Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Law and Crime)   That Making a Murderer guy just found out that courts have a higher standard of evidence than Netflix and its audience of GED in law experts   (lawandcrime.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Appeal, Steven Avery, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, state court of appeals, Avery's case, Jury, Avery defense attorney Kathleen Zellner, Avery's claims  
•       •       •

3811 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jul 2021 at 8:48 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



75 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-07-29 8:56:41 PM  
Let me guess: Avery's defense attorney Kathleen Zellner is trying to milk the situation so that she can be in Making a Murderer Part 3.  Apparently, being in a Netflix show is profitable, but why I do not understand.
 
2021-07-29 8:56:53 PM  
So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?
 
2021-07-29 8:57:41 PM  

Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?


How's Uranus?
 
2021-07-29 8:59:38 PM  

MetaDeth: How's Uranus?


i.imgur.comView Full Size


Living with Neptune I imagine, why?
 
2021-07-29 9:00:30 PM  
I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me he did one murder and not the other either he's innocent of both or he's guilty of both you can't split the difference you farking idiots
 
2021-07-29 9:06:17 PM  

Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?


No. To say they cherry-picked what they showed would be an understatement. They started with an objective, and it was ratings.
 
2021-07-29 9:09:28 PM  

waxbeans: I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me he did one murder and not the other either he's innocent of both or he's guilty of both you can't split the difference you farking idiots


I can agree with that.

The first was an assault, rape, and attempted murder that was later found to be someone else. So, not a murder, and it wasn't even him that assaulted and raped the woman, but they did a good job framing him.
 
2021-07-29 9:15:55 PM  

Dodo David: ...Apparently, being in a Netflix show is profitable, but why I do not understand.


*Individual results may vary.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-29 9:22:34 PM  
I don't have Netflix but one of the murder channels(ID,OWN,Oxygen,Court TV, Vice) did a Doc. on this case and the dude looked 100% guilty to me.  It was a cable Doc. so grain of salt and all.
 
2021-07-29 9:22:58 PM  
This is not what "standard definition" looked like in the year 2005:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-29 9:27:49 PM  

mrmopar5287: waxbeans: I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me he did one murder and not the other either he's innocent of both or he's guilty of both you can't split the difference you farking idiots

I can agree with that.

The first was an assault, rape, and attempted murder that was later found to be someone else. So, not a murder, and it wasn't even him that assaulted and raped the woman, but they did a good job framing him.


🙄
I so love when people are wise asses in this manner.

I guess I have to rephrase because there's always a wise ass in the peanut gallery

Either this dude did both crimes or he didn't do either one
 
2021-07-29 9:32:21 PM  

MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?


Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.
 
2021-07-29 9:32:56 PM  

AgentKGB: MetaDeth: How's Uranus?

[i.imgur.com image 850x660]

Living with Neptune I imagine, why?


Why is her head shaped like an ice-cream cone?
 
2021-07-29 9:34:45 PM  

aagrajag: MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?

Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.


Women you're saying that everyone's pronouncing your anus incorrect

Uranus

I use voice to text.

I must have said it incorrectly the first time and correctly the second time but I couldn't tell you what I did differently could you help a little bit
 
2021-07-29 9:38:13 PM  

waxbeans: mrmopar5287: waxbeans: I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me he did one murder and not the other either he's innocent of both or he's guilty of both you can't split the difference you farking idiots

I can agree with that.

The first was an assault, rape, and attempted murder that was later found to be someone else. So, not a murder, and it wasn't even him that assaulted and raped the woman, but they did a good job framing him.

🙄
I so love when people are wise asses in this manner.

I guess I have to rephrase because there's always a wise ass in the peanut gallery

Either this dude did both crimes or he didn't do either one


Oh god here we go.

It's inconceivable that someone didn't assault a woman in 1985 but did murder someone else in 2005 because reasons?

The first case pretty much hinged on mistaken identity and police misconduct; this one has DNA evidence that wasn't available in 1985; the same evidence that exonerated him in 2003.

And this guy wasn't a nice person. In 1982 he poured gasoline on a cat and threw it in a bonfire. It's not beyond possibility that he killed a woman.
 
2021-07-29 9:39:45 PM  
aranəs
 
2021-07-29 9:41:51 PM  

FarkingSmurf: I don't have Netflix but one of the murder channels(ID,OWN,Oxygen,Court TV, Vice) did a Doc. on this case and the dude looked 100% guilty to me.  It was a cable Doc. so grain of salt and all.


