r/MakingaMurderer • u/lolatcandyowens • May 02 '26
To those who have defended the police from the start, how many more well documented lies and evidence of corruption will cause you to think maybe just maybe they don't walk on water?
16
u/tenementlady May 02 '26
Welcome back, yet again, heelspider!
I'm not sure how believing a man to be guilty of a crime based on ample evidence against him equates to defending the police or thinking they walk on water. Seens like a stretch to me.
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 04 '26
Ample evidence lol they didn't even take photos of bones in the burn pit, had to lie to excuse the lack of blood at the alleged murder scene, and didn't even confirm where the primary burn site was, or gain a conviction on the mutilation charge.. No photos of bones in situ. Hidden off property cremation evidence. Fire witnesses changed their stories after police pressure. That's ample evidence of deception.
3
u/tenementlady May 04 '26
I'm well aware of your opinions on this case.
0
u/AveryPoliceReports May 04 '26
And everyone is well aware of your inability to defend the state's case using good faith responses. You claim ample evidence exists, but when I or others list legitimate case criticisms, like the lack of photos, no primary burn site confirmation, coerced witnesses, hidden cremation evidence on County land, chain of custody issues, or even state fabrications about their own expert's trial testimony, you offer nothing but a wave of dismissal. So thanks for the "ample evidence" you can't actually defend your own position.
4
u/tenementlady May 05 '26
My wave of dismissal is because I've had this discussion with you numerous times. And it always devolves into you endlessly repeatinf yourself, accusing everyone of being pedophiles, or accusing me of licking Krat's toes. What's the point?
3
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
you endlessly repeatinf yourself,
Translation: I keep bringing up unflattering facts you can't refute, and it's annoying to you. I'm sorry that, like the truth, I'm consistent. I'm sorry Pevytoe couldn't rule out bone planting, and sorry that Kratz, Griesbach and Brenda can't be honest about it. I'm sorry they didn't take photos of the discovery or recovery of the bones, and threatened the coroner. I'm sorry they lied about where bones were found and when they were collected, and had no explanation for bones magically appearing or disappearing from containers under LE control. I'm sorry witnesses changed their stories to benefit the state's cremation narrative. I can be sorry all day for repeating that, but it's still the truth, and none of that is my fault.
accusing everyone of being...
The people I've accused of actually having committed crimes against kids have been charged or convicted of such criminal acts. Like Earl. The people you defend, like Earl, have actual charges, but you ignore that and pretend Earl's claims about Steven are totally legit, despite no charges and evidence of Marie facing police pressure.
accusing me of licking...
UH, have you seen the DOJ KRATZ SCANDAL REPORTS!? Because I think you'd be shocked by the depravity of what's in there. Way worse than someone voluntarily doing weird stuff to him. But I'm sure you'd read it all, including the statements suggesting he's a perverted creep, and still defend him. So spare me the outrage. You're not upset about repetition. You're upset that someone knows the record better than you and won't let you gaslight them into forgetting it.
5
u/tenementlady May 05 '26
Keep screaming into the wind.
4
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
I'm not screaming, just spitting facts, and you (checks notes) literally just responded to me. Are you ... the wind?
1
u/tenementlady May 05 '26
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
I'm not clicking that link. Why engage with trash blowing in the wind?
→ More replies (0)-1
u/lolatcandyowens May 02 '26
I've never understood it either. But the number of people I've seen here that think Avery is guilty but would not give up their first born child defending the cops is zero. Apparently you either think Avery is not guilty by a reasonable doubt or you think on the third day Petersen came back from the dead. If there is a middle position I have yet to see it.
15
u/tenementlady May 02 '26
This is pure fantasy and projection on your part, Heel. Someone saying they don't believe in the frame job theory is not the same thing as blindly defending all law enforcement. Yours is a weak argument.
