This is what I was talking about earlier. You can still discuss the fact that Averymighthave actually done it. It's another layer to the story. Yes, I'm completely aware that the case is absurd... but why does the discussion have to stop there? If he did it, yet some evidence was planted, why can't we discuss evidence that doesn'tseemlike it was planted? Why can some of the conversations between some of the playersbeforethe investigators got involved that seem like pretty strange coincidences not be discussed? Afterall, if I think he did it, I better have a fucking reason why other than 'just because'. Whether Avery did it is insignificant?? No, it isn't. You clowns are the ones who just want to regurgitate what you watched and not add anything to the discussion. And worse yet, you seem to be totally cool with people who think he might've done it, just as long as they don't say why they might think that. Then you have dickholes like popsiclewhatshisface who refutes what I say with crazy 'the cops did it' lunacy, but when I call him on it, he says 'I was just hypothesizing in response to what you said. I don't actually believe that'. So apparently he's allowed to make hypotheses about it (ones he doesn't have the balls to defend) as long as it points to Avery being innocent. You guys aren't interested in actual discussion. And I seem to have whipped you up into a sweaty, frothy mess because of it