Yes, the documentarians who filmed Making a Murderer have been criticized for 'leaving things out' and thus somehow duping the general public.

However, it seems the same folks who bitch and whine about 'leaving things out' like to omit material themselves - which either means they are frauds (if judged by the standard they hold others to) or perhaps forgetful in their zeal to put someone in prison.

Suggesting Brendan could only have had the idea that police might be going after Steven for rape if Brendan knew Steven had raped someone is unbelievably ignorant - as you point out Steven was probably at that moment the most famous person to be exonerated in a rape case, and there's no reason to doubt the subject came up under the circumstances.

And it's clear that his uncle and what happened to him was on his mind, which is completely understandable based on the situation and the fact that 2 police officers were pressing him hard on what Steven did that day concerning a missing woman.

Only a few questions later when asked how the car got on their land Dassey says:

A short time later they revisit this and when asked why "her family" would do that, Dassey says:

He is obviously connecting the two situations.

I can see how the question about rape may be seen as suspicious by the police, but its fairly weak in terms of a case, especially as there is no evidence other than the confession to remotely back up that a rape actually happened.

To quote you:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

You are a joke.

It would appear that corpus vile thinks that everyone really knows Brendan and Steven are vicious killers, and that referring to them by their given names means we are supporting murder. But I don't think they are murderers - I think the evidence indicates otherwise.

The thing is I started out thinking Steven Avery might possibly have had something to do with Teresa's disappearance, but it was exactly this sort of lack of persuasive argumentation coming from detractors of the documentary Making a Murderer that repelled me.

These folks really hurt their own cause by being dicks to everyone whom they should rather be trying to persuade.

No, it's that special kind of bleach that only eliminates the DNA of murder victims and no one else.

You really have to indulge in magical thinking to give any credence to some of the BS corpus spews.

Which is totally why if you see a film about the Holocaust, you can be pretty sure it never happened.

No, again you're simply playing word games for what I suspect is for the purpose of obfuscation. Not an apt comparison at all as well you know.
There is no evidence to support your hypothesis. There was sufficient evidence to convict Dassey and overwhelming evidence against Avery . There is no evidence to even bring the cops you hypothesise framed Dassey and Avery to even press charges against them never mind try them and convict them regardless of your suspicions.
Do you think that Dassey and Avery should be released based on your hypothesis that they were framed?
Do you think that cops should be brought to trial based on your hypothesis that they framed both?

Well when it comes to DNA or a lack thereof at crime scenes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence within the context of the totality of the case. It helps when you apply this correctly. I'm not entertaining this argument as it's not a valid one but feel free to continue with it.

Your suspicions are unfounded and wrong.

You keep saying lack of evidence is meaningless, the alternating that with demands for evidence.

Before anyone can take you seriously, you'll probably need to start finding a modicum of logical consistency.

As you have repeatedly claimed - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

However, as it happens there are good reasons to suspect framing - means, motive, opportunity.

That police were willing to coerce false statements from Brendan in a bid to convict Steven would seem to indicate there was no tactic too low for police intent on convicting Steven.

Key evidence seems only to turn up when cops involved with the multi-million dollar lawsuit happen to be on the scene (oddly enough, they were supposedly banned from participation due to concerns about conflict of interest).

Even the forensic lab took its orders from detectives: the 'put Teresa in Avery's garage'.

Plus it seems the cops have some history of accusing Steven of crimes he did not commit. Brendan knew about this, why don't you?

You and I both know courts can get it wrong.

As you say - absence of evidence...

You know the rest -everyone sing along!

I'm content to wait for the evidence to be presented in court.

One of the top lawyers in the nation is working on the case. Guess whose side she's fighting for?

No more than Steven or Brendan should have been brought to trial on any hypothesis.

Your hypothesis that ordinary household bleach and paper towels can eliminate all traces of DNA doesn't seem to be a very strong one - especially combined with the evidence that there was no such cleanup where significant parts of the alleged crimes occurred.

The totality of the case lacks cohesion, as even the prosecution couldn't decide what their theory was (hence two mutually contradictory versions given to different juries). They had doubts about their case, and there's no reason for me to be more sure than they were.