They usually have the same problem as this Netflix crap: They decide what's going to give them the best ratings, and that's how they plan the show.
 
2021-07-29 9:42:31 PM  

Gyrfalcon: And this guy wasn't a nice person. In 1982 he poured gasoline on a cat and threw it in a bonfire. It's not beyond possibility that he killed a woman.


Then, he did both.

/
But.
If he didn't do the first.
You're saying this is all just coincidence?

You're saying that a homicidal guy coincidentally had some crime happen in his vicinity that he had absolutely nothing to do with?

Okay?
But I'll play along if this is in fact the oddest coincidence that in fact is correct and this guy is innocent of A but guilty of B then I think this proves that we do in fact jail innocent people regularly.
 
2021-07-29 9:43:38 PM  

aagrajag: MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?

Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-29 9:45:00 PM  

Kalyco Jack: aagrajag: MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?

Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.

[Fark user image image 425x372]


🤣
 
2021-07-29 9:45:10 PM  

waxbeans: Gyrfalcon: And this guy wasn't a nice person. In 1982 he poured gasoline on a cat and threw it in a bonfire. It's not beyond possibility that he killed a woman.

Then, he did both.

/
But.
If he didn't do the first.
You're saying this is all just coincidence?

You're saying that a homicidal guy coincidentally had some crime happen in his vicinity that he had absolutely nothing to do with?

Okay?
But I'll play along if this is in fact the oddest coincidence that in fact is correct and this guy is innocent of A but guilty of B then I think this proves that we do in fact jail innocent people regularly.


...that was never in dispute.
 
2021-07-29 9:46:41 PM  

aagrajag: Why is her head shaped like an ice-cream cone?


That was how Toei animation drew her.

i.imgur.comView Full Size


original
i.imgur.comView Full Size

remake by a Twitter artist.
 
2021-07-29 9:49:31 PM  

waxbeans: aagrajag: MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?

Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.

Women you're saying that everyone's pronouncing your anus incorrect

Uranus

I use voice to text.

I must have said it incorrectly the first time and correctly the second time but I couldn't tell you what I did differently could you help a little bit


I thought we changed the name to Urectum in order to quell that malarkey.
 
2021-07-29 9:52:02 PM  

Gyrfalcon: .

...that was never in dispute.


Most of my family is law enforcement, military, clergy, medical field.
I forget this fact and realize not everybody goes around saying ah na they're farking guilty. That's just my family. They assume all people on jail are guilty. And they all say they are guilty.
Meanwhile I've actually never met anyone who said they were innocent ever.
 
2021-07-29 9:52:37 PM  

Majin_Buu: waxbeans: aagrajag: MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?

Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.

Women you're saying that everyone's pronouncing your anus incorrect

Uranus

I use voice to text.

I must have said it incorrectly the first time and correctly the second time but I couldn't tell you what I did differently could you help a little bit

I thought we changed the name to Urectum in order to quell that malarkey.


😂😂😂
 
2021-07-29 9:56:14 PM  
I've always thought that Avery was guilty of killing the lady, but there are a couple of cops that should be in the cells next to him.
 
2021-07-29 9:58:00 PM  

Kalyco Jack: aagrajag: MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?

Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.

[Fark user image image 425x372]


And even if he speaks it correctly, they be all "LOL URINE US"!
 
2021-07-29 9:59:03 PM  

AgentKGB: aagrajag: Why is her head shaped like an ice-cream cone?

That was how Toei animation drew her.

[i.imgur.com image 850x660]

original
[i.imgur.com image 850x660]
remake by a Twitter artist.


Disturbing...

I get called a weeb a lot, but I never got the whole anime style.
 
2021-07-29 10:00:57 PM  

aagrajag: Disturbing...

I get called a weeb a lot, but I never got the whole anime style.


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2021-07-29 10:02:48 PM  

AgentKGB: aagrajag: Disturbing...

I get called a weeb a lot, but I never got the whole anime style.

[i.imgur.com image 660x1020]


 
2021-07-29 10:06:05 PM  

AgentKGB: aagrajag: Disturbing...

I get called a weeb a lot, but I never got the whole anime style.

[i.imgur.com image 660x1020]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-07-29 10:22:20 PM  
I wish I could figure out what 90s movie Brendan Dassey's story came from.
 
