re: Making A Murder O-T Lounge Thread

quote:

---

I have a feeling, or I'm pretty certain that you're wayyyyyyy too sure of yourself and are acting like it's proposterous to believe he murdered the girl, and that in itself is just silly and too far over the top. You seem way too invested and aren't even the least bit rational about the topic, to be honest.

---

Bingo

quote:

---

Because believing something is wayyyyyy different than believing something beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

So why do you believe it? You keep dodging this question.

quote:

---

Just because some of the evidence is planted does not mean you should assume all of the evidence is planted.

---

I agree, but if some of the evidence is planted, you have to consider that the rest of the evidence could be planted. It increases the reasonableness of doubting the other evidence, which is crucial.

quote:

---

There's also a huge difference between "could not have been planted" and was not planted. There's been no evidence to refute Avery's DNA in the blood on the car, on the key, on the hood of the car. Yes, it could have been planted, but it also very well could be legit.

---

Indeed, but the key phrase here is "reasonable doubt". If it's reasonable to doubt the veracity of a certain piece of evidence, why would you assume that it is real? And if you're not sure, why would you use that evidence to support your belief in Avery's guilt?

You're very carefully not committing yourself to any particular piece of evidence, yet still insisting that you believe that Avery did it. Why are you so hesitant to clarify your reasons for believing he's guilty?

quote:

---

Guilty people walk all the time due to lack of evidence, so your statement wouldn't fly in any of those instances so it's not a catch all statement for every case and every situation.

---

But if the evidence is so weak, why are the police so sure that he's guilty? Why do they feel justified in planting evidence, instead of letting the evidence speak for itself? The only way to reconcile this is to say that the police don't believe the evidence is strong enough to lead to his conviction... but if that's true, why do they believe he did it? If it's reasonable for a jury to doubt his guilt, why isn't it reasonable for the police to doubt his guilt?

quote:

---

I have a feeling, or I'm pretty certain that you're wayyyyyyy too sure of yourself and are acting like it's proposterous to believe he murdered the girl, and that in itself is just silly and too far over the top. You seem way too invested and aren't even the least bit rational about the topic, to be honest.

---

This isn't about me being sure of myself, it's about me not being sure that the evidence points to Avery's guilt. I see plenty of room for reasonable doubt regarding his guilt, and I can't see any good reason for believing he did it. That's why I keep asking you why you think he's guilty. If you have a good reason, let's hear them and see if they're really as good as you think.

What's not rational is your refusal to list your reasons for believing that he's guilty. The only way that can be explained is that you don't think your reasons can hold up to scrutiny.

quote:

---

You keep saying that to myself and Caterpillar, and no matter what we say, you strike it down as some absurd hypothesis, when it's not at all.

Just step back, try to view this rationally, not having your mind made up already and not allowing for anything else to remotely be possible in a case where we ALL have no idea WTF happened.

---

You're asking me to reconsider my position, but you're not giving me a good reason to do so. This can only end one way: with me not changing my mind. If you're not interested in challenging my presumption of Avery's innocence, then there's really nothing more for us to discuss.

I'll restate my position so it's clear to you: I am presuming Avery's innocence. I don't believe the evidence, at least as it was presented in the documentary, proves that Avery committed the crimes beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that Brendan's confession was coerced and was not what happened. I don't believe the Avery prosecution's timeline or narrative. I believe that the Manitowoc Sheriff Department had the motive, means, and opportunity to plant evidence linking Avery to the crimes. I don't know who killed Halbach. Maybe Avery did, but in the absence of any strong evidence that he did it, I cannot believe that he did it. I would need to find a good reason to believe he's guilty, which I have not yet found.

quote:

---

shite, I just typed up a post with a bunch of quotes and it didn't post for some reason lol.

At any rate, i'll just sum it up based on your post and say that I believe he did it, but don't know for sure, honestly i have no clue. I've already said there is reasonable doubt, but that's irrelevant to my opinion. I could believe it's 60/40 he did it, that's reasonable doubt but i still believe he did it.

You're not leaving any wiggle room, you believe there's reasonable doubt and have extrapolated that into thinking if that is so, then you can only think he's not guilty, which I don't agree with.

---

If you honestly have no clue, then just say that. I don't understand why you're admitting you don't know, but then saying you "believe" he did it. I guess we have different definitions of "belief" because I seriously can't reconcile your stance any other way.

quote:

---

You seem to be entrenched in a stance that says he did not do it, when as I said before, we ALL honestly have no clue whasoever as to what actually happened so it's just not very rational to be so certain 1 thing did or didn't happen.

---

I've clarified time and time again that I agree he could have done it. I'm never going to say I believe he did it when I still doubt that the evidence points to him as the killer. Is he innocent? I'm not sure. Is he guilty? Again, not sure. But I think it's unreasonable to believe he's guilty until the evidence points to that beyond any reasonable doubt. I would go a step further and say that there are such good reasons for doubting the evidence that you and I already agree that it's very possible that the evidence was planted.

Nancy Grace is saying the hood of the rav4 was changed out and thats why there was sweat on the inside.

Is that true?

You: I think he's innocent but I don't know.

Me: I think he's guilty but I don't know.

You: How can you possibly say he's guilty but you don't know.

quote:

---

To rationally believe he is guilty requires a burden of proof that has not been met in this case

---

So you're saying if you don't think someone is guilty by trial/jury standards, it's irrational to still believe they're guilty?

You've lost me so badly here, makes no sense, fwiw.

She covered the trial the first time and knows he's guilty.

It makes me think he even more innocent

quote:

---

She covered the trial the first time and knows he's guilty.

---

This is how wrongful convictions occur. Like Ken Kratz and his horror stories he spit out to paint SA and BD as evil incarnates, Nancy Grace is an old senile woman doing the same.

The constant appeal to emotion just tells me you have no logic to prove your point, so you're trying to muddy the water with sentiment.

quote:

---

So you're saying if you don't think someone is guilty by trial/jury standards, it's irrational to still believe they're guilty?

You've lost me so badly here, makes no sense, fwiw.

---

I'm saying that it's irrational to believe in something if you don't have a good reason to believe in it. Since you won't even talk about your reasons for believing he's guilty, there's really nothing else for us to discuss. I'd love for you to disclose your reasons so we could have a real discussion about that, but it seems you're hesitant to do that.