Do feel free to drop this idiotic 'absence of evidence... ' line if it embarrasses you to be laughed at.

I respectfully disagree and feel you're viewing his question in a vacuum.
I also disagree with your other comment re other evidence and with respect it's irrelevant. There is a standard criteria for what's considered sufficient enough evidence to convict you. When you say no evidence existed other than the confession you're really saying that he was convicted on sufficient evidence in accordance with the standard criteria, whether said criteria is right to have or not
There's also his changing accounts him and Avery together that night with the bonfire both having no alibi, both admitting to cleaning the crime scene with bleach, Dassey's jeans having bleach stains to support the admission and various other parts of his confessions being supported by evidence, including things the cops never mention.
Put all that together combined with the multiple confessions and that would bring you to trial and makes his question much more suspicious when again viewed in totality.
Besides the evidence at the trial, you have his cousin's statement and his subsequent confession to his mother from prison where he wasn't coerced. This could possibly be potentially admissible as evidence against him for a potential retrial depending on how it goes re Duffin, Imo.

But again all of that together would be sufficient enough to bring anyone to trial, whether they did it or not so in terms of standard criteria for evidence, the case against him wasn't weak, regardless of how anyone may feel about innocence or guilt.

But I'm not hypothesising as I agree with the convictions. I'm not arguing against the evidence.
Prosecution can change their theories and aren't required to give a blow by blow account re how a murder went down so this is irrelevant. The case didn't lack cohesion in its totality either as both were convicted and I see no evidence of a frame up or an unfair trial.
Sure once you stop incorrectly applying the term to play word games and I won't be entertaining the lack of DNA argument anyway.

Obviously the prosecution can change their theories when they have reasonable doubt with regard to them.

If they have doubts about their own theories, I feel every bit as free to doubt them. You may feel reasonable doubt is irrelevant, but I don't.

No one denies there were convictions. But we both know courts sometimes get it wrong - so securing a conviction or an acquittal isn't dispositive of anything other than a certain verdict was handed down.

Now you're on the 'word game' meme. I assure you I am not playing games.

In actual fact, you are viewing Brendan's question to police in a vacuum when you deliberately excluded the context of Steven recently being exonerated from the false conviction of rape.

This has been explained to you by at least two posters in the past few pages, yet you insist on pushing the talking point that Brendan's concern about rape charges against his uncle Steven is evidence of guilty knowledge.

You have:

-A prosecutor who went on TV to proclaim someone guilty with no proof
-A jury pool of 130 with 129 believing the defendant guilty before a trial
-All key evidence found by people who were specifically instructed to be excluded from actively investigating the defendant
-Not one single picture taken of where the victim was ultimately located
-One of the defendants own advocates is writing that the salvage yard is where the "devil resides in comfort"

This is not a justice system. This was designed to ensure an arrested person was found guilty. It is the antithesis of "innocent until proven guilty". To those that believe that SA and/or BD is guilty, they should be the ones most upset that the investigation and prosecution was not handled appropriately.

Damn, he got me again. I DID, in fact, know all along. My obfuscation attempt has been thwarted!

Wait, there's no evidence to support MY hypothesis? When the deposing lawyer overlays a mugshot of Steven Avery onto the newly self-appointed police sketch artist's drawing (btw, doing his first ever sketch) and it matches precisely - even down to the EXACT size of the mugshot and in fact did not even represent what Steven Avery looked like at the time of the rape - I think I present clear evidence of a frame.

The county and insurance company did too, even going so far as to settle this case while SA was in prison for rape and murder.

BD is going to walk and you're damn right, those involved in the coercion, lies and false imprisonment should have swift justice brought down upon them. For example, the prison sentence handed down in nearby Nebraska for LE attempting a similar style of framing innocent people through coerced and involuntary confessions from a citizen of lower mental capacity, planted blood evidence and lies.

While what happens in Nebraska is not indicative of what happened in Wisconsin, I believe I have made available through various links to articles that you labeled as "spam" that show that we can establish a very dangerous pattern of illegal and malevolent behavior by Wisconsin LE - a behavior pattern congruent with the transgressions committed here against SA and BD. Do you think establishing a pattern of behavior is not valid?

Have you seen that dateline episode yet? What did you think?

