Well because, a lot of what he knew requires what we know about SA and how he committed the murder.. If we find out SA didn't commit the murder that changes a lot of what we thought we knew. Kind of like if we found out we live in the matrix or something.

As per the documentary, not only does David Protess lead his students to exonerate a guilty man (Anthony Porter), he helps gets an innocent man imprisoned in Porter's stead (Alstory Simon) by some pretty dubious means. Those dubious means being Private Investigator Paul Ciolino, and a vengeful ex-wife. David Protess and Paul Ciolino as far as I know admit no wrong doing.

The Porter case is interesting because it has none of the hallmarks typical of eyewitness misidentifications. In this case, all the eyewitnesses knew Porter from the neighbourhood.

Beyond the railroading of an innocent man (Alstory Simon), the documentary also touches on Porter's wrongful conviction civil suit. Quite interesting.

Your (pretty much only) point is that Brendan knew that she was shot in the head more than once. If it turns out SA didn't kill her, does that change how many times she was shot in the head?

That does sound interesting. I will have to check it out.

Probably not no, we are assuming someone else killed SA and all the evidence besides the obvious is still legitimate correct? Basically, we are assuming that the bones were planted in averys pit, bullet in his garage, blood in her car etc.. All planted and someone killed her with all the same details around the same time she would have left avery's house?

In that case, BD case would need a second look because his conviction isn't just resting on the fact he knew how many times she was shot or what side of her head was shot that is just one of many reasons to reach that conclusion. If that was the only thing then there would be no reason to convict him imo. Some of the main stuff is the evidence that was found based on his conviction.

The dna on the latch and the bullet in the garage to name a few. If sa is innocent those things were planted.

Follow up to post 6325...

Initial... http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2005Nov15.pdf

Post conviction motion hearing May 2007.. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007May22.pdf

September 2009.. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2009Sep28.pdf

Sentencing hearing... http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007Jun01.pdf

Yo Fraley this mystery DNA thingy on hood latch WAS NOT in the trial, the sweat was ruled inadmissible....


Dam that might mean i'm actually giving team not planted a point.

Episode 10.. http://www.michaelspratt.com/poadcast-legal-matters/

This is incorrect. The hood latch dna was used in trial. Idk where you heard this.

My Bad.

Where is it that BD states where she was shot?

In the last interview he says he wasn't watching.

March 1st interview. I think bd didn't understand what would or wouldn't get him into more trouble so at times he would try and minimize his involvement. This would make sense why he asked his mom if he just admitted to cleaning it up how much trouble would he be in (paraphrasing)

You're a strange dude smacc.

No, it's not kind of like that at all.

this last page u guys omg u guys this last page is the best

wait did they both just say abstract thinking is hard and stuff like almost impossible?

Almost certainly

Feel I'm being trapped tho. Like if she finds conclusive evidence other Dassey boy and BD had something to do with it then obviously not.

You do know they were manipulated, possibly having the fear of god into him and his mom, possibly told that they would be fine if they just said this story, at Fox Hills right? You do know that, right?

Disagree if you want, but that's the issue being discussed. You can't gloss over this and still go forward.

They do a quasi-black-ops style interrogation at a hotel and 2 days later there's this horrorshow tale of rape and torture on the table where it didn't exist even slightly before, and not even a red flag is raised at the think tank?

You disingenuous sons of bitches.

The documentary did a really good job making it appear the confession was coerced. When watching Dassey testify later, it's more than evident he is capable of some basic level of understanding that he at times doesn't appear capable of in the interviews.

Also, from reading the actual transcripts, it seems like standard procedures. Not that that is ok or acceptable from a moral standpoint, but I have a hard time seeing the confession ever getting tossed out.

A lot of it truly is perspective. I think two documentarians whose goal was to make the confessions appear as legitimate as possible could do so. Then when rational people ask questions of the techniques, emotion would overwhelm and many of the same people that believe the confession was coerced would be arguing they aren't.

I get it. And don't really blame the "omg obviously innocent" crowd. You spent a good amount of time getting emotionally tied to this doc. That has taken over the rational side for many. Which is why so many rushed to sign a petition without doing any sort of research. The people I most respect is those that ask relevant questions at each step and try to rationally deduce what makes the most sense. There are some that watch a doc and believe these two are 100% set up and almost nothing could ever convince them otherwise. The seemingly most obvious example of this itt is Lost. The tone Lost has is just so condescending of anyone that doesn't agree with him. It really is like discussing with a hungry toddler. Nothing will ever get thru to you or ever make you possibly reconsider.

I went ahead and fixed that post of yours for you.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...utes/968/073/1


https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta.../972/115/2/a/1

Not sure if this was posted before, but this is a great article about MaM from the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...dead-certainty

PEW PEW

kid's on fire tonight

Heh, remember this post? It's cute how you were scatting and bebopping before you knew who you were dealing with.

Ya I'm done dog, are any of you gonna just address just any specific sentence from any of this:

Just pick any of it.