A true troll would have named the gimmick Brandon Dassey.

Lol, did Fraley eat a ban?

Pretty simple rule, attack the arguments, not the person.

Or as we should all know by now, don't hate the player, hate the game.

If fraley ate a ban, I hope it was for spazzing up this thread, not for personal attacks.

no way, he's needed. bring him back please.

Yeah, at least you could argue everyone else was committed and vigorous to whatever goal they were trying to achieve. This smug piece of garbage, though. DO YOUR ****ING JOB! And why are you always smiling?

For someone who proclaims to believe he is innocent, you make an awful lot of these kinds of posts. That's a perfectly valid point to consider.

Sociopath?

Custer is definitely right. Murderers aren't necessarily driven by a rational analysis of rewards risks. It's entirely feasible that SA thought he could murder TH and get his 36 million. The possible lawsuit is a terrible reason to say he couldn't have done it.

Me talking about the general psyche of murderers somehow contradicts my stance I think he is innocent? Interesting.

Not all murderers are the same. Some are reckless, some are extremely calculated. It's definitely a fair point to raise.

Yes, and of all the words to use to describe Steven Avery "extremely calculated" is not one of them.

Unfair imo, because he also hasn't been shown to be a kill-happy psychopath. The pending suit should at least be a small tick in his favor.

Yeah, like it shifts the probability 1%.

This.

And sure, nobody would describe him as extremely calculated, but in order to pull off the cleanup if you believe his guilt he'd need to have carefully planned this or at least been very meticulous in the cleanup.

Well ya, but you could play that game all day(cat killing, running his family member off the road, etc.). The point is the guy basically insinuated it's impossible because a dude was about to make 36 million. If Steven Avery is truly the disgusting human being the prosecution portrayed then there's no point in even brining up the law suit as a reason he wouldn't do it. If a jury believes he is a bad person they won't change their mind about his ability to commit the crime because they were informed he could be a millionaire soon.

And the prosecution is obviously not framing this as a crime out of necessity due to his financial status.

All and all his point was incredibly silly.

Wrong. You can be a guy who threw a cat into a fire at a drunk party, ran your cousin off the road and pointed an empty gun at her because she was making up false rumors about you, spend 18 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit, be attracted to but also pissed off at some girl who takes pictures for autotrader, and *still* be totally aware that "I should not murder this girl because I have a multi-million dollar lawsuit pending".

None of those things negate each other. Unless you think SA is a murderous psychopath. Which is obviously not completely out of play here, but you seem to believe it's one or the other?

Im saying you can play the add or subtract a percentage point(or small ticks for/against) of likelihood with his entire history and current life status. wont get you anywhere.

lol at calling it wrong.

also in case you forgot here is his original point:

"I find it hard to believe that on a poker website some ppl are arguing that a man would risk $36 million by inviting a woman onto his property then killing her & then trust a BD to help cover it up. REALLY?"

anybody that believes he is guilty believes he is messed up in the head(obviously since he committed murder and probably rape) to think he is going to convince people with this magic obvious point he is bringing up is an incredibly silly point and verges on the point of stupidity. but he is going to fall back on his sarcasm argument again so its moot.

I get it. But the point is still not silly, since there is a very good chance Steven is somewhere *between* an emotional but still rational person who *might* commit murder and a completely demented psychopathic killer.

In which case the lawsuit settlement would probably play a factor in his thinking.

He is laughing at people who think SA is guilty, because why would someone kill if they are about to get 36 million.

But people who think he is guilty, think SA is a terrible human being. Future millions doesnt make a terrible human being a better person, so how is bringing this up some magic argument to convince those that think he is guilty?

The 36 million does nothing because bad people do bad things because they a re bad, not because they are in bad situations. The conclusion, if you assume SA killed TH is that he is bad, the 36 million is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

The 36 million's ONLY value in the case, is maybe showing motive of the Manitowoc PD to plant evidence.


There is no logical person who think SA is guilty who also think he isnt a bad person. So now ask yourself, would a person who thinks someone is bad, think that wealth will change their propensity to commit bad acts? The answer is bad people do bad things because they are ****ed up, not because they have nothing better to do because they are poor.

Of course someone's financial situation can change their propensity to commit bad acts. I doubt many people who commit robberies would be so inclined if they were sitting on a fountain of wealth.

Before you get custer****ed get to know the guy you are replying to.

im in the camp that even a dumbass like SA should and could probably hold some restraint considering he is a pretty old guy now and not some 19 year old if he is pending 36 million dollar. That is alot of hookers and blow. Alot of hookers and blow.


Especially considering this is his first murder ever in that case, a big way to go from killing a cat, where i know plenty of ppl in my childhood to be enough of a sadist as to do as kids but grow up to become decent.

Why would Steven choose to commit this crime while his life was under a microscope is the better question? He seemed to have a lot going on during this time period and his life was out there on public display yet he takes time out of his busy schedule to murder the woman who takes pictures of his cars for a magazine. The prosecution implied it was premeditated as well.

p.s. I assume the Netflix film was already underway as well with plans to showcase the aftermath of his first trial and incarceration. Just seems like a very odd time for a man get his murder on. Maybe he had planned to seduce her and get his freak on, was rejected, and lashed out at her which could have led to the rape and murder, idk.

If it wasn't premeditated i doubt they d find no real crime scene. And if it's it makes no sense even if you think Steven is stupid.
I wouldn't rule out Steven beeing the murderer but didn't see any convincing story yet

He was never getting $2 million per year of wrongful incarceration, that's just what he thought his time is worth; Wisconsin's cap is $25,000, or $450,000 for 18 years.

There was a civil suit though. I doubt he would get 32M, but he was likely getting more than 400k.