Well I am pretty funny. But there is probably a better word I could of used.

It was yourself who said "Why do we still read revots33 & poorskillz posts" correct...... Here's the answer....From a lawyer on reddit,Calicrimdeflawyer..

PREFACE: You may wonder why so few lawyers post on these subs. It's not for lack of interest in this case. I can tell you there's plenty of people in my high-volume office who are interested. And Strang and Buting give packed house MCLE lectures to eager lawyer audiences, including an upcoming one in Riverside I will likely attend. The dearth of lawyers on here (at least for me) is likely because we have not had the time to meaningfully sleuth the entire trial record. Thus I've refrained from commenting in the (impressive) fact-investigation / "theory" discussions, though they are interesting to read. The few posts I've made are limited to topics I think may be of interest to you all, and that add to the discussion unrelated to such "theories".
Against this backdrop, from my brief time on Reddit, I've been puzzled by some user(s), who are obviously attorneys (presumably working full time, though that's just speculation), who must have spent the thousands of hours, post-MAM, scouring the trial record so well to acquire such an impressive knowledge--not to mention the time it takes to write thousands of walls of text in long posts and comments on MAM subs--unless of course, they've known of all the details of this case long before MAM broke.
Maybe some of you TTM'ers have shared this puzzling thought about such user(s).
If you have, you might be interested to read about the story of the embarrassing online sockpuppetry that ended the careers of two Louisiana federal prosecutors, which I can't help get out of my head.
Here are a couple of news articles, and a link to the full DOJ report condemning their unethical behavior.
Couple of articles: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...e-sock-puppets http://observer.com/2015/04/federal-...n-new-orleans/
And here's the DOJ report (not OCR'd, if someone wants to fix that and reupload, be my guest): https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...report-opr.pdf
EDIT : I disagree with those who suggest that just saying weirdly nice things about DAs / investigators, or anyone who claims to have personal knowledge, is shilling. My test for proper suspicion is much narrower, and winnows down only people that I think we have legitimate cause to suspect.
(1) They post A LOT (thereby allowing readers to get a good feel for the depth of their knowledge)
(2) Based on the extent of their posts, it is evidently clear that they are attorneys or former attorneys.
(3) Based on the extent of their posts, they show an uncanny fluency of the trial records and all of their intricacies, beyond what one would expect from a typical internet sleuth (let alone one with a demanding full time job).

When you wrote this:

"You would have to be a blithering idiot to think no crime had been committed... "

as a defense for a police officer jumping the gun and asking if Steven Avery had been taken into custody.

Do you not even bother to read your own posts before submitting them?

I'm not convinced lostinthesaus is the 'legit nutcase A hole' in this exchange...

LOL. Game Over.

Colborn was interviewing S.A. on the 2nd Nov about his movements & has since denied that he did, ofc we don't have proof except for S.A. word for it but then again I tend to believe him as A.C can't remember what he was doing around that time too, mind you selective memory was a problem in mantiowoc Nov 2005 it seems.

Like jim not remembering he was on scene at ASY at around 2pm not 6pm, forgetting what he done on the 3rd, 4th 5th Nov, K.P. outa town, where? & A.C has too many forgetful moments to remember atm.

We are getting confused with semantics here I think. When you guys say 'thinks' and 'thought' you make it sound like some unfounded belief. I'm saying they have evidence that clearly points to foul play when the car is found.

You will have to refresh my memory when SA was arrested wrt the evidence discovery time line. But they did know about him calling her to come out to the property by then correct?

Everybody is different, but I think he has actually contributed to this thread. Asking questions can never be that bad of a thing. It is far better than an approach taken by others who are 100% convinced of the guilt of SA (and BD) since "there is so much evidence" and "they were convicted by a jury".

If I'm nuttier than this then I hope lord baby Jesus saves me.

Luckproof still JAQing off itt. lOl

Jumping the gun by asking a question? Seems a little dramatic. It's not like he tackled SA and beat him over the head.

Pls Quote me 1 post of Luckpoof's that has not been asked & answered by both sides itt multiple times?

