Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
No.
If the term 'murder groupie' is going to have any kind of meaning, it would have to meet two criteria:
a) Does the alleged 'groupie'
believe the object of their devotion committed murder?
b) Does the alleged 'groupie' have some kind of
devotion to the person because their idol is a murderer?
Nobody who thinks Steven Avery (or Brendan Dassey) is innocent can possibly fit that definition.
So when corpus vile accuses people who are
not murder groupies of
being murder groupies, Corpus is either an idiot, a liar, or some combination of the two.
In fact, the only person itt who seems to find Steven
both 'cuddly'
and a murderer is corpus vile.
Quote:
Avery and Dassey very, very obviously did it.
I think you are mistaken, as do a great many informed people.
Quote:
You shouldn't believe everything you see on TV.
I don't, so your warning is wasted on me.
Quote:
'Cops arrest right people, court duly convicts' isn't a story.
You couldn't be more wrong. Just about every cop show, detective series, forensic scientists drama is about cops arresting the right people, detectives discovering the culprit, the cleverness of the lab techs in correctly identifying the guilty party. It's a multi-million dollar industry entertaining folks with stories about how they
always get their man.
Quote:
But 'innocent people condemned' is always a story, and there's money in that, and the people writing the newspaper articles and making the TV shows literally do not care a damn what the truth is, long as they get paid. I know those type people and I know what they're like.
I don't know anything about your friends. But if it is a fact that journalists don't care whether the accused are innocent or guilty, that means there is no bias either way. Again, your line of argument collapses because it seems to be missing some vital parts.
Quote:
In England, the late Paul Foot, still regarded as a hero journalist by idiots, made a career out of claiming James Hanratty was innocent of the 'A6 murder' he was hanged for in the 1960s. He wasn't innocent. He did it. Decades later, DNA proved this beyond doubt. Paul Foot still refused to admit he was wrong.
So what? Just because some bad actors claim to be innocent does not require anyone to believe that
all persons who protest their innocence must be guilty.
Quote:
Foot also agitated on behalf of the Bridgewater Four, who murdered the young newspaper boy Carl Bridgewater when he interrupted them in the course of a robbery. They blew him away with a shotgun. Their convictions were much later overturned on appeal, but not because they didn't do it, only because the police broke Judge's Rules during questioning. (Police forged a confession by one of the killers to extract a confession from another one whom they rightly judged to be a softer touch. You can't do that.) It makes no difference to the men's factual guilt. They very clearly did it, as the Court of Appeal outlined in their report. Idiots often think an overturn on appeal means innocence, but it doesn't.
Sometimes people we might believe to be guilty do get off on a technicality'. This principle has a long history in Western Civilization - often expressed in the maxim that "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".
Why? Those 'technicalities' are there to protect the public against police corruption. People who think about law enforcement and the justice system know this, and build in these safeguards for good reasons. Try to comprehend this reality.
IMHO police forging a confession (much like they did with Brendan Dassey in this case) is not a good thing.
To sum up: corpus vile is wrong to accuse anyone on this thread of being a 'murder groupie', and you are wrong to suggest corpus vile is correct to keep repeating this unhinged falsehood.
You are wrong is claiming that there isn't big money in 'cops arrest right guy, who is convicted. This is extremely stupid sort of thing to believe, because anyone with even a mild interest in stories about the justice system knows your claim is not true.
Likewise, most stories about crime and law enforcement in my local paper is just about cops arresting folks, and prosecutors securing convictions. I sure don't see reporters going out of their way to try and contradict cops, prosecutors, judges, or juries. Only rarely does the coverage entertain the possibility that the wrong guy was arrested/tried/convicted.
Last edited by proudfootz; 07-15-2018 at 05:13 PM.