He doesn't have a point of view. He has a point of insult. You have a point of view, you're defending his trolling because he agrees with it.

You don't have to prove anything. It's called "reasonable doubt." Doubt is all it takes to require a not guilty vote. He can be guilty. Pretty much nobody is claiming to be certain he's innocent. But that's not the standard in our court system. Our courts are supposed to let guilty people go free in the name of…

Yep. Definitely trolling. Or you're really really stupid. No, moron. "violent tendencies" as isolated incidents from 25 years in the past do not count as evidence. You clearly don't know a god damn thing about the law. Just as a matter of judgement, if someone commits no violence in over 20 years, it's probably not an…

Him burning a cat, or scaring his cousin 20-25 years back is literally NOT RELEVANT. It's not relevant in court. It's not relevant to the murder. It barely even establishes him as violent, almost proves he's not violent because in the 18 years in prison he did absolutely nothing. How many times have we heard you have…

Are you actually this dumb, or are you just trolling? Because your name suggests you're trolling. I wasn't talking about the evidence in the case not presented in the doc, I'm talking about the DA's "9 points" he released a few days ago, that include utterly irrelevant information. You haven't made any argument, and I…

The prosecutor couldn't fit it in his rebuttal either that he's sent out. His best evidence of the murder includes utterly irrelevant information that has nothing to do with the murder. You are biased. 10 hours is longer than you've ever given anyone in study.

He ran his cousin off the road because she was spreading rumors about him. It was wrong, and he should have been punished for it, in fact, he was. But that is the ONLY instance in his entire life, and he didn't even hurt her. So to say he had a "history of violence against women" is biased nonsense. Even in 18 years…

The brother was creepy to me. Not from all the supposed manipulation the show did. From shot 1. From interview 1. Something about him was off. The fact that she had some stoner looking male roommate was off. Immediately. Only later the creepy stalker boyfriend was brought in.

Because morons repeat things doesn't mean they've actually made any kind of point. She is simply wrong in all counts.

What they said they don't do, is break the seal on evidence and leave an open vial sitting in a broken sealed box. You might be a nurse, but you're also a moron spreading misinformation. Nobody had any business drawing blood. THAT WAS THE POINT. Yes, we know that's where blood is drawn from. THAT WAS WHY IT WAS SO…

Yesish.

All of this reminds me of so many Forensic Files episodes that allow the viewer to follow the case the way it unfolded. How evidence can lead everyone down a certain path until you're left with a "well if it's not him, then who?" scenario. Then the show reveals the new evidence, an entirely different path, mountains…

There was no discussion. It was me stating a desire, and you being a dipshit contrarian arguing nothing but arguing it quite repeatedly! You have no point and no argument. All you keep reverting to is "But that's just an opinion!" I know, that's why I posted it.

So your point is you have no point, just to re-iterate what is on paper for no reason?

Putting the cart before the horse morons. The study doesn't show that sexist guys are bad at games, it shows that guys that are bad at games are more likely to say sexist things. The difference, you science bereft bastards, is that all the guys playing could theoretically be sexist, those that win just chose not to…