2021-07-29 10:41:00 PM  

inglixthemad: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

No. To say they cherry-picked what they showed would be an understatement. They started with an objective, and it was ratings.


The courts cherry-pick all the time when judges decide what jurors can hear and what they can't.

I don't know if the guy did it or not however there is no way state judges are going to overturn the verdict of a man the state already owns millions, no matter what new evidence is presented, alternatives presented or mistakes/illegal procedures committed by the police... It is just never going to happen. Why? Because the court can cherry-pick what they want when writing their opinions and remove any narrative which they don't think fit.
 
2021-07-29 10:58:09 PM  

Gyrfalcon: In 1982 he poured gasoline on a cat and threw it in a bonfire


he's a farking dead man. let him rot.
 
2021-07-29 11:05:23 PM  
I started watching then and immediately shut it off when I found out he was an animal abuser.

Didn't give two shiats about his guilt or innocence after that.
 
2021-07-29 11:13:36 PM  

isthisme: inglixthemad: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

No. To say they cherry-picked what they showed would be an understatement. They started with an objective, and it was ratings.

The courts cherry-pick all the time when judges decide what jurors can hear and what they can't.

I don't know if the guy did it or not however there is no way state judges are going to overturn the verdict of a man the state already owns millions, no matter what new evidence is presented, alternatives presented or mistakes/illegal procedures committed by the police... It is just never going to happen. Why? Because the court can cherry-pick what they want when writing their opinions and remove any narrative which they don't think fit.


This.
/
I'm sorry but if the state owes me a big chunk of change I'm not breaking any laws until after I get that money so I can leave the country and kill Hoover I want in a third world
 
2021-07-29 11:17:02 PM  
You know I really love how everyone completely disconnects from the reality of this situation.
Bear with me and hear me out whenever a coincidence happens the first thing a district attorney or prosecutor or random armchair prosecutor will say is there's no such thing as a coincidence you must absolutely positively be guilty.
Then the jury and the public are all slack mouth dopes shake their heads and agree.
And that's all fine and dandy.
But if a coincidence means you most definitely did it.
Then that has to work the other way you're not going to tell me that a government that owes a man lots of farking money got lucky and caught him for a crime when they initially convicted with him of some other shiat he didn't do.
I like yeah sure okay the guy you falsely convicted once and who you owe money just coincidentally decided to do some bad shiat.
No it doesn't work like that.
 
2021-07-29 11:19:51 PM  

Gyrfalcon: waxbeans: mrmopar5287: waxbeans: I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me he did one murder and not the other either he's innocent of both or he's guilty of both you can't split the difference you farking idiots

I can agree with that.

The first was an assault, rape, and attempted murder that was later found to be someone else. So, not a murder, and it wasn't even him that assaulted and raped the woman, but they did a good job framing him.

🙄
I so love when people are wise asses in this manner.

I guess I have to rephrase because there's always a wise ass in the peanut gallery

Either this dude did both crimes or he didn't do either one

Oh god here we go.

It's inconceivable that someone didn't assault a woman in 1985 but did murder someone else in 2005 because reasons?

The first case pretty much hinged on mistaken identity and police misconduct; this one has DNA evidence that wasn't available in 1985; the same evidence that exonerated him in 2003.

And this guy wasn't a nice person. In 1982 he poured gasoline on a cat and threw it in a bonfire. It's not beyond possibility that he killed a woman.


Having followed the case from day 1 (as it was reported in the media since I am local and following the actual court case):

Did he murder her? Yes
Did law enforcement pad the evidence? Possibly
Should he be in prison for life? Yes
Did his 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit make him even more likely to murder? Probably
 
2021-07-29 11:19:57 PM  
"Teresa Halbach is seen in front of her Toyota RAV 4"

Is Toyota funding LawAndCrime.com or something?
 
2021-07-29 11:24:28 PM  

catmandu: Gyrfalcon: waxbeans: mrmopar5287: waxbeans: I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me he did one murder and not the other either he's innocent of both or he's guilty of both you can't split the difference you farking idiots

I can agree with that.

The first was an assault, rape, and attempted murder that was later found to be someone else. So, not a murder, and it wasn't even him that assaulted and raped the woman, but they did a good job framing him.

🙄
I so love when people are wise asses in this manner.

I guess I have to rephrase because there's always a wise ass in the peanut gallery

Either this dude did both crimes or he didn't do either one

Oh god here we go.

It's inconceivable that someone didn't assault a woman in 1985 but did murder someone else in 2005 because reasons?

