Congrats you edited your post when I was typing. You wasted the the rest of the post spewing unrelated non sense.

Keep blindly defending SA's morals, its totally a good look.

Why do all these amateur 2p2 detectives think I'm a woman?

Let's take them one at a time.

1. Yes, I have more knowledge about this case than you do. You have accessed a lot of material, but your posts in this thread indicate you don't understand most of it. You dwell on non-relevant items and give undue weight to matters not deserving of such (such as expert testimony on controverted issues). So, despite the fact you accessed more information, it has crowded whatever you have for a brain to the point where you know less about the case than you would had you just watched the documentary.

If you were competent, this comment would not apply - but for you, it does. Everything you have posted in this thread is just you parroting another source - and often out of context.

2. Yes, out of all posters advocating a position about whether S.A. actually killed Theresa, Lostinthesauce was the most convincing. Of course, in playing your endless game of "gotcha" (you must be obsessed with me, or something), you overlook the fact I prefaced that entire discussion by explaining that anyone that is advocating a position on whether he actually killed T.H. is on a fool's errand. Thus, the comment was limited to about 4 of the posters in this thread: You, Fraley, Lostinthesauce, and a few others.

Out of that group he was much better at making arguments, using logic, and providing references. I understand that is a low bar and it must bother you that you can't clear it, but, that is my opinion - sorry.

Now to AngerPush:

1. Hilarious stuff. More joke posts from you? What a bonanza! Anyhow, I appreciate you cannot understand the simple statement I made about where my opinion comes from - the show. From that, I made it clear that I believe there are a lot of questions regarding the conviction, but I don't have answers. I further stated, I will look into it further when I have time.

See? That's not too hard.

For example, way back when (before you demonstrated you are full of hot air) I thought it a good idea to respond to your post stating how you had discussions with a number of people that "changed their opinions after doing further research (or something to that effect)."

So, I asked you what changed their opinion, and after going back and forth with you about it (when you wouldn't even give me one particular fact or source), you simply barfed up Kratz' "list of Evidence Not Seen on T.V.!" (or whatever). That is when I realized you are a moron and I have pretty much ignored you since.

2. As for me "casting judgments". Yes, I think that anyone that is arguing whether S.A. really killed T.H. is an idiot. That is my opinion. Nothing provided in this thread has indicated to me (at least) that anyone is any further to the truth of the matter than we were in December.

Of course, those arguing these issues seem completely oblivious to the fact that almost everyone in this thread (including me) believe S.A. is either the prime suspect or among them - that the issue is whether the process was fair given all the open questions. Seems simple enough, but you don't seem to grasp that. You asked me why I think you are an idiot - that is why.

Anyhow, I hope this concludes or interaction. To be clear, I think you are an idiot and you are not very interesting. If it is any consolation, Poorskills is way dumber than you.

I'm smarter than you and will literally do anything reasonable to prove it. Name it.

The show didn't even go into all of the blood evidence in the car, BD's confessions were cut so they look as bad as possible when after reading them, I know there's a lot more than shown.

They don't discuss him admitting to cleaning his jeans and the garage.

So many items just do not go IN DEPTH about all the evidence. Everything was presented one-sided. Which I get is an agenda. But I didn't realize when watching it how much it was so. The doc didn't discuss SA's attempts to get TH out there that day in-depth. Just little thing even here and there that may or may not be hard evidence and some may not even be allowed into evidence that helped tilt the scaled towards guilty for me.

I honestly read it as you saying TH was not a victim, opps my bad, as I assumed you actually had read the last few pages of the thread were I mentioned that SA should be charged with any sexual crimes he has committed in the past.

See ya in a month or so when you will pop in again to quote something I said Months ago. Carry on.

Or you could actually join itt & talk about YOUR take on MaM.

Ding Ding!!!

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

Pls take back that challenge.

I am sorry about the jokes. I will try to stop if that'll make my posts more readable.

