You watched a doc and are in here giving opinions on it leaning towards NG

THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE DOCUMENTARY

Can you literally not think for yourself? Are you just a puppet? Good lord man.

It's so disingenuous to be in here at all "debating" when others have spent countless hours doing outside research and you have done none.

Besides. My ORIGINAL point was literally about Avery's character/past etc. It's laughable the disconnect between how the doc portrays him and who we know him to be.

I'd much rather trust Lostinthesaus than this MooFoo......
http://wgntv.com/2016/01/28/police-o...een-he-killed/
When this is the mentality of the P.D you know there's a problem.

I know Lost isn't a shill or a troll. I believe he posts honestly. And that he is serious when he says a fair line is -15000 for innocent. That's just so far beyond ridiculous. If anyone is in the 98% or higher club one way or the other based on the evidence presented, then there's a real problem with that person's ability to reason.

When the sister of S.Morris comes to the defence of SA then thats good enough for me, Kim Ducat has said that she was lying about the incidents & other stuff regarding SA v SM.

And Kayla Avery said on the stand she was lying about Brendan.

Where is SA Rap sheet that say's he was charged with a sexual offence?

Now whats this about evidence that was left out that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that SA is guilty apart from hearsay?

So you think if there was a legitimate argument that we necessarily need to see blood in the garage for this murder to have taken place the defense wouldn't have called in an expert to testify to this just because there was no blood in the garage?

Why not bring this up to the blood spatter expert the prosecution used during cross?

um, I've taken issue with Lost regarding his unreasonable defense of SA'S character and I don't understand how he can reach the conclusion that SA is 100% innocent.

That does not change the fact he is way better at advocating his position than those itt convinced SA committed the murder.

Anyhow, since you are unwilling to provide me this "mountain of evidence (which is odd because you seem to care a lot about the way I should stand on this matter) just give me your three best points.

And don't give me the "bad character" evidence. It means nothing here. You can't tell me or anyone else that SA'S character is any worse than the other people in the area. If you say SA'S character would allow for him to commit this crime of opportunity, you can ring every doorbell on the block and the same type of person would answer the door.

Holy ****. lol.

Dude, I've given you links multiple times. Feel free to actually read them.

If people are doing "countless hours" of research in here, I suggest they are woefully deficient at it. - especially those arguing SA killed TH.

I'm not a puppet at all. Do you accuse a jury of being puppets? All they did is evaluate evidence and hear argument

As a person undecided, in a place where two groups of people are arguing opposite sides, may I not be afforded the indulgence of allowing myself to be pursuaded?

If you are trying to pursuaded me or anyone here, you are doing a profoundly poor job. Poorskillz is doing a crap job. So is Fraley, Fruit Snake, and the other yes man.

I would hope to see someone present at least something compelling in favor od the prosecution. I recognize that arguing the trials were fair is an impossible task - but, how about a logical narrative of the killing that remotely meets the evidence. Where the **** is that?

I can't believe even one person would be so invested in the opinion that SA killed TH, when there is not even a ****ing competent narrative out there.

And you with your "bad character" evidence. What the hell are you proving with that? Come on man! Get in the game and give us some of the secret facts that have convinced you SA is a killer.

I think you need a "mud splatter" expert because you keep talking out of your ass.

Oski and others, have you seen Loose Change? Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?

You've only given me Lenks.

Everything you have offered is bunk. Because you are incompetent, you do not realize it. How many people (who obviously have solid science backgrounds) need to tell you you are wrong about the blood test? Off the top of my head, I recall at least a dozen. Yet, you keep going like a wind-up doll with a 100 yard string

Oski,

the Links are presented. I am not going to be relinking them for you.

My original point was about the portrayal of SA's character. That's all. That alone swings people's needle towards guilty. Not in a legal way. Get it? That was my original point.

If they portrayed him as a ****head and left the evidence pieces the same, then subconsciously everyone would be more likely to think guilty than they do now. That's just human nature. You find someone is likable, you root for them. Avery comes off likable in the doc.

Would you like to have a rational discussion about the facts presented and what you disagree with or would you rather act like a 10 year old some more?

I will settle for your 3 top facts. Go.

Don't tell me about your original point, because I already agreed on that when I first started posting. I believe they should have been more forthcoming about his past.

Let ask you. What is your objective? to show the doc. was biased? We all agree.

I take it one step further - the doc. was presented in a manner which the only reasonable conclusion a view can draw is that SA and BD did not get a fair trial. I think most already agree on that. The only way one would not reach that conclusion would be If they were biased, had prior knowledge of the case (bias) or were not paying attention.

You cannot make any argument to me based only on the doc. which will convince me the trials were fair.

Yet, despite the fact this thread is about the doc. some have enterprised to "prove" either the doc was wrong about the fairness of the trial or whether SA actually committed (or did not commit) the crime.

If your goal is to establish one of those points, you are going to have to do much better than tell us your friends read some documents and are now convinced SA killed TH.

They started the doc with the fact he burned a cat lol. You keep talking about other evidence then bringing up things that wouldn't be evidence in court anyway.

Give one fact that shows the blood was planted.

Lionel Nation...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9caOPZLcqo

I think you must be brain-damaged.

I am not trying to convince you of SA's guilt. Lol. I think it's intellectually disingenuous to be in here debating like you are without doing any of your own research. You watched a doc and are reading 2p2 and that's it?? WTF. How are you not more curious? How can you spend so much time itt but nowhere else on the interwebs looking into this stuff.

You are coming off as an Avery shill. So convinced of his innocence. That's how you come off. I read that you say you aren't convinced of his innocence, but everything you said seems to be on the "innocent" side. This thread has essentially turned into sides. Pick a side, everyone. And you seem to be on the NG side. You seem to be looking at everything from the innocence lens.

Also, as I've stated before. When I'm talking about guilty or not-guilty, I am not talking legally or from a juror-instructed standpoint. I'm talking about my PERSPECTIVE. I've already stated that I would shrug and vote NG if forced based on what I know (or, at least, what I think I know and how I perceive it).

Look, I don't want to make this all about the cat. But the way it was presented in the doc was a lot more innocent and "boys will be boys" than what actually happened. He doused the cat in gasoline and intentionally set it on fire to kill it because he thought it was a funny/fun thing to do. Not because he was curious what would happen or something.

I think to Lenk and Colborn you are an inside job.

You are doing this wrong.

Stop being a ****** and get yourself together.

exactly. Thank you.

Again, it's all "just wait to your read this or you read that, you will totally inderstand SA is a killer." And then we get a bunch of bull****.

People of this forum, Prana deserves better, we all deserve better. Get your **** together and give us the straight dope.

Ok, so there's no evidence that the blood was planted?

There is no smoking gun.

Every single piece of evidence can be interpreted in two ways. If I list 3 things that point towards guilt, they will be argued relentlessly by the other side with way more time or intensity than I intend to put into it.