I no longer have any doubts as to whether SA and BD are guilty, because they’re not. And if I can’t make this call, after my years of involvement in the field of criminal law—well, I’m just a gutless wonder.

Steven Avery does not read like a liar, and he was never a habitual criminal. The few things he ever did were blown all out of proportion.

With Brendan Dassey, the research has been laid out—false confessions should be well understood by those reading about this case now. Still, there are people trying to reintroduce doubt, talking about all the things Brendan did say. Basically, you just have to walk away. This argument will never be over. Bottom line is, false confessions are real, and this case illustrates to all those willing to learn, what produces them and how they can be recognized.

So for me, it’s become more about the accusers—I find guilters less credible every day. You can talk all day with these people, and they’re just talk in circles. And the actual case is going the same way. It’s like they’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I guess they’re going to go down with the ship.

You might think that if you were closer to direct participants, you’d know more about the true story. What would actually happen, though, would be that people would continue to lie to you. You’d find yourself chasing the same ghosts—just from a different perspective.

I’ve been distancing myself from guilters and their constant pitching. It’s like being at a convention for used car salesmen. I don’t know why I didn’t see it before—“ABC”—“Always Be Closing.” "No, I don’t want to buy land in Florida—still no—still no....” Good lord—what will it take?

I guess we've all had to evolve in our understanding of the case. Everything was so shocking at first, that this young woman’s life was snuffed out. It violated every kind of taboo, to feel any empathy for a stone-cold killer caught dead to rights.

Except none of it is true. You know how they like to say “how could all these things coincide?” or “how could all these people conspire?” Well, you can play that game with any set of facts. We should have a main opinion announcing a contest, to come up with the most ridiculous exaggerations of everyday things. “What are the odds—snow AND ice AND slush?"

We all saw that parade of county employees squirming under questioning. If you’re not familiar with what someone telling lies looks like—that is what it looks like.

One of the reasons for depositions, is to lock witnesses in to a particular statement of the facts. If they decide tomorrow to change their story, they can’t, because their original story is now part of the official record.

Then, in the unusual event where a witness gives perjured testimony, the deposition serves to show this. It’s like a paper trail for statements. “Yesterday you said this, but today you say that.” Most liars slip up, and evidence of their mistakes can be found by reviewing their testimony at different times.

So these are the basic concepts. Now here’s what happened—what I saw. During the depositions, the witnesses perjured themselves, one right after another. In fact, if anyone finds a way to let me see the full video of these depositions, I’ll give a play-by-play. (Seriously, I know we are spectators, not participants—but it gets frustrating.)

Judy Dvorak may be the best example. You remember when her statement from the Attorney General investigation was read back to her, and she refused to acknowledge it? That’s utterly ridiculous.

She did not—absolutely did NOT—want to tell the truth. The problem is, she had already told at least some of the truth to the Attorney General’s Office.

One point made in the MaM documentary, was that when the witnesses spoke to the Attorney General, they thought they were talking to their own people. Because they believed they were discussing events with insiders who were part of the coverup, they told some of the truth, which was then transcribed and made part of the record. This was the first step in the paper trail of lies.

Now, here’s what a liar does. First, a statement is made in which the truth slips out or gets out, somehow. Then, in the witness’s mind, this event disappears from view—the testimony shrinks down to a few typed-up pages, that are tucked away in a file.

In the eyes of the deceptive witness, the original testimony has all but disappeared, being buried in that file. Now, when the witness is called on to give further testimony, it is a different day, a different setting, and a new audience. The incompetent liar does not grasp the concept of the deposition process entirely. This witness thinks it’s more important to maximize concealment from a new audience, than to worry about what’s in that file. This witness will think—incredibly—that this new testimony is a completely fresh start.

Now you’ve got prior statements and a present statement—and they don’t match: you’ve flushed out your liar.

This is what Judy did. When they read back her prior statements to the Attorney General, she denied making those statements. If you’re not familiar with depositions, or if you’re not familiar with lying, her lie was in saying that she wouldn’t “use that language.”

Was she just being fussy? No—she was flat-out lying. Blaming the wording was just a pretext. There’s even a name for this: dissembling. “Dissembling" very specifically describes the manner in which she was lying.

This was more than just a lie—it was an elaborate, calculated lie, used to evade a legal mandate to give truthful testimony. Normally this would be bad, but for Judy, and for other law enforcement or expert witnesses, this is extremely bad, because they are all “officers of the court.” Their duty to the Court comes before any departmental loyalties. There is no excuse—none—ever—to withhold or alter the truth.

If anyone remembers way back in January, I came charging out of the blocks, with deep frustration over this very point, and perhaps now, you can see why. I knew everyone was lying, but I wasn’t certain how to explain it to those who didn’t have legal training or litigation experience. I think there was smoke coming out of my ears.

The lying wasn’t even a close call. There was no way to justify or excuse it. When an officer of the court denies their own documented prior testimony, it's a very blatant case of perjury.

There was little or no reaction to this perjury, in the depositions or in the trial scenes we watched. Personally, I find it very improper, that the illegality of it was overlooked. But, this is how these situations are sometimes dealt with. There’s a “wink and a nod” treatment, that I think diminishes and undermines the functioning of the court system.

By the way, the best argument for banning guilters from TTM, may be that we need a place where we can hear ourselves think, to think things through, like I’ve just done, regarding perjured testimony. It took a while to see it. I might have never seen it, if I’d been fending off trolls 24-7.

I tire of guilters’ constant arm-twisting, and I wonder why they’re doing it. The Manitowoc Sheriff’s Department acknowledges monitoring MaM boards. Are some of them going further than just monitoring? SAIG includes members who are clearly law enforcement, so it’s a valid question—but no one can get a straight answer. I don’t like dealing with people who have hidden agendas.

In conclusion, why do I think Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are innocent? Because the people accusing them are dishonest and not credible. That’s enough for me. Put away all your charts and graphs—we’re done.