I completely understand your simple statement about where your opinion comes from. I understand it's the show. You're right that you did state that you will research when you have more time. I apologize for making a nasty joke towards you when it's not the least bit timely. I understand now that that wasn't pertinent to your contributions anymore. I understand that there is probably a whole lot more about your knowledge now about the case than January and February when we had these prior discussions. You're correct that there are a lot of questions about the case/conviction and things that we may never know the answers to. I completely agree with you there! I apologize if I've oversimplified my perspective and made it seem like I don't believe there to be many loose ends or questions about this case! That is my mistake. Not to excuse it, but like you, I am also a busy man. I like to read this thread, but just do not have the time available to read as much as I'd like. I apologize that my opinion of you has not changed as much as it should based on your updated posts, but I just simply have not been able to read all of them.

1. Referring to changing opinion: I apologize that I overstated things like "Oh now all my friends know he's guilty" and didn't go into as much detail as I should've. Some of this was fun for me to discuss and mention, and often times I would read this thread while driving to a client in the morning and just not have the time to make an appropriate and well-thought out response. I apologize for that. I promise you that I am much, much smarter than you believe me to be. Phone posting and not having the time to go in-depth with my thinking often leads people to appear less sophisticated than they really are. I even pointed out to Yeota about a word that he used incorrectly, but he responded that he was posting from his phone and it autocorrected to another word. Which 100% makes sense and made me feel a bit silly for questioning him. I have absolutely done myself and other posters a disservice by posting as much as I have without reading as much of the thread as I should have. I even remember somebody calling me out on that and saying that I essentially had a duty to read more, if not all, of the thread if I was going to contribute so much (in volume of posts, and not in-depth of actual contribution, I admit). Like I said earlier in this post, there are a lot of things that I do not think are 100% tied together and leave me wondering certain things. I do believe I could write pages and pages of material about why my opinion has moved more towards guilty, but I believe as someone pointed out, these aren't necessarily items that would be used as evidence. I thought that I had been more clear about this but I guess that I haven't and for that I apologize. I thought at one point I ended up saying something to the effect of "I know these aren't necessarily hard evidence reasons that my mind has moved more towards guilty and nothing is a 'smoking gun' but little things here and there that tend to point towards guilt". I could have sworn that I made some posts like that and then things were sort of accepted. Like the cat for instance. We didn't hear about all of the true details. About Avery dousing the cat in gasoline first. The documentary made it seem like young adults messing around. Now, I fully admit THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE. This in no way should sway someone from not guilty to guilty in this case, rather, it's one very small piece of a larger puzzle that nudges me more towards "Hey, I think he probably committed this murder!". That's what I meant. There are many items like that. I thought I had cleared that up but apparently not. I take full responsibility for not conveying this point fully and accurately.

2. In reference to number two. I don't understand why discussing his potential guilt or innocence is idiotic. I respect your opinion, though I do not understand it. I think this thread can be constructive in discussing a wide array of topics regarding the police investigation, suspects, other players involved, details of the crime, details of location/time/date etc, including whether or not Avery (or anyone else) actually committed the murder. To me, it's interesting and can kind of be like a puzzle. I do not believe that the investigation was 100% done properly, so discussing those issues can be constructive and fun too. I like to hear people's takes on the evidence and not only think of it from a juror's perspective of "Can we find him guilty for this?" as well as the actual "Do I think he actually did this" and "At what point does the doubt involved become reasonable". Etc. It's not just a legal discussion to me. It's like a puzzle. Yes, we all watched the documentary and can comment on the injustice that Avery endured from his first conviction and prison time. I enjoy discussing and reading about many things in this case, and I think it's only natural (and clearly not idiotic) to wonder and discuss with people if we think he actually did it. Sure, it's unlikely we can ever 100% know, but that doesn't mean it's idiotic to discuss. I understand if you think that part of the discussion isn't as crucial as the legalities part or unnecessary or other things, but idiotic? No, I don't get that at all. If your wife said to you "I think he did not get a fair trial but I do wonder whether Avery committed the murder or not" you would think she's an idiot?

