This fellow corpus keeps repeating that 'the truth is easy to defend' but when asked to defend it runs away with his tail between his legs.

Like a lot of bullies, proves to be a coward when challenged.

Typical troll.

Sorry, but you are the one that has asserted the doc. is "fraudulent."

Yet, you have not provided any proof of such.

Just admit you are just mad at the movie and we can ignore it. Otherwise, the floor is yours.

I can walk you through it, I asked you some preliminary questions yesterday, but you have not answered.

CV. If you are unable to prove MAM is fraudulent as you claim, just say so and we will drop it.

As usual, Oski's argument of "separate, mutually exclusive crime narratives" as a reason to doubt Steven's conviction comes from a place of ignorance.

The theory laid out by the prosecution in both the Avery and Dassey cases was that TH was shot and killed in the garage, then burned in the burnpit. In Dassey's trial, the details were filled in a lot further, due to the inclusion of his confession, but they are not mutually exclusive.


It's understandable to question the veracity of Dassey's confessions as the details changed numerous times (due in no small part to him purposefully lying to the cops from day one) and often could not be confirmed by the physical evidence. However, the extent to which Dassey's confession is true has no relevance on Avery's conviction, as Dassey's confession was not included in Avery's trial.

In Avery's trial, however, there was an abundance of physical/circumstantial evidence and witness testimony to convict him of murder (this has been pointed out numerous times). The theory presented in Avery's trial does not "have a mere passing relationship with the physical evidence" - it is well supported by the evidence. This evidence includes (but is not limited to):

• Steven is the last known person to see TH alive.
  
• Steven was witnessed having a large fire over the span of several hours that evening, and TH's bones were found burned in that same location days later.
  
• Steven was witnessed having a fire in the burn barrel that afternoon (which smelled like plastic according to a witness), and TH's personal items were found burned in that same location days later.
  
• TH's DNA was found on a bullet conclusively linked to the exact gun in Steven's possession in his garage.
  
• A luminol reaction in the garage indicated a recent cleanup.
  
• TH's key was found in Steven's room with his DNA on it.
  
• Steven's blood was found in several locations around TH's Rav4 (and in his Pontiac) found on his property, and he had a large cut on his finger. (An EDTA test performed by the FBI showed that the blood did not come from a preserved vial.)
  
• Steven's DNA was found on the hood latch of the car.

There is no evidence that any of this evidence was planted as part of a frame-job - in fact there is not even any realistic scenario for all of this evidence to have been planted.

Furthermore, even if one doesn't believe the theory exactly as it was laid out by the prosecution, that does not mean Steven is innocent. The exact details of the crime will likely never be known, as Steven and Brendan destroyed much of the evidence, but the evidence against Steven Avery leaves no reasonable doubt that Steven committed the murder in some way or another.

You may need to give him some time to visit reddit to get some material to finally provide some substance to his until now unresearched claims.

My guess is that 9/11 truthers make the same argument when defending Loose Change.

"Fraudulent" is a strong word, but what documentaries like these two do is wilfully misrepresent the facts in order to support a certain agenda. This is further aided by deceptive film techniques and utilizing biased experts to lend credibility to these misrepresentations.

Many examples have been posted ITT, as recently as today.

It's not my argument; it is what was presented in the film.

I appreciate your effort here, but your explanation is lacking.

Of course, Dassey's legal case is also completely separate from Avery's, as they were prosecuted separately for Halbach's murder. In fact, Avery was prosecuted first as the sole perpetrator of Halbach's murder. "One man and one man only" was to blame, Prosecutor Kenneth Kratz memorably declared at Avery's trial – a stark contrast to the televised press conference he had given following Dassey's coerced confession the year before, in which he described both defendants raping and murdering Halbach in lurid detail.

For some reason, although it was available, the coerced confession from Brendan was not used at Steven's trial.

Now you have forgotten to add the fraudulent courts, judges, and magistrates who have joined in taking defense arguments as pertinent and significant to your conspiracy theory.

The troll going by the moniker 'corpus vile' often accuses these judges of basing their decisions on a television show, although this attack has no basis in actual fact.

