Yep, I guess it figures that the argument that it was propaganda, was never gonna fly - at least with the same people who were so easily convinced by the propaganda in the first place, and confused it with factual reporting.

5ive, before I read post 1.. Are you referring to a specific interview by police there or are you referring to the entire interrogation/interview?

Be honest, you don't really think this dumb **** is worthy of a reply, right?

Like, you're basically expecting me to try to explain why that article is dumb to a dumb person, and when I fail it will be a victory for the dumb person...

Wait, that's actually kinda brilliant.

There are so many paradoxes here. They're coming in the windows.

Dammit I think I'm about to get Faileyed again.

I honestly am not sure what you're asking. I start with a brief overview of confessions/statements, then start exploring the first in the series of interrogations on Feb 27th at the school. I mention the super standard witness interview back in Nov but don't include it.

This is why no one wants to respond to you. For one 1/2 the time its like you're speaking in a different language and two you are a dick.

HandWave3000 : Now with built-in-disingenuousness!

I just realized you might've thought that reply to revots was to you and you jumped the gun again.

For the record:

Just pick which part of which post you want me to address. I don't want to argue about the whole confession.

Fox Hills obv.


p.s. For the record you are admitting you didn't read those posts. I'm sure I don't need to beat the dead horse that is the ridiculousness of that.

http://herald-review.com/news/nation...a2225ea21.html

****ing amazing

Kratz is in full on lady-doth-protest-too-much mode.

No but srsly if anybody finds the time, read that, especially all that relates to the interviews and interrogations. That would be Fassbender, Wiegert and O'Neill's testimony. Highlights include Wiegert totally ****ing up the timeline of who got interviewed when and why and so forth, not keeping the fictional story straight of how this info all fell into their laps and was totally, I repeat, totally not concocted and fed to interviewees. ****ing incredible.

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/the-e...an-dassey.html

Brian argues Edelstein and Fregmen dropped the ball in a bad way, but reading the transcript they seems to be making the same mistake Avery's attorneys did: underestimating the stupidity of the jury and not appealing to emotion.

But Edelstein is a ****ing beast. He absolutely destroys O'Neill. It's srsly a thing of beauty, almost like he trapped the prosecution into objecting about the "pleasing/not pleasing" so he could flip it and do the takedown.

p.s. I'll post screenshots later unless somebody can tell me how to copy and paste from pdfs.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townn...ef785.pdf.pdf#

page 53 on

it was even worse than I imagined

I don't read any of your links, shill

Why are shillz ITT saying BD knew she was shot?

1. He didn't

2. We don't even know if she was shot

1. That's your opinion. Another opinion is that he was withholding information.

2. The experts knew. I read their testimony (Eisenberg, Olson, Fairgrieve), and now I know too. I'd guess the jury knew too.

1. so we can watch the testimony and see the evidence that he did not know and had to be fed that information by the cops, or we can speculate that he knew and was withholding...

i thought you pushed for evidence over speculation?

2. you can think whatever you want from the 'expert' evidence and reach your own conclusion. You cannot however infer that the jury 'knew' this. for all we know the jury deliberations could've gone as follows:

juror 1: well there's nothing to show she was shot. those experts were idiots.

juror 2: ya i agree. culhane sucks at her job too and that TH dna on the bullet was probably accidentally transferred onto it in her terrible lab.

juror 3: i agree. we can't really say that she was shot, but how she died doesn't matter. she died somehow, and avery's blood is in her rav4 so he likely killed her.

juror 4: ya these are all good points. avery killed her.

juror 5: ok lets all vote that he killed her, but we don't even know if it was her body in the fire pit or if avery did that, so we'll let him off on that one.

all jurors: ok, that sounds fair. lets do that and get out of here!

They suggest shooting as soon as he said she was stabbed.

Occurs to me if you are trying not to taint an interview you don't jump to leading questions right off the bat.

1. Both things you said are opinions. No one knows for sure what he knew except him.


2. I said "I'd guess the jury knew", and it's a lot more realistic than your bizarre alternative.

The evidence showed a bullet wound in her skull from before she was burned with traces of lead found around the wound. A fired bullet was found with her DNA on it. If you read the testimony of Eisenberg, Jentzen, Olson, and Fairgrieve, there is a clear consensus by every expert involved in the case (on both sides) that the victim was shot in the head.

I guess you can argue in a more abstract sense "How do we really know that a person with a bullet wound was shot and it wasn't actually some kind of magic or aliens or something?" or "How do we know that everyone wasn't lying, or that this was even actually the victim?"

So in that sense, no, I guess you can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the victim was shot in the head.

However, any reasonable person would conclude that the victim was shot in the head.

I will assume the jury was more informed/reasonable than most people ITT, as they are getting their information from the trial rather than MaM.


I'm not going to continue arguing this with you about this, and frankly I might just start ignoring you as well if you continue being so unreasonable.

Like, I'm not asking you to explain anything. Stop being such a prick all the time, and maybe people would read some of the word salads you post.

Where is the fox hills stuff? I am not reading all of those posts.

This article was posted here long ago. It was also ripped apart on reddit and by other critics who are totally neutral on the case. It's actually piece of sh*t.

Really liked the documentary but don't have the time to go through 64 pages here. What interesting/new facts make this thread that long?

If you are truly interested in reading up on the case, here are some things you can read (the first three links are must-reads IMO):

• Some of the facts left out of the documentary
  
  
• A breakdown on if evidence was actually planted
  
  
• A layperson's explanation of the EDTA test
  
  
• Trial transcripts

For some scientific opinions on the EDTA test:

• Opinion from forensic scientist who specializes in blood analysis and helped pioneer EDTA testing techniques
  
  
• The EDTA Testing- What was done and limitations
  
  
• The EDTA Test and the Testimony of Janine Arvizu
  
  
• The Subterfuge of Detection Limits, or, If I Wave My Arms Fast Enough Can I make All This Go Away?
  
  
• EDTA - Chad Steele Blogspot - A critique
  
  
• Why was the EDTA test rushed?
  

There are many examples in the show of footage being selectively edited to misrepresent facts, make people seem more suspicious than they actually are, to make the prosecution's case look bogus, etc. all to serve the filmmaker's narrative. It's completely unethical filmmaking IMO.


If you have any questions about anything I've provided you, feel free to ask.

your opinion would have much more weight if BD offered that evidence rather than being fed it by the cops.

it's also a reasonable opinion that someone who knowingly just confessed to murdering someone wouldn't expect to be able to immediately go back to school after the confession...but that's another argument.