I 100% acknowledge that much of the discussion in this thread should be about the fairness and legalities of the investigation, trial, sentence etc. I completely acknowledge that. Again, I apologize if my posts have betrayed my understanding. I understand that most people, including you, believe that Avery should be among the prime suspects. If I have made it seem like I don't know that then that is my mistake! If you think I don't understand that, then I guess I can see why you believe me to be an idiot. I assure you though that I have always understood this. I agree that one of the issues we should be discussing in this thread is whether the process was fair, but I disagree that's the only issue. That is probably the biggest difference between you and me. But, I certainly acknowledge that that discussion should be the meat of the thread, but not all.

I hope that you have read this whole post, and if you have, I appreciate it. I hope that perhaps you will obtain some more insight into my perspective, and that you will accept my apologies for my lack of depth in my posts. I also selfishly hope that you do not think I am an idiot.

"It seems to me, my knowledge of your perspective is equal, or exceeds yours and I have not had to waste my time digging through your post."

#JustOskiThings

I watched the documentary before reading or hearing anything about this case. There were many, many times where I wanted to throw something at the TV because the injustice and corruption was just too much to take. I assume that most people had a similar experience.

I'm a numbers guy. For me, it's not black or white, all or nothing. Many times I would try my best to assess what I thought were the chances Avery committed the murder. When I was done with the documentary, I was torn. It was 50/50 to me. I was already more than convinced that injustice had been done to him in the investigation and trial, so to me the real puzzle or mystery was whether or not he actually committed the murder. After watching the documentary, there is no way I could have found him guilty, if I was a juror and could only vote based on the documentary. I became very interested in the evidence of the case. To me, that is more interesting than how or why injustice was done. To me, that part was obvious. I do not believe that everything was done 100% properly by Law Enforcement. That part isn't a mystery to me. The interesting part is finding different pieces of evidence and reading people's takes on the case. How they may point towards Avery or not. I like reading different perspectives. There are many things that just do not seem right. Maybe there's a reasonable explanation by the police, maybe not. I like to read different perspectives and take all of that into account as I form my own opinions. I do not strictly like to read people's opinions who tend to agree with me.

For whatever reason, yeah I would absolutely love to get every single poster's percentage of guilt or innocence (notice, Markksman, I did not say guilt or non-guilt, for I am solely referring to what actually happened that Halloween day (or after) and not the legalities of it). I think it's interesting to hear people say 60% guilty, but there are massive injustices in this case, or 99% and everything investigation wise was fine, or 0% (looking at you Lost). Any and all opinions are welcome. That's interesting to me. If it's not to some people, that's fine. But idiotic? No. The legalities of it can be fun to discuss as well.

The thread isn't solely for discussing the wrongs done in the investigation, unless everyone fully agrees he's guilty and then we discuss whether a trial was fair or not. But, there's people that think the trial was unfair, but he did it. Still interesting to me. This isn't a law class. We aren't here to just discuss the legalities.

1st off SA is getting flak for flinging a cat into a fire, OK with me.
Fraley brings it up from time to time & when arriving itt or soon after he said something like " yeah, watching things getting killed ain't all bad" & I called him out on it, with peeps itt backing me up and this is the fella you want to stand by, cool carry on.

As a non-american I do not wish to engage in a conversation about 9/11 because it is & prob will always be the worst incident I have ever seen in my life. And my heart goes out to ALL victims of 9/11.
If you(and I assume that this is what you mean) did not feel physically ill seeing those picture's live then I really do not know what to say to you.

Great. You could have simply stated that when I asked you two months ago when I cared what you had to say.

I'm sorry.

Why don't we just start fresh?

I don't care if you want to take shots at me. That doesn't bother me one bit. What does bother me is the insult to my intelligence when you claim after-the-fact that an obvious insult was really a joke. It's bad form. If you are too much of a pussy to stand your ground, you are useless.

By the way, most jokes have at least a bit of humor in them. That may be helpful to you in the future (or not).