The first case pretty much hinged on mistaken identity and police misconduct; this one has DNA evidence that wasn't available in 1985; the same evidence that exonerated him in 2003.

And this guy wasn't a nice person. In 1982 he poured gasoline on a cat and threw it in a bonfire. It's not beyond possibility that he killed a woman.

Having followed the case from day 1 (as it was reported in the media since I am local and following the actual court case):

Did he murder her? Yes
Did law enforcement pad the evidence? Possibly
Should he be in prison for life? Yes
Did his 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit make him even more likely to murder? Probably


I was living in Wisconsin too when the trial was going on. I thought this was a slam dunk guilty verdict of a case as any other.
 
2021-07-29 11:28:52 PM  

catmandu: Gyrfalcon: waxbeans: mrmopar5287: waxbeans: I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me he did one murder and not the other either he's innocent of both or he's guilty of both you can't split the difference you farking idiots

I can agree with that.

The first was an assault, rape, and attempted murder that was later found to be someone else. So, not a murder, and it wasn't even him that assaulted and raped the woman, but they did a good job framing him.

🙄
I so love when people are wise asses in this manner.

I guess I have to rephrase because there's always a wise ass in the peanut gallery

Either this dude did both crimes or he didn't do either one

Oh god here we go.

It's inconceivable that someone didn't assault a woman in 1985 but did murder someone else in 2005 because reasons?

The first case pretty much hinged on mistaken identity and police misconduct; this one has DNA evidence that wasn't available in 1985; the same evidence that exonerated him in 2003.

And this guy wasn't a nice person. In 1982 he poured gasoline on a cat and threw it in a bonfire. It's not beyond possibility that he killed a woman.

Having followed the case from day 1 (as it was reported in the media since I am local and following the actual court case):

Did he murder her? Yes
Did law enforcement pad the evidence? Possibly
Should he be in prison for life? Yes
Did his 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit make him even more likely to murder? Probably


What?
Are you saying he was a worth money he didn't deserve?
Seriously.
Ain't no state government going to release you from jail and award you money or should I say lose a money judgment?
And that not mean something.


Again like I said either he did both crimes or he didn't do either one
 
2021-07-30 12:07:31 AM  

waxbeans: catmandu: Gyrfalcon: waxbeans: mrmopar5287: waxbeans: I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me he did one murder and not the other either he's innocent of both or he's guilty of both you can't split the difference you farking idiots

I can agree with that.

The first was an assault, rape, and attempted murder that was later found to be someone else. So, not a murder, and it wasn't even him that assaulted and raped the woman, but they did a good job framing him.

🙄
I so love when people are wise asses in this manner.

I guess I have to rephrase because there's always a wise ass in the peanut gallery

Either this dude did both crimes or he didn't do either one

Oh god here we go.

It's inconceivable that someone didn't assault a woman in 1985 but did murder someone else in 2005 because reasons?

The first case pretty much hinged on mistaken identity and police misconduct; this one has DNA evidence that wasn't available in 1985; the same evidence that exonerated him in 2003.

And this guy wasn't a nice person. In 1982 he poured gasoline on a cat and threw it in a bonfire. It's not beyond possibility that he killed a woman.

Having followed the case from day 1 (as it was reported in the media since I am local and following the actual court case):

Did he murder her? Yes
Did law enforcement pad the evidence? Possibly
Should he be in prison for life? Yes
Did his 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit make him even more likely to murder? Probably

What?
Are you saying he was a worth money he didn't deserve?
Seriously.
Ain't no state government going to release you from jail and award you money or should I say lose a money judgment?
And that not mean something.


Again like I said either he did both crimes or he didn't do either one


Even you have to realize that makes no sense at all.

He was wrongly accused of the first crime.

That has no bearing on whether he committed the murder.

I'm not sure why, except you're a troll, that you think not committing a rape means he couldn't have committed a murder.
 
2021-07-30 12:21:44 AM  

waxbeans: You know I really love how everyone completely disconnects from the reality of this situation.
Bear with me and hear me out whenever a coincidence happens the first thing a district attorney or prosecutor or random armchair prosecutor will say is there's no such thing as a coincidence you must absolutely positively be guilty.
Then the jury and the public are all slack mouth dopes shake their heads and agree.
And that's all fine and dandy.
But if a coincidence means you most definitely did it.
Then that has to work the other way you're not going to tell me that a government that owes a man lots of farking money got lucky and caught him for a crime when they initially convicted with him of some other shiat he didn't do.
I like yeah sure okay the guy you falsely convicted once and who you owe money just coincidentally decided to do some bad shiat.
No it doesn't work like that.


