Care to offer some examples of your past excercises in speculation for doubt against the innocence of SA? From what i gsther you mainly speculate on the guiltiness of SA. I assume you have both examples itt and i just missed it

one thing I found weird from the transcripts is at the start of day 1 in the trial Kratz says good morning to everyone then says

"good morning mr avery"

Then SA says "good morning"

I just think thats kind of a weird interaction to have during the jury trial.

I don't care where you stand oski. i am just breaking your balls. Even though you are a jerk at times itt.

I'm saying that all testimony should be considered and judged. People might have conflicts of interest, that could be said for pretty much any testimony, but they've also sworn to tell the truth. Ultimately it's up for the jury to consider the testimony and whether it's believable. So you shouldn't just completely disregard someone's testimony just because they might have a conflict of interest. Not going to argue this anymore.

Guys, there's no point arguing with Oski, he knows way more than you about the case.

Enjoy your weekends and be happy that you didn't allegedly murder anyone and end up in prison for life!

If you could also just point out to me where I said we should completely disregard someone's testimony because of a conflict of interest that would be great.

Well for starters: I have always maintained that SA would be among the primary suspects regardless of whether he was granted a new trial.

I have stated he is of bad character. Lost and I had a lengthy debate over that: I believe SA is of poor character and that the cat killing episode is shows his is "not a well adjusted adult."

I have also stated that his blood being in the car is a huge problem for him.

- So, there is that.

The real problem is that the real issue is whether his trial is fair; is the system fair. People here are not really running scenarios trying to prove he's innocent - except for those theories posted from Reddit. If you had been paying attention, I generally point out the flaws in those theories or I just ignore them because they are ridiculous.

However, those arguing SA is guilty tend to set forth a narrative and claims it matches the facts. Well, they generally do not - there are gaping holes (like in the back of your shorts).

Just to muddy the waters even more (and I am sure you have not noticed because due to your apparent hard on for me, you are not really reading the thread) Fraley and Poorskillz have different narratives of how the crime happened.

Fraley takes B.D.'s confession as gospel (except for the lone departure regarding slitting of the throat), so T.H. was murdered in the trailer, even though there is no physical evidence she was in the trailer. Fraley believes the body was then taken to the garage, placed in the car and driven to the pond and back to SA's house (with B.D. in the Rav4) to burn the body.

There are many problems with that even assuming the state of the evidence is valid. Of course, since you have no legitimate objective in this thread, you do not appreciate that.

Poorskillz believes the murder happened in the garage - after SA bludgeoned or attacked TH in broad daylight, put her in the car, and then drove the Rav 4 into his garage. Regardless of when she died, Skillz then believes SA used her for target practice (of course this has to happen post-mortem to explain the absence of blood evidence). Then SA is somehow able to burn a body in an open pit in a fraction of the time it would theoretically take - if, in fact, a fire of that size could actually incinerate a body.

So, maybe this trolling thing isn't really going anywhere for you since you are about 180 degrees from even getting anything correct.

No. I know at least, if not more, as much as you do about this case. You keep forgetting that you stated I have made many misrepresentations about the case that you have had to correct. Yet, in response to my challenge that you show your work, you have not shown a single instance. Now, we already understand you are a liar, so its really no surprise you wold continue to lie about this.

Just because you read more about the subject does not mean you know more about the subject. You are attempting to buff up your "credentials" by reading materials you either do not understand, or realize has no bearing on the ultimate truth of the matter.

Its like this: We go to the gym and do the exact exercise routine; however, because you are inefficient, I spend one hour at the gym and you spend 3. You did not work out more than I did, you just spent more time in the building.

Fantastic.

Fair enough. I respect that.

I will admit that was well done.

Why? I'll give you 36 million reasons, your job, your career, your pension and your family name.

I could accept that avery caught halbach out of the property possibly with brendan and that they killed her outside and then hide her car inside the property to make it disappear a few days later, i could accept that they burn her body somewhere.

that would be coherent.

Now what the DA fed us would require a much deeper involvement of the family and some evidence that they didnt show us. So ofc when it sound like bull****, smell like bull**** and look like bull**** it s most likely bull****, bad police work terrible DA work and possible corruption.

I'll make one last reply because oski is calling me a liar.