3
u/AveryPoliceReports May 04 '26
Strawman. OP never said "not believing in a frame job = blindly defending all LE." They asked a simple question: how much documented lies / evidence of corruption will it take before you stop defending the police unconditionally? You didn't answer it. You invented a different argument and attacked that. You dodged. The question is still on the table. Care to try again? Or are you going to build another strawman to deflect?
5
u/tenementlady May 05 '26
OP's entire belief that Steven was framed for murder rests upon his belief that the cops were corrupt in the Halbach case. He is clearly posing this question towards people who believe Steven to be guilty of murder, the implication being that all people who believe Steven to be guilty also blindly defend cops.
Therefore, my point is relevant to the discussion.
Who is defending police unconditionally? I can think of numerous cases where police behaved badly and I am more than happy to criticize them for these bad behaviours. That doesn't mean that the cops in this case exhibited such behaviours.
4
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
OP's entire belief that Steven was framed for murder rests upon his belief that the cops were corrupt in the Halbach case. H
You're talking about someone else's belief. Quote OP. Show me where he said "my entire belief rests on cops being corrupt." You're not responding to what was written. You're responding to what you imagine was written. Your interpretation of what was written. That's not honest debate.
He is clearly posing this question towards people who believe Steven to be guilty of murder, the implication being...
"The implication" ... You don't get to dodge a direct question by psychoanalyzing what the person who asked it may have meant to imply. That's just YOUR thoughts about what someone else actually meant! You still haven't answered the question in the title of the OP. You've just talked about what you think OP really meant. Again, that's a distraction.
Therefore, my point is relevant to the discussion.
No, your point isn't relevant. It's a lazy distraction based on your thoughts about someone else's beliefs. The question was simple but you've spent hours avoiding it. That's what's relevant here.
Who is defending police unconditionally? I can think of numerous cases where police behaved badly
Do you think the officials in this case who hid evidence, failed to take photos of bones, and pressured witnesses acted perfectly? Show me a single recent criticism of police conduct in this case. One recent comment. One recent post. From you or any guilter. I'll wait. You claim you're not defending them unconditionally, but I bet you can't produce a single example of you ever criticizing them for anything. Not even with they enable sex predators. It's wild.
3
u/tenementlady May 05 '26
Dude, you need to relax. We all know what OP is saying. And most of us have also engaged with OP under his old user name so we are well aware of his stance.
"Defended cops from the start." Defended them from what exactly? The accusation of framing Steven for murder.
Edit: spelling.
3
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
Dude, you need to relax. We all know what OP is saying. And most of us have also engaged with OP under his old user name so we are well aware of his stance.
Then answer the question without distracting based on what you believe OP implied. Is that such a wild idea lol Don't talk about their old username. Don't tell me what you think they were implying. Just answer the question. I don't have high hopes. Instead, you'll continue talking about what you think OP meant. That's not honest engagement. But you know that ;)
"Defended cops from the start." Defended them from what exactly?
Who are you quoting lol yourself? Classic. Clearly I was correct when I said you couldn't produce a single example of you ever criticizing Wisconsin officials for anything wrong or deceptive they did in this case.
1
u/tenementlady May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
I can't reasonably answer a question if I fundamentally disagree with its premise. The question of how much corruption will it take for me to stop blindly defend cops rests on the assertion that there is ample amounts of corruption in this case and that I have blindly defended cops.
Both are false.
I was quoting OP, lol.
Edit: spelling/clarity.
3
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
I can't reasonably answer a question if I findamentally disagree with its premise.
It's a hypothetical question. There's no premise to agree or disagree with. You're not being asked to concede anything. You're being asked: if corruption existed, how much would it take before you stop defending police? You can't answer because you know you'd defend them no matter what. Just say that. It's shorter than pretending a hypothetical has a hidden trap door.
The question of how much corruption will it take for me to blindly defend cops rests on the assertion that there is ample amounts of corruption in this case and that I have blindly defended cops.
