been thoroughly discussed & I don't do rinse repeat, sorry.

Only relevant issues that supporters need to address/offer are:

Whether or not the en banc verdict re Dassey can be validly refuted with sound argument.

Sound argument as to why SCOTUS is wrong for not hearing Dassey's case.

Sound argument for whether Avery is right or wrong in absolving LE re planted blood/other evidence.

Valid inarguable examples of coercion/other rights violations re Dassey's multiple confessions & sound argument for how coercion occurred on multiple occasions, highlighting why En Banc was wrong to uphold his conviction.

That's it. Everything else is superfluous noise, rehashed spam that doesn't bear entertaining yet again for the nth time in a apparent effort to bore people into submission.

As far as I'm concerned justice has been upheld & onus not on anyone who agrees with their guilt to prove it again to supporters' personal satisfaction but on supporters to show valid flaws in their due process. Endlessly rehashing what was covered by separate courts of law doesn't cut it. If that's all supporters have then they don't have a case.

Does Corpus have a bunch of paragraphs on his clipboard that he copies and pastes from or does he actually type out all these long posts individually each time?

That's pretty much it - found guilty and therefore he did it - even though the facts came out and it took years for Steven to be exonerated.

The Beerntsen case proves the cops can and will prosecute an innocent man, and can win a conviction of an innocent man.

I'm not a 'murder groupie' as I have already pointed out. Every time you write that out, you prove yourself to be a desperate and intellectually bankrupt troll.

I'm not lying as anyone who's read my posts knows for themselves I have recently addressed the blood planting question in response to a post by you.

How can I put it in terms that might appeal to your special needs?

The latter. Do supporters have anything to offer other than constant deflections onto little old me?

.

Yeah you are & a lie repeated often enough does not become the truth. I asked you if Avery was now wrong when he absolved LE which you haven't answered. Your continued bluster is laughed at.

You've zero evidence anyone planted it or anything else, just your whacky conspiraloon claims, which is typical murderer groupie behaviour. Not one of you in any case have ever been capable of supporting your dumb implausible positions, lol.

And was that your answer in post 12031?? You mean this bs you just stated which I'll actually quote again just for chuckles??

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=12031


You still haven't answered properly as to whether Avery is correct or not re LE not planting the blood & what passed for your answer is laughed at too. You're simply unwilling to even go there justifying Avery's about face & I totally get that and yet again can't blame you, considering you'd look even more ridiculous than you've already made yourself look a bunch of times over itt.

Troll confirmed.

So why do you repeat the lie - even you realize repeating your tiresome lies neither makes them true or persuades anyone?

I answer that I don't know. You might not like the answer, but it is a lie when you claim I made no answer.

The defense is allowed to suggest different scenarios that fit the evidence.

There's zero evidence the blood allegedly found in the RAV4 came from a cut on Steven's finger, yet you keep screeching about your 'theory'.

Hypocrite confirmed.

AFAICT there are no 'murder groupies' in this thread.

The only one who seems to fit that description is you: you think Steven is a murderer, and you think he is cuddly.

I've supported my conclusions with observations of fact, logic, and reasoned argument.

I never have the need to resort to made-up words like 'conspiraloons' or blatantly lying about anyone being 'murder groupies'.

So what? You don't like my answer. But that doesn't give you permission to lie repeatedly that I gave no answer.

By 'answering properly' you mean giving you the answer you want?

Getting laughed at by trolls is the least of my worries.

You seem to think I am required to agree with everything Steven says.

That is not the case.

Your simplistic black/white mode of thinking is probably what is making you so confused, because the real world is a little more complicated than you can handle.

For me looking 'ridiculous' in the eyes of a dedicated troll such as you have proven to be is more like a badge of honor. If I found a poster as ignorant and angry as you are was agreeing with me, I'd have to take a hard look and see if I'd made an egregious error.

Normal and sane people don't seem to have any issues with my posts here.

Lol whaddya mean you don't know? Do you agree with Avery's reasoning or his his reasoning incorrect and if so why? Hilarious you continue to try & slither away from addressing this. How does the scenario not only fit the evidence but actually nullify the previous claim that LE planted the blood? Were Buting & Strang wrong, as well as Zellner? (Again can't blame you for not wishing to dip into the can of worms such contrary rubbish presents. )

Please cite verbatim where the court established what you just babbled. Otherwise you don't understand the meaning of words such as "theory" & "established fact". Just as you don't understand the meaning of "coercion" or "evidence".

Again keep 'em coming.

You are a conspiraloon as your whackadoo musings on that JFK thread clearly prove & I remember you on PMF years ago strongly intimating that 9/11 was a nefarious conspiracy & you're proclaiming some form of conspiracy here so yeah you're a conspiraloon.
Saying "I don't know" isn't an answer certainly not a valid one within the specific context & your continued running away is a hoot.

No I mean you attempt to plausibly address Avery's about face & explain why it lines up with the evidence seeing as you claimed it does. I happen to know your answer is :
I just wanted to see if you'd man up to it or not.

Hence my invitations to discuss potentially flawed/unfair due process, judicial decrees & evidence for a frame up. Think before you post Loudz...

