And if you don't go to the store for just 6 more months, the store's investors and managers owe you $36,000,000 and some of it's employees may go to jail while they name a new store after you.

I haven't even read your questions. Nor can I remember if I am indeed the first person itt who said MAM was deceptive, so please provide evidence of this thanks.

I'm one of several who has correctly pointed out MAM's deception. I also asked you re the blood vial. Yet again examples have already been highlighted by several posters including myself. Yet again you refuse to address them. Yet again you're trolling. Yet again you're a waste of space.


Now are you gonna refute the examples given or continue to troll? As in troll a thread dealing with real murder? Are you going to validate your raising of the burden of proof & due process bar for Dassey?

"Fraudulent", "deceptive"- "misleading", "dishonest"- all these terms can apply to MAM in terms of its actual narrative & its portrayal of both Avery re evidence/personality & Dassey's confession. "Fraudulent" can certainly be used to describe anything that "willfully misrepresents the facts to support a certain agenda" like you mentioned.
And as you highlighted recently the film makers cannot claim ignorance in this regard. Their omissions & dodgy editing were quite deliberate as was their misrepresentation of the blood vial.

So I don't think these terms are too strong especially considering the obstinate insistence in adhering to its narrative by Avery & Dassey's advocates itt, facts & evidence be damned, despiite lots of examples of deception provided.
MAM is propaganda. Innocence Fraud. False Conviction Chic. Making a Killing. Call it what you will. Bottom line it's dishonest & seeks to curry favour in the court of public opinion for both killers & both film makers profited from it handsomely.

And none of the advocates itt have yet to refute such examples given, hence the tired trolling deflection on lawboy's part.

They have no viable argument here. Just an emotional attachment to a fraudulent deceptive misleading dishonest narrative.

You claimed the document was "fraudulent."

That is your claim. Now prove it.

You made the claim that MAM is fraudulent.

Stop walking it back. Either show your proof or withdraw your claim.

I see you chose not to answer my preliminary questions from yesterday.

How about this:

In your opinion does MAM raise, prima facie, the following issues:

1. Brendan's confession was coerced.

2. Brendan had ineffective counsel.

3. Evidence may have been planted.

4. Investigation was incompetent, but such may also be related to framing SA.

5. Evidence does not match the narrative.

6. SA and BD may not have had fair trials.

There are others, but your understanding of the film is important for evaluating your claim that it is fraudulent.

Also, you failed to provide the citations for your "murder groupie" information. I suspect you are just making that stuff up. If not, my apologies - but, since you freely declare people to be "murder groupies" and then speak with authority as to these murder groupies, I think it is fair you show your work on that.

Here you go:

So, you refuse to even attempt to back up your claim that the makers of MAM comitted fraud.

Ok.

Let's see if you will even answer some background questions:

1. If you have seen MAM, how many times have you seen it, and when?

I saw it once in January 2016. I have not seen it again.

2. Assuming you have watched MAM, what did you know about the Steven Avery case before you watched it?

I had never heard of Steven Avery, etc. prior to finding this thread. I read about 10 posts and then decided to watch MAM. Up to that point, I had seen that MAM was on Netflix, but was not interested in it.

3. Did you conclude MAM was "fraudulent" at some point while watching it? If so, at what point in MAM?

4. In concluding MAM was fraudulent, did you rely on any particular materials, or did you form that conclusion on your own?

I guess that is a fair starting point.

Again, you claim MAM is fraudulent, so tell us all about it, please.

Already has been, & I asked you to provide evidence that I was the first person itt to highlight its deception. Can you do so?
Can you refute the proof of MAM's deceptive fraudulent narrative or not?

Already been shown can you refute the examples given or not, troll?

Didn't bother reading 'em.

That you refute the examples of MAM's deceptive fraudulent narrative that have already been provided? That would be nice.

Nope as the majority are unable to provide any explicit examples of coercion, hence Duffin's totality argument, which yet again was already pointed out to you. Advocates were invited to provide specifics of coercion & were unable to do so, including you.

Nope Kachinsky tried to get the confession thrown out & when that failed he tried to get him a deal, which Dassey blew by doing a u turn, which led him to getting life without parole for 41 years instead of the 20 he'd have gotten had he had have listened to Kachinsky.

Nope as it falsely intimated the blood vial hole was due to tampering when this wasn't the case and again this has been covered itt, more rehashing from you. There is no evidence of a frame up, nor have you or your fellow groupies provided any.

Again no evidence of this..

Hence the convictions by two separate courts, as in the courts which you can't specify examples unfair due process they engaged in.

How so? You still provided nothing to support this nor did the appellate courts find any flaws at trials.

Provide evidence I was the first to make this claim & yet again lots of examples provided itt already. You're trolling.

You have attacked those close to Teresa Halbach accusing one of murder.
You raise various bars for murderers, rapists & mutilators.
You show inconsistent standards with courts of law rejected for the murderers without specification how they erred, while deeming innuendo, speculation & accusation sufficient for others.
You've flat out trolled a thread about real murder of an innocent victim.
You've declared the trial for one of the murderers as "a sham", again without validating such a claim.
You've declared the other murderer is factually innocent.
You've condemned others for mentioning the victim by name.

Again if you're not a murderer groupie you do a great impression of one.

Prove me wrong though. Do you condemn Zellner filing on the anniversary of Teresa Halbach's murder as in poor taste for example?

So yeah you're a troll & a murderer groupie.

Claiming that one and only one person did something, and claiming that two or more people did something are different claims. They cannot both be correct.