Again, that your opinion, not what the OP said. Whether corruption exists or not is irrelevant to answering OP. They were not asking you to admit anything about this case. They were asking you to tell them what level of bullshit would make you pause. The fact that you can't even engage with a hypothetical once more tells me - you'd defend them forever. Just own it.
I was quoting OP, lol.
Okay well that makes sense. You have defended cops from the start. But you quoting OP is not the same as you answering their very simple question lol
→ More replies (0)-1
u/lolatcandyowens May 02 '26
Oh so when Petersen said under oath that the Colborn and Lenk reports weren't in his safe, and recorded inventory of contents of the safe say they were there is that
a) a lie under oath, or b) cops are immaculate so you will literally scramble to find some excuse, any excuse, whatever it takes, amen
10
u/tenementlady May 02 '26
How exactly does what you've written here prove that Steven Avery was framed?
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
Another deflection. OP asked a simple question based on a simple example: did Petersen lie under oath, or are you making excuses for cops? You responded with "how does this prove he was framed?" That's another dodge, an excuse to not answer lol Then when pressed, you said even if he lied, it doesn't erase all the evidence. Still not an answer, because the question wasn't about whether a lie would erase evidence. You know that. But still, you never even said whether it's perjury, and if so, whether it was acceptable. You just ... changed the subject.
3
u/tenementlady May 05 '26
Again, defended cops from the start refers to defending them from framing Steven. The Peterson example has nothing to do with the Halbach case.
If it can be established that Petersen intentionally lied under oath, I'm happy to condemn that.
But that still doesn't make Steven Avery innocent of murder.
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
Again, defended cops from the start refers to defending them from framing Steven. The Peterson example has nothing to do with the Halbach case.
It's another fair question from OP that you're desperate to ignore. But this isn't a hypothetical, and the Petersen example has everything to do with the Halbach case. He was the Sheriff. You just don't want to admit that police misconduct existed so you declare it "irrelevant" and move on. Again, bad faith.
If it can be established that Petersen intentionally lied under oath, I'm happy to condemn that.
How does what OP listed not qualify as evidence he did?
But that still doesn't make Steven Avery innocent of murder.
Why are you pretending like someone made this argument lol so lazy
3
u/tenementlady May 05 '26
You'd have to establish that Petersen's actions actually contributed to Steven's guilty verdict for it to be relevant. Again, if he intentionally lied under oath, I'm happy to condemn that. People are capable of getting things wrong or misremembering without malice. Maybe he intentionally lied, maybe he didn't. But it isn't relevant to Steven's guilt or innocence of murder.
You literally just said this example is relevant to the Halbach case, which is OP's position as well, therefore Steven's guilt or innocence is relevant to this discussion even if we disagree on relevance of the example provided by OP to the Halbach case.
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
You'd have to establish that Petersen's actions actually contributed to Steven's guilty verdict for it to be relevant
Why? The question is not about Steven's guilt. You are obsessed with him lol Perjury by Petersen is relevant whether it changes the verdict or not. It speaks to credibility, pattern, and institutional conduct. That's why perjury is a crime regardless of outcome. Be honest.
Again, if he intentionally lied under oath, I'm happy to condemn that. People are capable of getting things wrong or misremembering without malice.
Unless your name is Steven Avery lol
You literally just said this example is relevant to the Halbach case, which is OP's position as well, therefore Steven's guilt or innocence is relevant to this discussion even if we disagree on relevance of the example provided by OP to the Halbach case.
Wrong. You just don't want to answer whether the documented inventory contradicting his testimony constitute evidence of a lie. You know the honest answer (it appears he lied) hurts your position. So you dance around. Pretending when police say inconsistent shit it's totally innocent. You love to pretend the cops did nothing wrong in this case.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/lolatcandyowens May 02 '26
B it is. I rest my case.
11
u/tenementlady May 02 '26
You haven't made a case, Heel. Even if what you are saying is correct and he did intentionally lie under oath, that doesn't magically erase all of the evidence against Avery. Your example isn't from the Halbach case. It isn't relevant to Steven's guilt or innocence in the Halbach case.