Since the so-called 'Dassey confession' was left out of the Avery prosecution, should we classify Ken Kratz's presentation as 'propaganda'?

Lol. You need to stop with the making good points thing.

CV will accuse you of "raising the bar."

It should be alright - corpus has me on 'ignore' since I had the temerity to answer his posts - except when he can't stand the suspense and sneaks a peek at my posts.

I don't see how this even follows. What exactly are you saying? That the amount of people convinced by something determines whether or not something is propaganda? Its propaganda if its some kind of information that promotes one side of an argument by being dishonest or lying.

You said that MAM wasn't "good" propaganda because you weren't convinced he was innocent or rather, you were convinced he could be guilty until doing research after the film. I was simply pointing out that lots of people were convinced he was innocent after seeing the flim, just because they were convinced that doesn't make it propaganda. What makes it propaganda is that its a dishonest, misleading piece of film.

Re: kratz press conference.

No, that is not propaganda. All kratz did was disclose to the public what Dassey confessed to. Which is also what Dassey was convicted of. I think the press conference was in bad taste, but certainly not "propaganda".

Yea, I haven't read all of Oski and CV interaction but it appears to really be an equivocation issue with the word fraudulent. I don't think CV and Oski are using the word the same way. I think CV just means that its a dishonest piece of film.

Notice how nobody is willing to acknowledge that this doesn't make them different.

If I tell you I went to the store and bought groceries, and my wife said I drove the van to the store to buy milke and bread. Those two stories do not contradict each other.

Analagous to that, if I tell you Avery shot Teresa in his garage then attempted to burn the body and clean that garage to hide evidence, then later tell you that Dassey before taking her to the garage raped and stabbed her. Those stories do not contradict each other. Even if you think neither of them happened.

This is what you wrote: "...what I can say is the doc clearly convinced a lot of people he was innocent."

It does appear that you are claiming that being convincing or persuasive is some measure of 'propaganda'.

So in your estimation the prosecution was 'propaganda' because it was one-sided?

Yes, on viewing the series it did not appear to me to be so biased or one-sided in favor of Steven's innocence.

Since it seems clear the police and prosecution and their defenders presented a couple of one-sided versions of events shall we conclude that you agree they were also dishonest and their efforts were mere propaganda?

Or are you raising the bar for one side of the argument?

Do you agree that Kratz left out statements made by Brendan which tended to suggest he was innocent?

Or did Kratz only present a one-sided, edited, and biased version of the many hours of questioning?

Think about it.

If you say to your wife you went alone to the store to purchase groceries, but admit to your friends you went with your old girlfriend to spend some time together while picking up some groceries those are indeed two significantly different stories.

Try this with your wife and see.

No sir, it is you that said you were not convinced so it wasn't "good" propaganda. I was just responding to you. TBH I thought you were acknowledging it was propaganda at first but were essentially saying it doesn't matter because you weren't convinced he was innocent so it didn't do its job well. Either way, it was me responding to you, not the other way around.



No, because nothing I can see that the prosecution presented in any media coverage or during the trial was misleading or lying.



Do you still hold that opinion despite the examples provided to you itt?



Provide me with a couple of examples and I will tell you if I think its propaganda. The press conference, is not one.

Kratz press conference was about what BD confessed to. He was about to be charged with murder, it was his job to inform people why he was being charged. He should have left out some of the details, but he still should have told the public what he was being charged with and why. Its public information at that point.

So no, I do not think this was misleading. Dassey did confess to those things.

Well, she would certainly tell me its different but its not contradictory or mutally exclusive. Which is what we are talking about when we use the word different in this context.

If the GPS in your car and phone indicate you went to the store, several people witnessed you at the store, your credit card was used at the store, your blood is smeared all over the store floor...

then you went to the store.


If in addition to all of the above, your friend says he went to the store with you but that you guys robbed a bank first...

you still went to the store.

Those are different tho aren't they?

Lol.

You forgot the note to the GPS lab tech instructing her to put the suspect at the store.