Thanks for all the gifs man, still terrible at formatting a post?

OK let me get this straight. Colburn was supposedly grilling Avery about his whereabouts BEFORE Halbach was even reported missing. The only source for this is Avery, who you "tend to believe". Got it.

What else do you think would be happening in this thread at this point?

I don't know, maybe what should happen to the peeps that railroaded B.D. or what can be done in future to stop a cluster**** of a sheriff's dept from letting G.A. go free so many times or why D.V. just let him be & gave an alibi.

We want a society that when someone is found guilty of a jury, we automatically presume that person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Without having to watch a documentary or read any court transcripts.

We also agree that every defendant has a right to legal counsel/attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be assigned to handle a case at no cost to the defendant. The 6th amendment to the US Constitution.

BD's attorney was too busy giving tv interviews to meet with his client. He had his own private investigator meet with his own client who then emailed the prosecution directly saying his client his guilty. And the prosecution when on tv to share the narrative with the entire world. Who was then found guilty.

That would seem to sum up the textbook case of ineffective counsel. Are there any penalties for having provided ineffective counsel? Doesn't appear to be.

Let's delete the 6th amendment to the US Constitution if we don't really mean it. Or rather do the best we can recognizing there are limited resources. If someone may spend life in prison, we will provide extra resources.

I don't think anyone (including myself) said they're 100% sure Avery is guilty. There's always the chance of a huge multi-agency frame-job conspiracy involving the "real killer" (which changes on a daily basis), 2 sheriff departments, the Wisconsin crime lab, and the FBI to name a few, where Steven Avery unfortunately decided to take off work in the afternoon for the first time he could remember and have a huge fire at night (which he denied having to investigators before the bones were even found). Or it's always possible aliens did it. It's just that give these aren't reasonable beliefs, especially given the lack of evidence pointing to this happening.


Questions for you:

Do you have a theory on how the frame job was carried out? There's a lot of evidence to explain- bullet, blood, car, keys, license plates, bones in two different barrels, hood latch DNA. And it matches his actions- he was seen using the fire pit and burn barrels where evidence was found, he had a recent cut on his right finger that matches where the blood was found. The cops would've basically needed to have surveillance on him and kill Teresa themselves.

And what if he went back inside after their meeting and started calling people all afternoon? What if he went back to work like he usually did? What if he ran out for gas or food? There was huge risk he'd spoil their whole plan by giving himself an alibi. What if Teresa got back on her phone after their meeting and called someone saying she just finished work and was heading home? There'd be a witness that she left the meeting alive.

It was incredibly risky to plant all this if they weren't watching Avery on 10/31 and therefore sure he didn't have an alibi, and even if they were watching him, at any point he could've done something that would give him an alibi like deciding to go back to work. Would they just dump Teresa's body if he did and try again later? Is there any theory on how the frame job was pulled off that takes all the evidence into account?

It seems like people ITT don't realize that "in custody" doesn't necessarily mean being charged with anything or even under arrest.

e.g. from CASO report:

I disagree with some of the judgements in lostinthesaus's post, but I don't see anything 'legit nutcase A hole' in it.

A 'legit nutcase' would be like the cop who suggested on the witness stand that aliens could have planted the key supposedly found in Steven's bedroom.

" When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

- A. Lincoln

PoorSkillz doesn't really want an answer, as he has most people ITT on 'ignore'.

This is just a rhetorical question.

Meanwhile, everyone legitimately interested in this case are waiting for the results of the motions by Zellner before the court to be carried out and the evidence to be presented.

additional commentMeanwhile, there are far too many cases like this:

Too many cops seem to be carrying around 'evidence' to plant on citizens - just in case.

ETA - this murder and planting of evidence happened in broad daylight, in front of fellow officers and innocent bystanders.

I think he does want an answer. I do too. If you think he is innocent and framed aren't these the next logical questions to ask yourself?

As soon as someone presents a plausible theory on how TH was murdered that fits with the evidence, I'll consider presenting one of how I think someone else could have committed the crime.