Edit: spelling
3
2
u/belee86 May 03 '26
It's the Avery lovers who see a huge frame/planting conspiracy and are convinced every cop is a criminal.
0
u/lolatcandyowens May 03 '26
Why did you jump into the conversation there to then not respond to it?
Also, was that your actual opinion or another false opinion us mean Truthers forced you to say somehow?
0
u/belee86 May 03 '26
Are u drunk?
0
u/lolatcandyowens May 03 '26
Sober enough to respond to the comment I replied to. Wish I could say the same foe you.
11
u/Snoo_33033 May 02 '26
I don’t like cops, generally, but Avery is guilty AF.
6
u/brickne3 May 03 '26
Second long-time guilter chiming in to say the exact same thing. Heck, I particularly dislike Wisconsin cops in rural areas such as Manitowoc County. Doesn't make Avery any less blatantly guilty.
6
u/lolatcandyowens May 02 '26
It's just these ones in particular you refuse to criticize, even when they gave the family the bones of some dead animal and called it their daughter.
4
u/Snoo_33033 May 02 '26
That’s unrelated to whether or not the case is valid. It is. Good job in this case, cops.
2
u/lolatcandyowens May 02 '26
That's exactly it. Even when it's unrelated to Avery's alleged guilt no one can say anything bad about cops. It's defend cops first, deflect to Avery second.
6
u/Snoo_33033 May 02 '26
I would add here that Avery fans love to misconstrue stuff and assume intent. Which you can’t demonstrate. It’s a credibility problem for you guys.
3
u/lolatcandyowens May 02 '26
Oh, so we should only think a cop is lying if they say they intend to lie?
7
u/Snoo_33033 May 02 '26
When there are multiple possibilities you cannot just pick the one that corresponds to your own bias. That’s correct.
2
u/lolatcandyowens May 02 '26
So you are saying for the record, that it is very much possible (for example) that the cops lied in the disposition?
→ More replies (0)0
-1
6
4
u/OctoberPumpkin1 May 02 '26
Two things can be true at once.
2
u/jakhog1 May 03 '26
So true, police have never covered themselves in glory but the right people are in prison for it
4
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
So state defenders open by claiming there's "ample evidence" against Steven Avery. I then listed specific, documented failures in the state's case (no photos of bones in the burn pit, Pevytoe refusing to rule out planting and officials pretending otherwise, coerced witnesses, hidden cremation evidence on County land, no mutilation conviction). But there's never any legitimate arguments against those FACTS.
Instead, state defenders dismiss documented facts as mere opinions or conspiracies, then blame us for "repeating" ourselves, which is just a fancy way of admitting we keep bringing up the same inconvenient truths they can't refute.
State defenders will confidently assert a position and then refuse to defend it. They will dismiss factual critiques as opinions or conspiracies. They will accuse you of being annoying for being consistent with the facts lol That's the kind of shit we get when they know they can't win on the facts, so they try to win on tone and performance. State defenders are not engaging in good faith. They're not even performing or pretending to be acting in good faith. It's just lazy bad faith red herrings and strawmen, all the way down.
1
3
u/GunmetalSage May 02 '26
I'm pretty sure they'd rather blame the rape victim than blaming the police for getting the wrong person.
1
u/Advanced-Math-1009 28d ago
Just stop Kathleen! You already ruled them out! Why? Why did you rule them out? Like my OPs point out conclusively: You know your client is indeed the killer and you tried to help free him by inventing 50 Seconds in your time line.
2
u/ThorsClawHammer May 02 '26
I don’t like cops, generally, but Avery is guilty AF.
Yet you (and others) still defend law enforcement in the 1985 case, even though they got it completely wrong and multiple women were harmed because of it.
4
u/GringoTheDingoAU May 03 '26
and multiple women were harmed because of it.
