Well it's a good thing you're not an attorney. Based on the logic skills you've displayed recently, I don't think you could score well enough on the lsat to even get in to law school.

Not worth a response.

I suppose 'claimed Teresa didn't show up' will join the rest of these dubious bullet points as if it was a fact, too.

This is a direct quote from you from the post I was referencing:


You see, I have this idea that until proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, Steven is innocent. Therefore he has no reason to lie.

Take the hypothetical argument I put forward above: "Until proven otherwise the suspect is innocent, so the evidence from an eyewitness who reported seeing him commit the murder should be rejected."

What's the difference between this and your argument?

Just to go through the logic. This is Fraley's argument, which is completely valid.

Premise: Avery probably would not have lied about Halbach's visit to his property unless he was involved in the murder.

Facts: Two independent witnesses reported him saying that Halbach never showed up.

Conclusion: There is some indication that he was involved in her murder. (Note that no one is saying that this line of evidence on its own is sufficient to establish Avery's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it's just one piece among many pointing in that direction.)

Your response to this is to say "He wasn't involved in her murder, therefore he would have had no reason to lie, therefore these witnesses' testimony should be rejected." As Fraley correctly pointed out to you, this is a circular argument.

Valid counters to the argument would be:
- challenge the underlying assumption (maybe he had other reasons to lie);
- show evidence that the witnesses were lying or mistaken.

One is saying that I haven't any reason to suppose the witness is lying.

The hypothetical argument is one about rejecting a witness statement.

Do you detect a possible difference between 'accepting' and 'rejecting'?

Even in this version of Fraleyight logic has problems.

As you note, the premise that the only reason someone would say Teresa wasn't there yet is because they are a murderer.

The alleged 'facts' are dubious, as I have also pointed out.

The only reason I mention Steven's possible innocence is because Fraleyight dismisses Steven's statement 'because he's a murderer' in an argument where that is supposed to be the conclusion, not a premise. That is the very definition of circularity.

There are no problems with what I am saying. I have pointed out to you why it doesn't work that way. SA would say she left whether he was guilty or innocent so him saying that carries no weight. It would only have any validity if he was innocent which is why you are begging the question.

I am not assuming he is guilty, I am presenting EVIDENCE why he is guilty and rather than examine the evidence you are presenting evidence that only matters if he is innocent. Then instead of addressing that fact you say "we must presume he is innocent" completely missing the point.

Please tell me which of these werent presented to the jury?

I am legit curious. How many avery fans think Casey Anthony should have been aquitted? What about OJ?

Do you think OJ should've been found guilty based on the evidence?

OJ yes,

Casey anthony no.

But they both did it.

But literally all the evidence in the OJ case is "disputed" in the same way the evidence in this case is "disputed" We have evidence taken to a police officers house, We have a racist cop who admitted to railroading black people, OJ's blood that was found tested positive for EDTA etc..

I understand there are good explanations for all this but there are for all the MAM objections too. SO why does OJ not have reasonable doubt but avery does?

If you are going to dismiss Steven's eyewitness testimony because you are biased against him, I think you are letting your emotions overcome logic.

It isn't 'begging the question' to remain unbiased about Steven.

No, it really isn't correct to say that evidence which exculpates Steven is only evidence if he is innocent.

And you are wrong to claim I haven't examined this evidence you have cited. I have devoted several posts to Fabian and a couple to the question of whether Steven called AT to complain that Teresa never showed up.

It would help a great deal if you didn't get so swept up in your all-or-nothing rhetoric that you allow misstatements of facts like this creep in.

He also went on TV and cited the confession with details as facts with ZERO evidence. He spoke about a bloody multi-hour knifing, 10 gun shots, and rape with not a single blood drop of her where he said the crime occurred.

This is far more than bad taste. It is why that the trial should have been moved as far away as possible to allow a man presumed innocent man to face an impartial jury.

Are there Avery fans?

Me, I just think he's just a guy who got a bum rap.

Sorry, I am done explaining this point. Its a common mistake a lot of people make. And its become a bit of a red herring at this point.

Ill just end it with saying simply, SA would say TH left his house regardless, so saying he said this does not support the theory he is innocent anymore than it does he is guilty. IT fits both theories.



You have, I was referring to one response by you. Specifically the one where you used SA as an alibi for himself. I responded to all your other arguments though and they are all weak.

Its basiscally reduced to this

Someone claims the rabbit hunting took place on wed not monday, and some guy claims he saw a green suv leave SA property, recalling the event months prior and somehow knows what day and time it happened.

The defense wanted the jury to be selected from the same county. They thought the people would be sympathetic to SA because he was somewhat of a local hero. So blame that on avery's lawyers.

Whatever you want to call it, what if anything do you think about the two cases I asked about?

Well, the one thing that impressed me about him is that he could have gotten released from jail if he admitted to raping PB.

I would think 99.9% of the population would admit to most anything if it meant not spending anytime in jail.

When could he have gotten released from jail for admitting this?

I agree, this whole bit about what Steven said versus what some people said he said is a side show, as I've already posted. If, as you now admit, this is all a red herring it makes me wonder why you're making such a big deal of it.

Obviously, there is a big difference between the false claim that I haven't addressed the evidence and the true statement that I did address your points and we have discussed it back and forth for several pages now.

Now you may think this is a fair representation of the discussion, but the fact that we did discuss it in order for you to make these assertions is proof positive that I did in fact address your points.

I agree - that says something very strong about Steven's character and his honesty: he wouldn't lie to escape prison.

No the discussion itself wasn't a red herring, I think its totally relevant whether or not steven told people this. What is a red herring is explaining how you're begging the question.

IN what way was he offered release from prison to admit he raped her? Do you mean before he was convicted?