What's even more amazing is that somehow one of the officers involved in the original frame managed to be the guy to find crucial evidence just laying on the floor that other people missed for months and also the guy had been told to stay away from the case.
 
2021-07-30 12:51:28 AM  

aagrajag: MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?

Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.


You are also incorrect.
 
2021-07-30 12:54:45 AM  

isthisme: inglixthemad: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

No. To say they cherry-picked what they showed would be an understatement. They started with an objective, and it was ratings.

The courts cherry-pick all the time when judges decide what jurors can hear and what they can't.

I don't know if the guy did it or not however there is no way state judges are going to overturn the verdict of a man the state already owns millions, no matter what new evidence is presented, alternatives presented or mistakes/illegal procedures committed by the police... It is just never going to happen. Why? Because the court can cherry-pick what they want when writing their opinions and remove any narrative which they don't think fit.


Conversely the judges could follow the letter of the law, keeping him in jail. However because the ratings are "better" if the producer edits out nearly everything unpleasant to lay a foundation. Then amp up the "story" to juice the whole intarwebs crowd who don't bother to actually look at the whole thing, and you get ratings. I mean, it's like Dateline, but even less honest.
 
2021-07-30 1:19:42 AM  

Fano: waxbeans: You know I really love how everyone completely disconnects from the reality of this situation.
Bear with me and hear me out whenever a coincidence happens the first thing a district attorney or prosecutor or random armchair prosecutor will say is there's no such thing as a coincidence you must absolutely positively be guilty.
Then the jury and the public are all slack mouth dopes shake their heads and agree.
And that's all fine and dandy.
But if a coincidence means you most definitely did it.
Then that has to work the other way you're not going to tell me that a government that owes a man lots of farking money got lucky and caught him for a crime when they initially convicted with him of some other shiat he didn't do.
I like yeah sure okay the guy you falsely convicted once and who you owe money just coincidentally decided to do some bad shiat.
No it doesn't work like that.

What's even more amazing is that somehow one of the officers involved in the original frame managed to be the guy to find crucial evidence just laying on the floor that other people missed for months and also the guy had been told to stay away from the case.


I do believe that same guy was also personally named in a lawsuit....so he had motive to plant evidence.

Avery may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but the dude had money coming to him. The state and local police had every reason to frame him....he had everything to lose by committing murder.

Makes no sense to me that he's guilty...

But then again, trump got elected...so....who knows...
 
2021-07-30 1:24:40 AM  

KB202: aagrajag: MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?

Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.

You are also incorrect.


That's funny; all my dictionaries read otherwise.
 
2021-07-30 1:53:30 AM  

aagrajag: KB202: aagrajag: MetaDeth: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

How's Uranus?

Yeah, I'm just going to be that asshole and note that "Uranus" is pronounced with the stress on the first syllable, so the whole "your anus" thing doesn't track.

Yes, I am very fun at parties.

You are also incorrect.

That's funny; all my dictionaries read otherwise.


Technically it's 'Ουρανός, the primordial sky god; chosen by Γαΐα to be her consort because he was big enough to lay across her and cover her completely. >giggity< Not sure why they ever named the planet that since the other planets are named after Roman gods and the Roman sky god was Caelus.
 
2021-07-30 5:48:08 AM  

waxbeans: isthisme: inglixthemad: Alwysadydrmr: So I didn't miss anything by not watching it?

No. To say they cherry-picked what they showed would be an understatement. They started with an objective, and it was ratings.

The courts cherry-pick all the time when judges decide what jurors can hear and what they can't.

I don't know if the guy did it or not however there is no way state judges are going to overturn the verdict of a man the state already owns millions, no matter what new evidence is presented, alternatives presented or mistakes/illegal procedures committed by the police... It is just never going to happen. Why? Because the court can cherry-pick what they want when writing their opinions and remove any narrative which they don't think fit.

This.
/
I'm sorry but if the state owes me a big chunk of change I'm not breaking any laws until after I get that money so I can leave the country and kill Hoover I want in a third world


Leave the vacuum cleaners alone, what did they do to you?!
 
2021-07-30 8:59:50 AM  
People don't legitimately think he is innocent do they?
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.