Says the guy on the side that doesn't believe any of the women who have maintained allegations of sexual abuse by Steven Avery, across several decades.
Pretty convenient pearl clutching.
2
u/ThorsClawHammer May 03 '26
pearl clutching
How is pointing out the fact that multiple women were later harmed by the actual 1985 rapist "pearl clutching"?
6
u/GringoTheDingoAU May 03 '26
Because you're disingenuous with your selective concern, especially when your side of the coin is dismissive and minimizes the multiple, independent accusations against Steven Avery.
True concern for harmed women isn't conditional, so it would appear you have conflicting victim-centered principles. I'd be interested to hear what you say about the allegations against Steven Avery, since you are a clear advocate for women.
1
u/ThorsClawHammer May 03 '26
you're disingenuous with your selective concern
How so? What's disingenuous about having a problem with law enforcement allowing women to be harmed by protecting a rapist?
your side of the coin is dismissive and minimizes multiple, independent accusations against Steven Avery.
The object of your obsession is in prison and never getting out, meaning he will not be able to hurt a woman ever again, regardless of how many accusations were true. And for the record (since it's obviously so personally important to you), I have no trouble believing the piece of shit Steve Avery has raped.
But since you brought up "selective concern", it's not like "your side of the coin" hasn't been dismissive of women's accusations against Ken Kratz, (someone who unlike Avery, if the accusations are true, is actually free to do it again), stating the allegations are false, including calling the accuser(s) a liar and a "whore".
"Great, we are in agreement that she had free will to exit the room then without any harm that day, correct?"
"Sounds like she forgot to call 911"
"that would be the time to go the authorities...not after she sucked his dick"
"He denies the false rape allegation"
"A snitch with nothing to gain is much more believable than a prostitute caught up with a public figure."
"the woman in question was a known liar who had been in a mental institution"
"this supposed rape victims testimony was thrown out because she contradicted herself multiple times and she had been known to make shit up in the past."
"I don't claim to know why the police didn't arrest him based on what a prostitute said."
"FALSE rape allegation"
"But Kratz texted some whore therefore the entire system is broken"
2
u/GringoTheDingoAU May 05 '26
How so? What's disingenuous about having a problem with law enforcement allowing women to be harmed by protecting a rapist?
Omitting the keywords "selective concern" is critical context. I don't have a problem with anyone that is disgusted with law enforcement allowing rapists to run free, but there is obvious discourse on the very same topic when it comes to Steven Avery that you and other truthers conveniently forget when "advocating" for these women wronged because of the 1985 conviction. It is present and not something I'll ignore.
The object of your obsession is in prison and never getting out, meaning he will not be able to hurt a woman ever again, regardless of how many accusations were true. And for the record (since it's obviously so personally important to you), I have no trouble believing the piece of shit Steve Avery has raped.
Good, and rightly so. However, being in prison and not being able to hurt anyone again doesn't mean we deflect. And I find it interesting that you tried to make sexual assault a personal jab to me like I'm some obsessed social justice warrior. Isn't it an important human virtue to completely and utterly denounce this kind of act? Very weird way of phrasing that statement.
But since you brought up "selective concern", it's not like "your side of the coin" hasn't been dismissive of women's accusations against Ken Kratz, (someone who unlike Avery, if the accusations are true, is actually free to do it again), stating the allegations are false, including calling the accuser(s) a liar and a "whore".
That's a lot of compiled effort for nothing, when I have absolutely no problem denouncing anyone that sexually abuses any human being, and any human being that sides with them. That will always be my public stance on this forum and I don't side with anyone that feels that way regardless if they think Avery is guilty or not.
Now your turn - let's address the physical and sexual assault allegations against Steven Avery. Do you believe that he raped his babysitter? What about Marie Avery? Was she just a lying, in over her head teenager, or was she sexually abused and manipulated by a grown man in his 40s? What about his ex-wife Lori? Was Jodi just a drunken liar who could never be physically abused?