I'd rather have some paragraphs than an apology. Use the "Enter" button once in awhile. I find it amusing that you are telling me you are smarter than you appear, while explaining how you were texting posts in this thread while driving. I think you are overstating your case a bit.

Again, I asked you about all this months ago and you ignored it and then posted Kratz' greatest hits list. Your opinion was revealed to be worthless at that point.

The bolded is the fundamental problem. There is a difference between discussing a matter and arguing a matter. My criticism was clearly directed towards those that continue to defend a position at all costs on whether he actually killed her, or not - the fact of the matter, nobody in this thread knows the truth and there is no evidence in this case (once you include all the questions raised) that would allow someone without first-hand knowledge to claim to have a definitive answer.

So, as far as "discussion" goes, this thread is very disappointing because of morons like Poorskills and Fraley. Many, many people have dropped in and want to discuss the case - as in to explore questions, but you have Poorskills and Fraley frantically reposting all their links each time - like a Golden Retriever that hasn't seen his master for a month, they jump all over everyone and try to lick their faces with their propaganda.

So, the end result is this ****. Nobody can really discuss open issues when you have these hall monitors reprimanding people for asking questions and attempting to assert they have some special insight that they clearly do not - they are just spewing links from other sights. There is zero original thought between them.

I think this thread should be about discussing the documentary and questions raised. It would be really interesting to see what a group of educated, thoughtful people think about these issues and also to get updated on events regarding the case.

What is not useful or interesting is hearing Poorshillz' version of events over-and-over again. It detracts from the thread and makes it frustrating to read. If Poorshillz is so convinced of S.A.'s guilt, then he (she?) should have NO issues with people asking questions and raising issues that are painfully apparent from the documentary. Instead, Poorshillz stuccos the thread with the same bull**** all the time.

If am sorry you that for whatever reason I lump you in with Poorshillz and Fraley - but I do. I have ever since you didn't answer a very simple question which I was very interested to have answered - and for some reason, I trusted you would answer it which is why I asked for your insight to begin with. But, you apparently did not have anything worthwhile and therefore, perhaps your statement regarding your friend's change of opinion was hyperbole. Maybe not. The point is that once you decided not to answer, I lost interest.

This is silly and unnecessary. You can certainly go about your business here and if you think about it for two seconds, you will realize that I don't care what you post and I do not barge in on your comments, etc.

The only reason we are having this exchange now is because you took a shot at me and then tried to back away saying it was a joke.

Really, this whole thing is stupid. Post what you want - I don't believe it is healthy for you to be concerned what I think about it, because truthfully, I really don't think about it.

I have a feeling that you are probably the only one in this thread that doesn't get the meaning of what appears to be your favorite quote. My comment had zero to do with my knowledge of the case, but 100% about how dumb you are.

Anyhow, even though I have explained this to you, I doubt it will sink in.

Oski

I did answer your question a long time ago. You may have missed it. I told you that they weren't evidence items that would stand up in court but rather hints of Avery's character or other things. I got mercilessly belittled for this for using things that would not point towards legal guilt. I tried to make that point and it fell on deaf ears.

It's hilarious to me that this all started with an insult of "pea-sized mind". You have said much, much worse to me and others. It was quite an obvious joke saying you wouldn't research it anyways thrown in with a relatively harmless insult. Pea-sized mind, really? That's what caused you to lash out? Ok. I'm not backing away from anything. I'm sure your mind isn't pea-sized, man. Accept the apology and move on. Hysterically hypocritical to wig out when you have said much worse.

I mean. The joke was about you not researching anyway so what do you care. You know, because you said many times how you hadn't done any. So yeah, that was a joke with some truth behind it. I had no idea it would lead to this. Sorry for making a pretty lame joke at your intelligence when you have done that to me before and since several times.