The simple fact is that Brendan asking about rape actually strengthens the arguments for his innocence and misapplication of justice. There is absolutely no physical proof that she was ever raped at anytime as you "well know". Aside from that, he asked if the detective thought that HE (someone other than himself) raped her - how you are able to arrive to the conclusion that this is indicative of he himself raping her is beyond comprehension especially when the evidence collected shows otherwise. "Insider knowledge." Insider knowledge of what? Yeah, I think you are spot on here - someone claiming to have insider knowledge has told him SA probably raped and killed her begetting the question "Do you think he did it?"

The only truly invalid hypothesis being mentioned in the last 3 pages of this thread is that BD must have raped her due to his confession. That confession has actually been ruled as "involuntary" due to constitutional rights violations from an extreme breakdown and malfunction of the state justice system. This is the exact reason habeas corpus relief exists. So, not sure how you are still hanging by this thread when it's already been thoroughly destroyed in public, officially and federally destroyed in practice, and completely invalidated by simple logic.

Yeah meaning your objection is irrelevant. Dassey isn't special. He doesn't get the due process bar raised just for him.

Indeed you do but stop using the changing theory objection as if they weren't allowed to do so and it was akin to an objectively unfair trial. Prosecution is a,lowed to change its theories, end of story and you're perfectly entitled to disagree and I'm just as entitled to dismiss your disagreement on the grounds that it's nothing the prosecution are forbidden to do.

Indeed. No evidence that these particular courts got it wrong though. Are tyou saying that Avery/Dassey should be released on the grounds that "courts get it wrong"? Should this premise trump the actual evidence that convicted them? I asked you this before, can you answer?

Yeah you are as I just highlighted.
Should Dassey/Avery be released on the grounds that courts get it wrong and your contention that both were framed? Should this trump the evidence?
Should the cops go on trial because of your hypothesis of a frame up? Should the frame up hypothesis trump a lack of evidence against them?
This is the second time I've asked you this, can you answer please? Thanks.

Honestly this dude is just a troll. Every answer is geared to create a result in a google search. This is just such a ridiculously bad answer.

No evidence the courts got it wrong? Why is there a thread then? Why the documentary? Why is KZ and her team appealing? Why are thousands or millions of people around the world calling for a review? Everyone being fooled by Dassey?

I am saying that Avery and Dassey should be released on the grounds that the court got it wrong once the process is finished. Don't be such an obtuse moron. Quit wording your answers like a search engine optimizer. Otherwise at this point, you should probably be banned because you aren't genuinely engaging in the discussion. Although maybe 2+2 wouldn't mind the traffic.

Give it a rest so. Thanks



No. There isn't. Evidence for a frame up is not what you personally decide it is.

Poking a great big hole in the whole framed due to a law suot conspiracy theory.

So you think Duffin will be upheld? Why? Specifically?

That no evidence exists for a frameup? Yeah. I know I'm damn right on that one.
Provide evidence of coercion[/quote]
Provide evidence of lies on the stand by the cops against Dassey.
Provde evidence his conviction is false.

Shoulda coulda woulda huh? But no evidence?
For example, the prison sentence handed down in nearby Nebraska *rest snipped*
Not interested in Nebraska provide evidence both were framed, thanks.

Yeah that's because they are spam,irrelevant inks of police corruption in general which isn't what I asked for.
You're not though your argument is police corruption occurs ergo occurred here which is circular reasoning which I'm dismissing.


Jesus wept... Maybe we should simply have an internet poll, yeah?

You want salt to go with those pretzels?

Not required for a rape, Dassey isn't special. He doesn't get the burden of proof bar raised higher just for him. Stop raising the bar for criminals.

Okay. So Dassey asking about rape is an indication of innocence.

I never said that, you must not have read my posts

Right. Soyou think Duffin won't be overturned?

And you never answered my question re probative value. So which is more likely, option A or B? Would you like me to c&p it for you to peruse again?

It just occurred to me that if, as corpus vile is trying to insinuate, Brendan's asking if police think Steven raped Teresa is a moment of self-revelation then it is very interesting what he didn't say.

