Here is the link you posted with the date CLEARLY labeled on it.



March 13th.



March 12th.

So WTF are you talking about? This took place the day AFTER. It's exactly like the other poster said, they taught a parrot to say a word.

What was done here is beyond bad. It's criminal. I don't know how you justify any of this to yourself.

I think you are lying about your connections to this. I don't know how/why you would involve yourself in a forum on 2+2 about it, but the timing of your arrival to the thread was initially pointed out as odd, but I dismissed it. But now you are flat out lying to try to convince people that there was nothing wrong done here. It's just weird. Are you hoping we wont actually go back and verify your ridiculous claims?

Can the avery is innocent crowd point to a murder case that went to trial where you think the person should have been convicted? I would be interested to compare the evidence from this case and that case.

OJ Simpson.

Why do you keep using Dassey's "confession" as the template for what happened with Steve Avery, when you just said none of that was introduced at trial?

Do you know one of the big issues most people have is the prosecution used two completely different narratives to convict two people of the same crime?

Did the prosecution prove Steve Avery choked Theresa Halbach to death? Then what are you even talking about?

You are taking two false narratives, combining them together then cherry picking various parts as you see fit. It tells me that you too probably didn't actually watch the documentary because you are cross-contaminating way too much evidence between the two cases. It is impossible both versions of events happened. It's unlikely either version is even very accurate. Yet you choose to fight from the worst position the one where both narratives are true.

There is a communication issue here somewhere.

There are 3 confessions.

1 is on march 1st (the one and only confession used in his trial) and two come after he is in jail. What part of that do you have issue with?

What version was told in the SA trial that is not possible with the narrative told in the BD trial?

Robert Durst has essentially been a serial killer.

I would say he just needs to google "rich person accused of murder" and half the results will fill the bill.

I don't believe they painted a narrative in the SA trial other than he targeted her, tied her up in his bed, shot her in the garage and burned her after..

What is the issue with that and what was told in the BD trial?

You think there is more evidence pointing to OJ simpsons guilt than SA's? Even though it is more likely evidence was actually planted in his case. Interesting.

Lol poorskillz

To be clear, I think both OJ and SA should be found guilty.

I with lost. I can respect any reasonable point of view, but at times Fraley is clearly disingenuous.

Well, based on past posting, Oski and plenty on "the SA trial was unfair" side would probably say Amanda Knox.

I am not familiar with Knox and that was not even in the US so I don't understand how that judicial system works.

Believing a witness has a conflict of interest is certainly a valid reason for a juror to disregard the testimony of a witness.

Dude, you are just absolutely ridiculous.




BTW, this is the March 1st "confession".

If you want to defend LEOs and MC Sheriff's department and state that nothing wrong was done here, etc, that's fine. But you shouldn't be allowed to come in here and just spout off stuff that has no relevance and is not based around any fact or is contrary to the evidence and topics we are discussing. It does ruin the thread at this point, when in the past you were saving the thread IMO.

You don't need to stick to your guns when your guns are out of bullets. You should probably run or find another way to defend yourself.

Edit: I guess surrendering is also an option, although that might mean admitting that you were wrong, not thinking clearly and influenced by outside sources or pressure that made you act in a way that was contrary to ethical behaviour.

Pleas, saying whether they want to testify is always required to come from the defendant themselves. Letting a lawyer speak on their behalf in these key moments would create all kinds of appeal havoc.

Pretty sure it is not done in front of the jury.

Also fraleyight's post have become suspiciously different as of late. Very similar to PoorShillz.

I forget the exact scene, but was it done in front of the jury in MaM?

Also, if a defendant wants to testify does the judge always ask them if they're sure they want to do it.

You said you wanted to compare the evidence. Evidence is evidence. The judicial system in which the trial takes place shouldn't matter. There's a massive thread on the case on this site with several good posts with summaries of the evidence, so you can get up to speed pretty easily.

Listen Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs, what facts? The Dassey facts where there was no evidence besides his confession of the Avery facts where nothing in the Dassey confession was used.

I feel like you have paved your own road as the only person on earth who is now arguing that Dassey did this crime himself in Avery's trailer.

You do understand that there is no physical evidence in the Dassey case and the Dassey confession does not line up with the physical evidence in the Avery case? So what FACTS are you talking about? The ONLY items that line up are ones the interrogators were already aware of. Nothing Dassey said led to them finding unknown physical evidence. How is that possible? Especially given the incompetence of the crime scene investigations?

Listen to Brendan here say it could have been the Ax killer. starts 57.00min. Nov 6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zePg5OfvyU&t=57m15s

Interesting.

Even BD thought that guy should have been investigated.

Absolutely. 100%.

why did the cut him off? "I think were done here"

Its Nov 6 & BD says" maybe they tryin to get steven for it?