Look man. You may not have thought it was a joke but what can I say, I'm not a comedian. Some hit, others miss. Pea-sized mind made it not seem like a joke, I admit. But the entire point was I thought it was funny that you of all people asked Yeota what he read when I remember you saying many times you didn't do outside research. Joke, not a joke, whatever. It certainly wasn't meant for you to get this fired up.

I had said many times that it wasn't a smoking gun that started to creep people towards guilty. I mentioned it was little things here and there that nudged them towards the personal opinion of guilt. Not necessarily a legal barrier of guilt. I stated that. I had thought after a bit of back and forth that that was settled. Apparently not.

Don't lump me in with Fraley and PoorSkillz. Treat each person differently. We're all different. I've stated many times I do not have the necessary time to dedicate to this thread when people on both sides bomb this thread with links, pics, walls of text (irony here, get it? :-) )

Perhaps this thread deserved more than me popping in with a short post. Idk. I'm not a forum expert. There's some low-content stuff and some more in-depth stuff.

I didn't literally mean I was posting while driving 60 mph or something. I live in Atlanta. There is a lot of traffic. Sometimes I would get bored at stoplights. Trust me, I made sure to be safe.

He gets it. He and everyone else understood your meaning. He's being a little bit more playful than you recognize. Happens. It's the Internet afterall.

It seems most of the docs that have surfaced have confirmed everything I have said about avery all along. I told you guys this information was coming too.

Lets recap the progression of the "avery fans" and how they apply to many conspiracy theorists.. Oh yes, you guys are conspiracy theorists.

in december when the doc first aired people were screaming (almost everyone) that avery is innocent! Evidence was planted! Lenk and colborn are up to no good! Someone else killed her and planted her body on his property. These were NOT just questions raised by people around the world. These were actual assertions made without evidence based on documentary.

In June of 2006 when loose change was released. People from around the world (those who saw the doc) were screaming that George bush was responsible for the 9-11 terrorist attacks. That the victims were still alive and some of the family were in on it. That osama bin laden was framed.

By late january most of us had at least glanced at the transcripts and heard some arguments from both sides. Then it became the following position taken by "avery fans": "I am not saying he is innocent, I am saying he is a possibly guilty man who was framed by the cops to make him appear more guilty. I just have questions, why was the evidence seal broken? Why is there no blood in the trailer? Why were the keys recovered on the 7th search?"

Fast forward a few years and the 9-11 debate starts to attract some "debunkers" who take it up on themselves to demonstrate the position raised by 9-11 truthers is utterly ridiculous. The position then changes too: " I am not saying george bush did 9-11, I am saying at the very least he let it happen! there are just too many unanswered questions, why did silverstein take out an insurance policy two months before the terrorist attacks addressing acts of terror, how come the person in the video looks nothing like osama"

It is now april, we have all the information we need about avery and we are now left with the majority of "avery fans" taking the following position: "the investigation wasn't fair" That is what is left. That is all they have to argue. They cannot defend the evidence being planted, they cannot defend that avery is innocent, all they can do is monday night QB the detectives who investigated her murder.


Fast forward to 2016: Truthers are now left with one argument: We just want a new investigation, it wasn't properly done in 2001

Its a spectrum, some of you smacc are still stuck arguing the positions from January. And you will have to resort to some awfully ridiculous arguments to do so.. IE: Its not TH body, the cops found TH on the 3rd of november. But most of you are slowly moving away from that nonsense. The rest of the world is moving with you. I just wish you would get all the way over to this side of the argument because every time you argue in favor of avery you are hurting the REAL victims here.

I don't really think you have a pea-sized mind, man.

I'm in a tough spot. If I say it's a joke, I get lectured on what a joke is(they are supposed to be funny) and get told I'm a pussy. If I say it wasn't a joke, then I guess I'm a dickhead for making the insult in the first place.

Tough spot.

*makes sure to hit enter enough*

It was a snide/sarcastic remark about you not doing research coupled with a dumb/lame insult. The research part was the joke. If I delivered it better, perhaps there would've been humor. Or perhaps not. I don't know.

Is that good enough? Sheesh.