Some examples off the top of my head: oski has talked about how it's impossible for Steven to have burned the body in the burnpit. I have presented testimony from the arson investigator explaining the science behind how it's possible. He claimed it was bs because he is biased. But I also believe even the defense's witness Fairgrieve stated it was possible. If oski read the transcripts he would know this. He chooses not to though, but holds a false sense of intellectual superiority.

He also claims the judge's decision not to allow the defense to test for EDTA is unfair. Maybe he finds this personally unfair, but legally it is fair. And the judge even explains his decision and cites previous cases. That is why all of Avery's appeals failed. I've provided a source for this. Oski has probably still not read it. In the show, Buting probably whined about how unfair it was, and that's all oski needed to hear.

Oski is also the only one who believed the hole in the vial was accurately portrayed in the show. Oski knew it wasn't a big deal because he claims there is another scene where they explain it wasn't a big deal. Oski is lying. He has yet to provide this scene or admit he was wrong. Perhaps he still thinks he's right, because oski is a genius who is never wrong.

Oski claims there's a "strong indication" that Lenk would be added to the lawsuit. I explained why he was wrong, there's no evidence pointing to that. Oski claims it's true because Strang said so in a mysterious article that he has never linked to. For some reason Strang never provided any reason to believe Lenk would be added to the lawsuit in the trial.

I hope that's enough examples for now.

Oski is a complete bull**** artist who thinks he's a lot smarter than he actually is and is so full of himself he might explode. I'll go back to ignoring him now.

LOLOLOL.

Now you are completely misquoting the actual transcripts.

Why don't you address the fact that the youtube "confession" that you keep propagating took place the day after his "interview" where the person that is supposed to be defending him commits probably the most heinous act of this entire investigation. Here's part of the transcript that I think applies:



Full Transcript

Do you not see how ridiculous it is to keep pushing this confession ITT? They didn't even use BD's confession to convict SA. Why do you think that is?

Why do you think they did use it to convict BD?

BD confessed in 3 separate interviews. I have linked all of them itt. Why would they need to have the jury set through all 3? Each one is a couple hours long.

Obviously they didn't use bds confession in the sa case because bd changed his mind about testifying against sa per advice from his mom and other relatives.

K, see you in 10 minutes when your break from ignoring him is over.

What are you talking about? What does this have to do with anything at all?

You think there is a reason that the prosecution didn't make the jury watch all 3 interviews where he confessed. I just told you why.

I mean this is just a joke now. You're telling us to use our "critical thinking skills" then you reference the third, forced change to his confession.

Then you further compound this idiotic theory by trying to state that there would not have been a lot of blood based on these confessions.

I think you need to expand on your communication with TH's friends a bit. Obviously you don't have to, and I don't expect you to, but your stuff is just pure propaganda at this point.

Where did you extrapolate that from? Is this what we can expect from you in the future? I did not say nor imply anything about the jury watching anything nor did I use the number "3" or the word "all".

How did you come to this conclusion? Do you have me mixed up with someone else?

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg that is the huge flaw in your ability to assimilate data/information.

You won't be able to see the problem. If you could, it wouldn't be a problem. But it answers a lot of questions as to how on Earth you can come to the conclusions you do.

Because of the bold, I thought you were referring to the interview that wasn't used in trial. The confession you are referring to is the one from Okelly, this has nothing to do with the one I posted a video for most recently. The one I posted a video for was done before the MOK interview and the one used in trial was the interview from march 1st.

So now I am confused as to your question..

They used 1 confession from march 1st plus bd phone call to his mom to convict BD. They left out the 2nd and 3rd confession entirely. The 2nd and 3rd confession are the only two you are mentioning here and you are confusing which happened when.

The reason why no confession of his was used during the SA trial is because he no longer wanted to testify. What don't you understand?

those are "opinions."

You specifically stated I was making "factually inaccurate statements regarding the case."

You cannot back up your statement.

You are a liar.

Bye-bye.

I never said there would be no blood. I am saying people itt are assuming there would be more blood than his confession indicates. I know this is hard for you to understand but he gave us complete details on what happened compounded over 3 interviews, minor details changed but the narrative for the most part remained the same and there is no indication from any of his interviews that there was any sort of blood bath in the bedroom. There are ways to get cuts on your neck without bleeding Profusely you know. It is clear from all his confessions that he thinks the strangling is what killed her. If she was bleeding out why would SA strangle her? this leads me to believe that the cut on her neck wasn't that severe.

Just another day on the Job.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/off...ing-part-game/