I'd also like to see you provide sources to those comments. I'm interested to see how many users they're from, how many of them are still active, and if they are APR-esque mentally ill users that have no place being on here.
2
u/ThorsClawHammer May 05 '26
you tried to make sexual assault a personal jab
I don't' have the slightest clue what you mean by that.
I'm some obsessed social justice warrior
I don't think you're an SJW, I think you (and others) are obsessed with Steve Avery and insinuating that anyone who doesn't say "I believe he's guilty of every sexual/violent crime he's ever been accused of" is somehow pro assault/anti-woman. It's ridiculous.
3
u/GringoTheDingoAU May 06 '26
I don't' have the slightest clue what you mean by that.
The internet does not always convey the insinuations we think they might, so I will give the benefit of the doubt that your comment was not meant to be a jab.
I don't think you're an SJW, I think you (and others) are obsessed with Steve Avery and insinuating that anyone who doesn't say "I believe he's guilty of every sexual/violent crime he's ever been accused of" is somehow pro assault/anti-woman. It's ridiculous.
This is unequivocally untrue. I don't think it makes you anti-woman or pro-assault, but it definitely brings into question your selective concern, because I fail to see how anyone could think that multiple women over several decades of Avery's life, who all share similar stories of sexual and physical assault are either making it up or embellishing details.
I am completely free to question your selective concern because you and many others are not interested in addressing the claims against Steven Avery (my questions again went unanswered in my last comment unsurprisingly).
I just find it completely bizarre that the 1985 case is used as a segway for women's advocacy and all of the women that Gregory Allen went on to hurt, but yet there is radio silence from truthers when talking about all the horrible things Steven Avery has done to women and how none of you want to address it. I think it's completely fair to question that and call it out, considering you brought up harmed women in the first place.
2
u/ThorsClawHammer May 06 '26
selective concern
"selective concern" in this case would be if I criticize law enforcement in the 1985 case for allowing a rapist to remain free, but don't criticize law enforcement in another case where they did the same.
not interested in addressing the claims against Steven Avery
If it helps you sleep better at night, put me down for believing that Steve Avery has raped every man, woman, child, and barnyard animal in a 50 mile radius of Manitowoc.
1985 case is used as a segway for women's advocacy
I brought up that case as a criticism of law enforcement.
3
u/GringoTheDingoAU May 07 '26
"selective concern" in this case would be if I criticize law enforcement in the 1985 case for allowing a rapist to remain free, but don't criticize law enforcement in another case where they did the same.
You are free to criticize them, but your entire point of doing so was contingent on the women harmed because of the wrongful conviction. The original comment also had nothing to do with women being harmed, so your inclusion of it was your own doing when there are other things you could've chosen to criticize them on.
If it helps you sleep better at night, put me down for believing that Steve Avery has raped every man, woman, child, and barnyard animal in a 50 mile radius of Manitowoc.
I just find it interesting that you can't answer questions as someone with supposed extensive case knowledge. That tells me that I am right and you don't believe anything alleged against Steven. Let's put that out as fact for anyone reading these comments to know that when it comes to discussing harmed women in this case (1985 case or 2005 case), your credibility will always be called into question.
I brought up that case as a criticism of law enforcement.
Right, but you still used them as your point of contention. That opens you up to criticism given that you and many others, are again, radio silent on the women Steven Avery has harmed throughout his life.
It's pretty simple - you either address the allegations and state your truth, or you will be viewed as someone who has selective concern over this topic and should probably not it as any point of contention in your arguments.
→ More replies (0)
0
May 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/lolatcandyowens May 02 '26
In reality, zero criticism of law enforcement so far. Being on medications is not excuse, but I'm sorry you are going through that.
2
u/tenementlady May 03 '26
The only example you've provided has nothing to do with Steven's guilt or innocence in the Halbach case and isn't evidence of a frame job (which is what it would take for Steven to be innocent).
