With the effort poorskillz has put into the thread you'd say he was 100% Pro justice/the system is fair ect, which is his opinion & I respect that.

But what I cannot respect & others too is that he refuses to answer the Q. that was in MaM In the very 1st episode that is.

A. Why has the MCSD never been reprimanded for the wrongful conviction of SA who spent 18yrs in jail, when there was clear evidence(& the fact that the State police said it was GA) that GA was the RAPIST.

B. Did the sheriff or anyone from MCSD ever try to compensate the VICTIMS OF GA 10yrs rampage on WOMEN.

Since It was me who asked those Q's to poorskillz he has continually ignored me & tbh I am actually shocked to find out that poorskillz is a woman.

Here's another Q for the Mantiowoc 3.
1: What has MCSD done to make P.B feel safe(& the local community) after MaM came
out?
(Omg MCSD don't even do social media in 2016) Surprised anyone?


#GoFightaGorilla

Stating lost is arguing better at convincing equals oski convinced SA is innocent. Lol. The AIDS is worse and I didn't think that could happen. Is Custer like the ikes of the rest of the forum?

I never said oski is convinced SA is innocent. I said he leans towards SA being innocent. At least get it right


He definitely isnt without an opinion on the subject.

His statement about lost also isn't what lead me to that, it's his interactions with skillz that did it.

All aboard the prana struggle bus. Impressive wrongness to word ratio.

so here you ll bother us for how many pages because you believe he is 60% innocent and 40% guilty in his mind when he state 50-50(or no opinion).
I wonder why you are hated on this forum

Yep.

The answer to lostinthesaus Q regarding the moving of the vehicle & mine regarding the Bones.

http://www.crime-scene-investigator....examining.html
TL;DR
No you should never move or touch anything before the correct specialists get on scene(Crime Lab & coroner).

Anything to say about it the Mantiowoc 3?


#GoFightaGorilla

rules are here to protect innocent, but obviously avery was guilty so it doesnt apply

Nope, I'm not 100% pro justice. I'm against claiming people are corrupt like it's a fact without proof and making baseless accusations though.

I didn't realize this was a question and I don't know how you expect me to answer it. It seems like more of a rhetorical question, or at least a question better suited for the MCSD themselves. Yes, there was a lot of things wrong with that wrongful conviction. I am in full agreement with that. Michael Greisbach (who some people ITT think is me) covers this critically in his book on the wrongful conviction.

Also, they paid $400k for it (would have likely been a few million if Steven didn't murder someone and settle the lawsuit).

Not that I know of, but you'll have to ask them.

I've ignored a lot of your posts. To be honest, I find the questions you are asking to be particularly irrelevant, and that's why I probably will continue to ignore your posts. Sorry.

Also, who said I'm a woman?

I have no idea what they've done or haven't done, but I don't think Twitter is the answer.

Smacc: Do you know how well the area around the car was photographed prior to its removal?

Also, are there photos of where SA says TH's car was during the meeting and photos of the path from there to his trailer or garage?

A quick reddit search turned up nothing. So I assume not.

Was my guess aswell and it s consistant with everything else that had been done.

Yep.

Now you're into just straight lying territory.

It is certainly evidence of their impressions of the civil case.

I assume they had conversations with civil counsel, but for the sake of argument, let's just say Dean's opinion is just his own opinion.

I don't know how to break it to you, but I will take Dean's opinion on this issue over yours.

That was in response to this comment of yours which I quoted:

which was insulting Fraley. And I honestly hadn't even read that post of yours before today; I was mocking your overall body of work in this thread with my comment.

You know, I'm not certain, but I think this is also the first time I think you've even mentioned it was Dean's opinion on this issue that you based your opinion on. And you still have yet to link to this supposed article.

But also, I find it amazing that you value the opinions of the defense attorney (who again, showed no evidence that Lenk would be facing a lawsuit in the actual trial), while ignoring opinions of independent scientists.

I really can't believe that you cannot grasp this simple concept (notwithstanding ample evidence ITT that you are a moron).

1. Based on the documentary, I believe SA and BD were not given fair trials. I claim no further authority for that opinion.

2. You are trying to convince people that SA actually killed TH. That is beyond the scope of my opinion. What you have to say on that matter is not relevant to the issue of whether the trial was fair. I really means nothing to me. However, as I have stated a million times, if there is some compelling piece of evidence that would logically point one way or another, I may form an opinion. But, thus far, there has been nothing remotely close. In your particular instance, you keep bringing forth evidence and testimony from the trial - even though you know most of us belief the trial was procedurally compromised. That means you are picking from corrupted data. It's weight has little value on the point you seek to prove.

3. Now, you ask me to prove SA had a fair trial. Why? I submit the documentary as the basis for my opinion. If you have something outside of the documentary that shows the trial was indeed fair, then by all means, bring it forward.

Do you understand that submitting Cameltoes' transcript on the properties of fire and its effects on a corpse has nothing to do with whether SA received a fair trial? Do you? Your posts consistently demonstrate that you do not.

Here's some of the evidence photos; I know you hate transcripts, but maybe photos are okay for your amateur investigation.

Also, if you're trying to determine tire tracks, I suggest you also check the weather during this time.

Do you realize that it is possible to make more than one point? (I mean in your case, I don't really think its possible to make one, but I digress.)

Poster cites point "A" by me.

You respond by saying, Oski actually makes point "B" and cite an entirely different post.

Are you this stupid?

I just want to look at them. I know it rained very heavily prior to the crime scene being marked out. I can actually read.

I've asked what evidence you have that the trial was unfair.

If you're going to say the trial was unfair, it's my opinion that you should be able to show proof that the trial was unfair. Otherwise you're just talking out of your ass.

Well I'll admit I just skimmed it, it's pretty long... but I saw nothing about not having a car brought to a crime lab for investigation. Since you say it's there, how about posting the relevant quote.

lol. Nice try.

Very nice.

Not going to work. Now you add a lie on top of a lie. That makes you a habitual liar.

Liar, Liar, quarry pit on fire.

I have been thinking about that a lot. Since the system is designed to provide what is essential welfare legal representation to people arrested/indicted. I think a good reform would to create a more equitable balance in pay and resources for public defenders.

I know you can read, but it was my belief that you choose not to.

Yes. I submit the ten-part documentary, "Making a Murderer" as my lone Exhibit.

And your rebuttal?