In logic this would be it is either A or not-A.

You should be able to appreciate how someone would be dubious about someone who changed their story from moment to moment based on what was convenient for them.

As a juror I would have reasonable doubts about a case the prosecution didn't have enough confidence in to stick with.

For the nth time provide evidence I was the first person itt to point out MAM's deception.

Once last year can't remember date


Zero

Made no conclusions, researched afterward.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/

Is there a point to your trolling? This isn't about me. It's about objective examples being provided of MAM's fraudulent narrative by several people & you completely ignoring it choosing instead to focus on one specific poster(I.E. me, after claiming several times you have no interest discussing any subject with me) due to your massive butthurt.

You're a troll and again useless continuing with you. You're dishonest & a murderer groupie. Keep proving it with every post you make. Yet again you're a waste of space & I'm done feeding your trolling & done with you, due to your dishonesty trolling & victim denigration. Yet again shame on you with your despicable attacks on victims.

Yes, I would say the claims that the documentary was mere 'innocence fraud' propaganda fall rather flat when the film makers are ambiguous about about whether the accused was factually innocent, tell everyone who will listen they take no position either way, and viewers can make up their own mind, and we know for a fact that viewers took opposing views of the case upon viewing the documentary.

We know that Brendan made several statements about the so-called confession being untrue, about knowing nothing about the fate of Teresa, and being fed information by police during the coaching sessions. These are facts the police left out.

If your claiming that leaving relevant material out of a presentation is misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, or whatever then we will have to agree the police were being misleading, etc.

Even if it is true the documentary was imperfect it does nothing to prove claims made about the alleged intent of the film makers - which would be the key finding.

Good to know that you are declaring certain evidence off limits at the outset.

Just review my most recent posts and try to answer the questions revolving around if one party leaving out relevant information to supposedly persuade others of a particular POV is 'propaganda' then why is it when the other party does the same your definition of 'propaganda' suddenly changes?

That's precisely what I mean & Oski knows this. He's now resorting to word games for the purpose of yet more trolling, as it means he doesn't have to actually refute the examples given.

If you already have proven that its fraudulent, then it shouldnt be that hard to just quickly type it again?

Pretty hard to refute a "proof" that the other person dont know about and that you are not willing to share.

Typical trolling from corpus vile - demands information, won't even bother reading the answers.

Probably best to treat all of corpus vile's posts as rhetorical questions since he exhibits zero interest in discussing the case, just in speechifying.

This is an ingenious defense.

Let's see... Do you think corpus would accept as an answer that read "Since I am not the first person to suggest the police investigation was flawed I don't have to provide any evidence or argument to support that position"?

Certainly that would render corpus's constant demands a waste of time, since ebven he should know no one here was the first to suggest anything.

No one has been suggesting 'raising the bar' except corpus vile.

It would appear that one of the criticisms of the investigation was the 'lowering of the bar' by police constantly bending and breaking protocols designed to protect the public from incompetence and malfeasance.

Considering that was not the claim and that Steven was specifically convicted with an accomplice that is not something I should appreciate.

Footz,

MAM didn't just leave out information. They cut testimony to make people answer questions they never answered, they cut out words of answers completely changing the context etc..

Kratz press conference was to tell the public why Dassey was being charged with murder. It was not to tell the public everything that happened after he confessed. Which to my knowledge, he didn't immediately recant anyway but I could be wrong.

Everytime Dassey changes his story was Kratz supposed to do another press conference? you're being ridiculous.

It raises these issues (much in the same way Loose Change raises issues of a government conspiracy), but often it's based on misrepresenting the facts and framing the narrative deceitfully.

I will bold the issues that have merit (even though they may not necessarily be true):


There's a clear pattern here - the only relevant issues involved Brendan Dassey, whose part in the show is a small fraction of Steven's.

I have a lot of issues with BD first attorney. I think we can all agree on that. I saw a timeline of everything he did after taking the case and he clearly wasn't working for BD.

Just watched Ancient Aliens documentary and based on the show it's obvious that aliens created our society and anyone who disagrees is a moron.

I see no reason to do any further research on this matter, because I believe the documentary presented everything fairly and accurately.

Those claiming Ancient Aliens misrepresented facts are likely shills and have not shown me anything of relevance to convince me that aliens did not create our society.

Please show me where Ancient Aliens is fraudulent.

/s

I think he was working for BD (specifically trying to get him a plea bargain), just incompetently (especially by not being there when Brendan was interviewed by police).

I've shared plenty already. For example, read this post I shared: https://www.reddit.com/r/StevenAvery...d_police_than/


I'm not sure what the standard for "fraudulent" is, but it's proof that the filmmakers deliberately misrepresented the facts.

Well, I think he was trying to get BD to plea by convincing everyone around him that Brendan was lying and telling BD he was lying when BD was adament he wasn't. I think thats not working for BD

Ok. So,

In your opinion does MAM raise, prima facie, ANY material issue with the Avey or Dassey case?

I agree that LK should have listened to his client, and in that way you can say he wasn't working for him.

I don't think LK had to convince anyone around him that BD was lying. BD had already confessed to the crime before LK was his lawyer - that same confession eventually led to his conviction. Therefore, I also think going for a plea deal was the best strategy (and poorly executed), and in this way LK was working (incompetently) in BD's best interests IMO.

No, when it comes to claiming MAM is "fraudulent" it IS about you, because you make thay claim without any proof of such.

Let's make it easy:

Is it still your claim that "MAM" is fraudulent?