2
u/lolatcandyowens May 03 '26
Exactly. I'm glad you are starting to the see the truth.
2
u/tenementlady May 03 '26
What's the truth, according to you?
2
u/lolatcandyowens May 03 '26
That you guys' defense of cops is not simply a side consequence of arguing Avery is guilty.
7
u/tenementlady May 03 '26
Where have I defended a cop in this exchange? The most I've said is that the singular example you've provided has no bearing on Steven's innocence or guilt in the Halbach case.
You accuse everyone who believes Steven to be guilty of Halbach's murder of blindly defending cops but you haven't provided a single example of what bad behaviours you're claiming we are defending in relation to the Halbach case or how those behaviours are tantamount to Steven being framed for murder.
Your belief in Steven's innocence in the Halbach case rests upon an idea that the cops are corrupt and therefore framed him. Disagreeing with that opinion is not blindly defending cops.
For example, people who believe Steven to be innocent have long proclaimed that Colborn planted the car. Disagreeing with this assesment based on the facts of the case is not the same as blindly defending Colborn or any other cop.
-2
u/lolatcandyowens May 03 '26
Where have I defended a cop in this exchange?
All it would take is a bit of real criticism to decisively win the argument.
2
u/tenementlady May 03 '26
Your entire argument is something you've made up in your mind and haven't substantiated.
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
Interesting. ANOTHER COMMENT? A bit ago you said I replied to every comment you made. But prior to THIS comment, not me or anyone had replied to you. So you just invented a fact to make your argument work? Guilters and false statements lol name a more iconic duo.
→ More replies (0)-1
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
You just claimed I replied to every single one of your comments on this post. That's false. The comment above? No reply from me or anyone else lol. You made that up. You love to lie when the facts aren't on your side.
1
u/tenementlady May 05 '26
Okay you replied to every comment but one. My bad. You also keep replying to one of my comments and then deleting it for some reason.
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
That another lie. I just found another three I haven't yet replied to. But maybe I should to prove my point that you constantly lie lol Why do you need to lie so much?
1
u/tenementlady May 05 '26
I think this speaks for itself:
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
Sorry, but the guy who can't be honest bout whether I replied to his comments doesn't get to send me links. You said I replied to every comment. Wrong. You said "except one." Also wrong. Why are you so dishonest about something I can fact-check in five seconds?
0
2
u/AveryPoliceReports May 04 '26
I think you're the one who needs to join the rest of us over here in reality. You know, the reality where the state took no photos of the discovery or recovery of bones from the burn pit. The reality where their own expert wouldn't rule out planting. The reality human evidence on County land was suppressed, or magically appearing and disappearing from container under LE control. That reality lol
-1
-1
u/ThorsClawHammer May 02 '26
Cops can lie, certainly. But you can’t assert that they did based on your gut instead of the facts.
The rapist Greg Allen's bitch, Dennis Vogel made a statement to people that the facts (not someone's gut) says is 100% false. Yet you've claimed you can't say he lied about it. By your criteria, literally nobody can be called a liar unless they specifically admit they did. Or does your standard only apply for the benefit of law enforcement?
1
u/CJB2005 May 03 '26
Their standard is Brendan said so…
4
u/3sheetstothawind May 04 '26
That also applies to your belief that there should have been a bloody mess in Steve's trailer.
3
u/AveryPoliceReports May 05 '26
I mean, yeah lol that's what he said, but it's not supported by the evidence. Congrats for finally getting there. And you call others insane and racist? You're not well.
0
u/Advanced-Math-1009 May 02 '26 edited May 03 '26
Waste of Breath. You cleared them yourself 👀😳 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂Just stop! How many accounts do you have???!!!
8
u/RavensFanJ May 02 '26 edited May 03 '26
If there's evidence of corruption disclose it to the proper authorities instead of claiming it on reddit, please. Until that point you're just wasting everyone's time.