As someone who has never shot a person before, I fully expect that if I ever have to, I would probably shield the blood from splattering all over my ride-on lawn mower (like the paint can I mentioned earlier). Apparently cocksuckerbreath thinks that this is Dexter level foresight. I think it's common goddamn sense. And the 'reddish black' shit Dassey told his mum he helped clean from the garage floor might be the kind of thing you might get from that kind of mess; no splatter, just a general, localized mess. damning? nope. But something to consider
Was going to answer civilly, but you're still calling people cocksukerbreath, and I still honestly think the best thing that could have happened in your life was your mother aborting you.
But hey, let's give it a shot:
One of the issues people have with your logic is that you basically rely on two completely different profiles of Avery to explain things. As discussed, How can he seem an inbred retarded hillbilly about some evidence, then a master at understanding and cleaning forensic evidence at other points. And here, you've stated/implied his motive/profile was just that he was an impulsive psycho acting out on base impulses, but also calculating and planning things like how to stop blood spatter that you claim is common sense, but does Avery really strike you as someone who is calm and calculating and has a lot of foresight or common sense. Someone whose only real motive to rape and kill a girl was blind, irrational lust, but he's going to take the time to prepare and then clean for blood spatter and DNA evidence, and then going to bungle all the other evidence.
He's either an impulsive psychopath acting out without much calculating, at which point a lot of the evidence doesn't make any sense. Or he's a calculated intelligent sociopath planning his crime, at which point a lot of the evidence doesn't make any sense.
if you think taking everything at face value from a documentary is somehow unbiased or pure, I have news for you.
You're still hanging your hat on the vague claim that all documentaries are inherently bias. Yeah, great philosophizing there, Socrates. Everything in life is presented and perceived with bias. When you actually have some hard or credible evidence the documentary left out, you might have a point. When you actually even have a plausible story why these women would be so unbiased you couldn't take a film about failures in the justice system seriously despite it repeatedly depicting failures in the justice system, then please inform us so we can all cry foul.
You know, like if the filmmakers were relatives of Avery and bullying/pressuring people into saying certain things in the documentary, akin to how [allegedly] the jury worked, then you'd have a point.
But instead, you have shit-all fact and logic to stand on. You thought you were being cool and provocative by arguing and trolling. You thought you had a few friends on your side and when even they abandon you have repeatedly thrown a fit. So, all you have left is insulting everyone, claiming documentaries are bias, and sticking to theories so ignorant they make you look very unintelligent.
No reasonable person could watch what we were shown in those 10 hours and come to the a guilty verdict. I don't think any of you would disagree with that. So the obvious question is, was the jury shown anything we weren't? If you didn't ask yourself that, you're not being critical enough.
No, you worthless cunt slough, the obvious question is when so much reasonable doubt is presented, how and why did a jury ignore jury instructions and find Avery guilty anyhow? And with so much of the reasonable doubt coming from suspicious or mishandled direct evidence, how did law enforcement and the local justice system be allowed or feel empowered enough to present it when they were proven to have incorrectly prosecuted the very same man previously.
Only you, a bunch of dumb twats on afternoon talk shows, and Ken Kratz think the point of the documentary and "obvious" questions should delve into presuming he's guilty and wondering what we don't know that proves he is. It's not critical to wonder what other evidence the jury was show, it's the exact sort of terrifying, ignorant bias and corruption the documentary was trying to expose.