Real world agrees with me that Avery & Dassey are guilty. Real world doesn't agree with your conspiralunacy or insistence on coercion.

...is par for the course on this and every single thread you've ever posted on, we know.

Normal & sane people either have you on ignore or laugh at you. (hell I only took you off ig for chuckles & even now you're becoming your usual whingey snot nosed annoying self, with your usual repetitive spam, which is why I stuck you on ig to begin with). Your fellow conspiracy theorists don't count as "Normal and sane people" & you people are considered a laughing stock & divorced from reality, by sane & normal people.

And you've still provided nothing to back up your conspiraloon innocence fraud stupidity. Nor can you nor will you ever be able to, considering Avery & Dassey are truly guilty. You should shill for the likes of Adnan Syed instead, he's a potentially better chance than both your murderers who are going to stay in a cage.

'Bye now.

The subject of 'raising the bar' has been brought up.

Here's an article detailing how Wisconsin's 'Denny Rule' gives the state even more power over citizens:

...as the defense attorney Jerry Buting lamented in the documentary, the judge used Wisconsin’s so-called Denny rule (State v. Denny, 120 Wis. 2d 614 (Ct. App. 1984)) to prevent the defense from arguing that a specific third party, other than Avery and his codefendant, had killed Halbach. Sure, the defense team was free to contend that Avery wasn’t responsible for the crime, but they were prevented from telling the jury who they thought had committed it.

The Denny rule is a bizarre double standard that often operates to shut down third-party defenses that might be brought by defendants. It does this by placing a much higher evidentiary burden on defendants than on the state.

For example, in order to use a third-party defense at trial, a defendant must first prove there is “a direct connection” between the third party and the crime. Yet when it comes to the prosecutor’s case, the jury will be instructed that circumstantial evidence “is not necessarily better or worse than direct evidence.”

Further, even when a defendant is able to provide direct evidence of a third party’s guilt, Denny still shuts down the defense. How? By also requiring the defendant to prove the third party’s motive for the crime. Here then comes yet another double standard, since the jury will be instructed that “the state is not required to prove motive on the part of a defendant in order to convict.”

Denny is an irrational, truth-suppressing rule that Avery’s trial and appellate judges used to foreclose his third-party defense in the Halbach murder case. Even worse, the application of Denny to Avery’s first case not only resulted in a wrongful conviction but also allowed a rapist (Gregory Allen) to roam free.

https://wislawjournal.com/2016/06/06...turning-denny/

Zellner has failed to show how Denny is unjustified or meet Brady violations in her latest filings.

state vs Wilson
Mere speculation on Zellcat's part doesn't cut it.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-supre...t/1700612.html

Nobody is arguing re Avery's wrongful conviction for rape. He wasn't actually "framed" for it though nor is there any evidence for this just more conspiracy theories from you.

Lol at that article btw whinging that the defence can't start pointing fingers at Tom Dick & Harry without any proof to support their accusations as if mere accusation should supersede actual evidence submitted to the court.

You're right, he wasn't "framed". The police just did everything in their power to make sure he was convicted, including making the witness sketch look like cuddly bear.

I'm not interested in your mere intimations nor am I rehashing what was already covered itt. Do you have actual evidence Avery was fuhreelz "framed" for rape or not?

Can you read?

Yeah, do you know what the word "evidence" means? All you're doing is rehashing already long refuted crap. A PI for Avery's appellate lawyer made the Kusch allegation which was rejected by the appellate court which found no impropriety. His lawyer in the civil suit didn't even make this allegation due to it being dumb. And again this was already covered itt yet more proof by assertion bollocks from you lot. Do you have anything new at all to bring to the table? Or just more patented repetition?

So again do you have any actual evidence to support your rejected claim? As in stuff that wasn't already covered? If not then your false claim is dismissed, and I also reiterate that you people have no case here if you need to engage in rinse repeat all you're doing is embarrassing yourselves even further than you already have, if such a thing is even possible at this stage.

Anyway keep holding your torches & best of luck too.

I think 'framing' is a useful word to describe dismissing more than a dozen witnesses and other evidence that proved Steven could not possibly have committed the crime, and then traced his photo as if it were a sketch based on her description to push on the traumatized victim.

Having already demonstrably framed and convicted Steven for a crime he did not commit in the 1985 case, it's no big stretch to suspect they did it again in the 2005 case.

Framers gonna frame.

Yeah & groupies gonna group & conspiraloons gonna rant 'n' rave ...

Yep, badge bunnies are probably the very ones who came up with the theory that New York Jews came to Wisconsin with the motive to make a deceptive anti-cop propaganda piece that would undermine Western Civilization with the cooperation of Netflix and the Illuminati.

lol

corpus I convict you of being a wierdo and deny your motion of appeal

For agreeing with the verdicts of multiple courts?
Maybe I should subscribe to a nutty conspiracy involving the cops FBI Dassey's family, Teresa's ex & possibly her own family & a boatload of others instead. Then I'd be normal to you?

I'm not a convicted murderer or rapist or mutilator, so have no need to appeal anything. I'm free & easy & at liberty, unlike Avery & Dassey.