Brendan asking about 'rape' has a very obvious, innocent answer. His uncle was recently exonerated in a rape case and was currently engaged in a lawsuit involving police that this was a wrongful conviction.

It's very telling that Brendan does not ask if they think he killed her - that is something that no one but the killer(s) would know at that stage. So if this is a moment of truth slipping out of Brendan, as corpus vile claims, then it indicates that Brendan does not know she is dead - which he would know if he helped kill her, and helped dispose of her body (or even if he only saw her body being destroyed in a fire).

More evidence piling up that Brendan is innocent.

It's not irrelevant. I'm discussing the case and the reasoning why I believe the evidence shows that Brendan is innocent, and the reasons why I think Steven is innocent.

It may be irrelevant to you, and that is fine. Obviously you feel that there should be no discussion of court cases outside of a courtroom. Which provokes this question: why are you here?

You seem to be hard of reading - I'm just using the objective fact that the prosecution doubted its own theories as evidence that a rational person can have reasonable doubt about the guilt of the defendants.

Yes, and police are allowed to lie, etc. That doesn't give me -as a rational person - much reason to put much confidence in their claims.

I don't expect courts to respond to what goes on in discussion boards on the internet.

Surely you know better than that, having posted hundreds of times on a discussion board devoted exclusively to a murder case where the majority opinion is that the courts got it wrong in dismissing the case against the chief suspects.

Nope - just pointing out your self-refuting 'arguments' and general lack of logical consistency isn't a 'word game' to me.

No one is suggesting courts act on the basis of what the consensus is on a discussion board on the internet. Not sure why you've jumped onto this talking point all of a sudden.

Do you think the thousands of posts on the website Placing Meredith First is going to put Sollecito and Knox in prison? Should that trump the Italian Supreme Court?

Get a grip - this is another of your word games that will only end with you in tears threatening to leave the board.

Allow me to quote myself when I answered this 'gotcha' question previously:

"I'm content to wait for the evidence to be presented in court."

Yes, he is special. He was 16-years old. He clearly had no idea of the consequences of speaking of his alleged involvement in a serious crime. His concern was if he would have time to make it to class. Instead, he was handcuffed. And continually interrogated without an attorney present, even after he had legal representation.

This just goes to show you how obtuse this Search Engine Optimizing LE Shill bot is.

I guess BD should be treated like every other 16 year-old accused of rape, murder and mutilation without a single shred of physical evidence to back it up.

Be a human.

But I'm not viewing it in a vacuum. You are. I fail to see how his asking proactively about rape has anything to do with an exoneration a couple of years previously and you're contorting your logic to accommodate your innocence narrative.
Btw what evidence presented in what court, re an alleged frame up, which you mentioned earlier? Neither are getting a retrial at present so what evidence, presented in what court?

Yes I know it's been explained to me that "he just thought it" (that was from you btw after you lied about what I actually said re Dassey) and how Innocent Brendan proactively asking about rape when even the coos weren't thinking of this despite Avery being "recently exonerated" for rape, is in reality... a sign of Innocent Brendan's actual innocence. And I'm rejecting that argument as it has zero to support it and is more contortionist logic to accommodate a false innocence narrative and is quite frankly just plain dumb.
So yeah it's been explained to me but what I actually meant when I asked for an explanation was to plausibly and credibly and validly explain to me, not what I've just been handed.
So far you have:
No evidence of a frame up
No evidence of an unfair due process.
No plausible explanation for Dassey proactively asking about rape.
No plausible explanation for why the cops shouldn't find his question suspicious.

Only evidence you have for anything untoward is so far a provisional and very very dubious ruling that the standard wasn't met- that Dassey was coerced. Yet Duffin doesn't rule the confession false, and indeed states that the coercion was not due to any malicious intent by the cops. Which you equate to a false confession anyway.
Again I have hopes he'll be overturned as I agree with the AG that he hasn't interpreted the facts correctly. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the law aspect to comment. So you have no actual evidence of Dassey's factual innocence either and certainly not wrt his thug uncle


So that's all you have so far. I have no need to entertain a frame up job as I have asked umpteen times for several posters to provide evidence of this.
So do you think Duffin will be upheld and can you clarify re this "evidence presented in court" which you're content to wait for? Again, what court, specifically?