Are you ****ing kidding? You've now introduced the idea that she was shot to someone who may not have known that. Anything after that point regarding the shooting is void.

That is incorrect. He is capable of saying "no, i don't think she was shot" Such as he did when false positives were introduced in the interview. Like the tatoo question.

Also, the bullet is not the example I brought up. I can bring up several examples of physical evidence corroborated by his testimony.

Lol

So they can't ask "Did you have anything to do with the death of TH", because that's leading? LOL

Some A+ amateur interrogators itt.

Master did you read his 5/13/06 interview with police? They sat him down, and asked him to describe what happened. And he did. Zero coercion.

Stop thinking that because he's not too bright, that means any random cop can trick him into confessing to participating in a rape and murder.

He confessed to his cousin. He admitted it to his mom on a recorded phone call. The cops did not practice mind control. The guilt was eating at him, and he confessed.

Then in his trial, he tried to claim he got the whole bondage idea from the James Patterson novel "Kiss the Girls". As if he was reading 500-page mystery novels for recreation. The jury rightly saw through that bit of coaching.

Was that his very first interview? If not lol stop bringing it up

Yeah except he is trying to tell them what they want to hear because he has a paper due and video games to play and they told him they were helping him.

Are we really back at the idiotic position that the Dassey interview was NOT 100% coerced falsely by season Interrogotors from a mentally disabled child?

I am still waiting to hear about ANY evidence that was discovered BECAUSE of the Dassey interview.
Finding no evidence based on a confession is extremely rare. It pretty much never happens. The real killer confusing knows things the police does not know which leads to corroborating evidence.

Not a single piece of such evidence came from the Dassey confession.

His first interview was in november. This is the interview where he didn't even have a bonfire and where he claimed he has never saw TH in his life. That is until 40 mins later in the interview where he said he was around 10 ft from her at one point that night.

Why would only the first interview matter?

It takes quite a stretch to reach this conclusion if you have seen the actual interrogation, listened to the interviews and read the transcripts.

Incorrect, the dna on the hood latch and the bullet in the garage were located after Dassey confessed and was the only reason that the garage was later searched extensively.

Not to mention, somehow.. Dassey knew which gun would have fired the bullet that had TH dna on it.

There were .22 bullets all over the garage. She was shot in the head. I'm not a detective, but I'd probably look into that long before 6months had passed.

Also, there were .22 bullets everywhere, I'm sure BD knew his uncle had a .22, you drawing conclusions from that is comical.

Ya, if there was only one thing IE: the bullet he knew about.. Then you may have a point but there were multiple things he said that was corroborated with evidence. Also, as previously pointed out to you, he told his mom he did this too.

And apparently his cousin, because why else would she tell her counselor?

Edit: also there were casings all over the yard, not just the garage.

I think anyone that doesn't conclude he was at the very least present at the crime scene is being unreasonable.

The investigators told him to tell his mom. I know you know that and are being obtuse anyways. He also told his mom that he guess the answers and that they "got to his head", was he lying about that?

He told them that TH was chained/shackled to the bed, raped and had her throat cut. Where's the evidence corroborating that?

Lol, so much delusion. So you think this kid was so out of touch with reality that he just decided to call his mom and confess to this crime because the investigators told him to? How the **** was this kid in normal classes. And they didn't tell him to call her anyway, they just said they would hate to call her and tell her whats going on.

And here are the meat and potatoes of your argument. "the whole story can't be corroborated so it all has to be false" What a load of bull. Do you live your everyday life like this? Do you deny gravity because we can't explain Quantum gravity yet?

You asked for physical evidence he was at the crime scene and I provided that for you.

when?

...

No, I'm well aware I asked for it, you just never provided it.

Yes, I did. I literally just did and I explained to you how that is evidence he was at the crime scene.

Quit confusing direct evidence with physical evidence. The two are not mutually exclusive. Physical evidence is just something that is material, it has nothing to do with how direct it is. There is physical evidence (something that has mass) that puts him at the crime scene because the evidence in question matches the story he told when he confessed (direct evidence) to the crime he committed.

that is just 1 piece of evidence. Do you want more physical evidence?

camping 100% on your terrible position made not much sense before cause you denied stuff that was super obvious like the very unprofessional conduct of the police and the DA. Giving credit to some terrible narrative fed by the DA.
Before zellner first real insight given, i thought it was 50/50 that avery was innocent and 80/20 that the police was at best horribly incompetent, now that we have more background on Zellner and her opinion on the case i m more 80/20 innocent and 50% criminal 40% incompetent 10% innocent for the police force.

The good thing is that we should have more details in like 20 days(I think the 30 days started earlier than the interview said), it s still possible zellner is full of **** but after her lastest declaration that seems less likely unless she want to destroy her image for a case where she cant do anything.

I guess we ll never know if you are a total morron , a troll or a shill, but we have some pretty good chance to never see you again after your stance become such a joke that even your weak trolling wont make any sense for you to continue.

If SA is not exonerated it will not ruin Zellners reputation because the overwhelming vocal majority who care about this case think he is innocent. They are going to look at zellner as a hero no matter what the outcome is. And you spelled moron wrong, ironic isn't it?