What do you mean? They know that he called using *67 to block his number, and then called her around 4:30 without using that feature.

This, specifically, from the NYT piece:

I agree. Something about this story is definitely off. I’m certainly not saying that a young woman wasn’t brutally raped, but something about the way the story is being conveyed by the media and the Father doesn’t seem to make a ton of sense.

What the fuck does this reply even mean?

“It’s possible for a million people to look at the same thing and have a million different opinions and perspectives.”

Because it’s entirely possible that one can find a reasonable doubt while still saying, “I still think it’s likely this person committed the crime, or has knowledge of it.”

Huh? You don’t think one can believe someone should have been found not guilty, while believing the person is guilty?

“When the evidence used to find him firmly guilty is problematic it’s easy to go to “he’s innocent”

You’re kind of a dumb person.

You’re a dummy.

1. She had complained about him coming to the door in a towel on a previous occasion, and told co-workers she didn’t want to go back there.

You seem utterly confused as to what ‘evidence’ is. I’ll give you a hint: it’s not reserved for things that can be tested in a lab. Furthermore, the fact he intentionally blocked his number on the day she disappeared isn’t a ‘rumor’ or ‘speculation.’ It is a fact. And it is evidence. I feel as though you think you’re…

It’s clear you seem emotionally invested in the idea that Steve Avery is factually innocent, and not just ‘not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,’ but if you don’t find his calling of her from an intentionally blocked number on the day she disappeared, in which he acted creepily towards her before, and when he was the…

No, no, him being sleazy with an individual who came to his property, was never seen again (that we know of), and whose bones were found burned on the property is definitely both here and there.

Right, because anyone that believes Avery should have been found not guilty in a court of law, but is still likely guilty of the crime must be Ken Kratz.

I agree he should have been found ‘not guilty,’ which is why I specifically referred to the reasonable doubt. The doubt simply comes from the fact that Manitowac had their hands all over the investigation, calling into question a number of pieces of evidence.

Sure, anything taken alone wouldn’t mean that much, but when looking at the totality of the evidence, it’s still more likely he did it then didn’t do it. Doesn’t mean there isn’t reasonable doubt, but reasonable doubt is different than being factually innocent.

But it’s also much more likely that Dassey is innocent. Dassey being helped first might not help Avery, but still strikes me as more of a moral imperative. I’m surprised a high-power attorney hasn’t decided to help Dassey for the publicity alone.

She clearly disagrees with me, as have many others, and I’m responding to them. Her entire comment is an attempt to tell me how I’m interpreting evidence. It’s ridiculous.

Read my previous comment again, and if it still doesn’t sink in, continue to read it until it does.