You can come up with a motive for literally anything if you think hard enough.

e.g. the motive for Oski refusing to acknowledge he has made false statements ITT is because he wants to think he's more intelligent than he is, as he believes he's failed in his attempt to become a respectable lawyer

I hope you are never a suspect in a murder poorskillz. Your anger at Oski in this thread might be brought up ad naseum as part of your violent and angry past.

I think we will continue laughing at you as you don't realize you are being trolled.

It is unbelievable that you don't get these basic points:

1. It is futile to argue whether S.A. did or did not murder T.H. until at least we have a resolution on the trial. If there is indeed a new trial, everything from the vacated proceeding is a nullity.

2. Expert opinions are called "opinions" for a reason - they are opinions. They can only be made from the facts of the case. The matters the expert may consider in forming said opinion depend on that particular proceeding. In this case, it may be that different "facts" are before the experts if this case is re-tried. So, relying on these opinions is not really helpful.

3. I have stated from day one what I believe, why I believe it, the source for my belief and that specifically I recognize the futility of deciding the ultimate question of whether SA "did it." Yet, for some reason, you continue to argue this latter point to me and expect me to magically change my opinion that this issue cannot be decided at this point. I also explained, quite clearly, that I reserve my opinion on that issue until I find it ripe for me to look into it in earnest. As of now, it is not ripe and I have explained why.

So, why do you continue to be an idiot trying to argue apples and oranges with me? No matter what you argue you are not going to convince me and probably 95% of the other posters because they are not concerned with your "apple" at this point. And you still don't get it.

No anger at all. I just enjoy mocking the bull**** posted by you and oski.

It's especially fun to point out oski's lies and cause you to write essays on "reasonsble" doubt.

Well was discussing SA obv.

Needless to say the main evidence against Dassey was his own confession. So in that case the jury had to decide whether the confession was legitimate or not. They decided it was.

Remember, Dassey's cousin is the one who first reported his confession to school counselor and then the authorities. The police didn't seek out BD or have any vendetta against him. In a sense he sort of fell into their lap.

The circumstances surrounding the discovery of every piece of inculpating evidence would indicate a relatively high probability of evidence planting by LEOs. So my/our obvious point is that this is validated by a reasonable, if not very strong, motive for all the LEOs involved in this case to carry out the planting of evidence. It does not take a lot of hard thought or the documentary would not be the wild success it is.

Sorta like a young woman's charred skeleton fell into Avery's bonfire pit. Similar to Avery's DNA falling onto a hood latch a week after a coerced confession indicates SA touched the hood latch. Kinda like a bullet fragment fell onto a garage floor 5 months into an investigation and happen to have a single strand of human DNA fall onto it as well. I think a few blood drops fell somewhere too...oh, and a key also fell at one point.

yes, all that stuff just fell out of the sky.

The independent circumstances surrounding the discovery of each piece of inculpating evidence would indicate an extremely low probability it was all planted by LEOs or otherwise.

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure in the doc, Buting says something to the effect of, "the blood vial was not the smoking gun we thought it was". I'm not sure those were the exact words but that was the gist of it. It was a quick scene and I don't know what episode its in and I'm not going to look.

This definitely happened. I think poorskillz is more referring to oski throwing in the words physical condition or whatever and acting like the reason they are saying this is made obvious.

Unfortunately, the presence of MC and Lt. Lenk nullifies any degree of independence each discovery may have had. And since we have agreed that MC as a whole AND Lt. Lenk do, in fact, have reasonable (if not strong) motive to execute the planting of evidence, then we have a problem and subsequent documentary, backlash and hours of internet forum fun.

Thanks Lt. Lenk!

Yes, I'm sure, unless you can show me this scene. The closest thing, which I pointed out to Oski very early on, was this:

which is them worried about the blood "because they don't trust the FBI" and "they're gonna come up with some dishonest test", not in any way because of the physical condition of the vial and how it was perfectly normal.

Instead, even after it was explained, Oski kept saying things like this:

When the whole argument Oski was making was that the documentary accurately represented the hole in the vial as being normal, this is clearly a false statement, and oski is clearly a conceited moron.

In before irrefutable evidence of docuseries bias.

#ireasonablydoubtanythingwaswronginmanitowoccircah alloween2005

He definitely says that the blood vial was not what they thought it was. It's funny watching Skillz act all indignant though.

Nvm the quote poorskillz linked was the one i was thinking of.

Looks like its time for oski to step up or shut up

I don't remember the scene oski is talking about but others seem to. So idk.

Proof should be easy then.

Also, the scene I referenced is during episode 5 at 13:07.

Lol come on now, we both know Oski neither steps up nor shuts up.

End of episode 4 is where they open the evidence box with the vial I take it?

Yes.

If Oski or anyone can find the scene in the documentary with "Strang and J.B. discussing the vial and how it physical condition (and the implications therefrom) are not what they had hoped", I will gladly admit I'm wrong and I'll even offer to leave this thread for good.

Well it has to take place between the end of episode 4 and around the 20 min mark of episode 5 if it exists.

Because they don't discuss the vial much after that, at least not that I remember.

I barely have enough time to lol at fraley for posting things that refute his points before the thread gets 100 more posts. If you think I'm digging through 10 episodes to please you guys, well lolz.

Ill save you time, they dont discover the vial until ep 4. And the last two episodes are after SA is in jail so that leaves you with 3-4 episodes to go through