Do your posts to me have to be so long?
Who said Steven was an angel? He clearly wasn't - those letters to his kids regarding his wife while he was in jail show that he could be extremely nasty.
Again we agree
And?
Is your logic that if he's done all the heinous things you're claiming this is proof that he killed Theresa? I am assuming not...so what is your point?
Nope - read what I actually say.
Jails the world over are full of nasty people who have broken the law ... few of them are murderers. Ergo, while all murderers are nasties, not all nasties are murderers.
Again you say what I have stated
Therefore there is no logical link between anything Steven may or may not have done in the past and this case. It says a lot to me that you are struggling to confine yourself to the evidence of this trial.
So you are saying that the concept of interviewing violent criminals in the past when violent crimes occur is not something we should do ? Isn't that kind of what Allen -- you know the guy who avery went to jail for - was being followed around for ? his past actions ? - do explain.
Again with the jeans? I don't care. I've said that already.
Luminol? Well, how very odd. The defence in Steven's trial repeatedly stated...uncontested....that not the tiniest drop of blood was found anywhere in the garage. If you're saying it was accepted that it was in Brendan's trial, then we have a contradiction. A massive one. This should have you very suspicious not clutching at it, confirmation bias fashion, in order to support your pet theory!
Again you mention things that I don't even suggest I believe - Luminol finding something is in dassey trial transcript. Do you have the avery trial trasncript -- where do you see it said that there was no evidence of blood found in the garage ? No DNA that could be tested was what was noted in the dassey trial, possibly because of the cleaning. Again, not even saying that it's fact. but Not sure where you are getting your information, feel free to share it. The documentary doesn't make ANY mention of the luminol hits. right ?
If Theresa was so nervous of Steven and uncomfortable with regard to his towel hi-jinks, why was she so willing to head out there on her own after leaving a cheery message making an appointment? Different telephone number, different name is irrelevant - she would have recognised the address.
You know she left the message on Barb's machine right ? Why did she call Barb ? Maybe again, you should check the dassey trial transcript. I have.
Steven, and his brothers, do not seem to have been very nice people at all. Although I think you should be careful when you raise the "pulling a gun on someone and forcing them off the road" business. There was stuff in that woman's statement that she did not say.
I'll say a big so what ? are you giving him an excuse ? he should just be "careful" ? geez 
seriously. In your mind this was in some way somewhat ok ? puzzling.
In any event, devil or angel, Steve was royally stitched up for the rape. No one...absolutely no one...deserves that.
Again -- no argument and I have said that. Who has not agreed with that by the way ? why even state the obvious ?
And he should never have been convicted of Theresa's murder...how unpleasant a character you think he is is irrelevant to that. The police planted evidence. This makes his conviction unsound - whether he was factually guilty or not (which none of us knows).
We agree again. Regardless of planted evidence, they didn't even investigate guys who had means -- of course based on what you were feeding me up above - where was the logical link ? ya know ? Chuckie and Earl were convicted of sexual assault etc . Chuckie was hounding women he towed to the lot and scaring them, showing up at their houses. But.... based on what you said above, we shouldn't even take that into account when theorizing who might be involved. :/
I think, on balance, he's probably innocent. But I think the killer is someone close to him who moved the bones to his burn pit to deflect suspicion from themselves. The police were completely convinced of his guilt but knew the forensic evidence they had was not enough, so they planted some. They figured they were doing the community a favour. But the fact is, they didn't know he was guilty anymore than you do...they just assumed. And that is shocking.
I don't know. I just know that I don't have the full story yet because of a poor investigation. I think that there is no doubt in my mind, based on what I know so far that I would vote not guilty. However, I wouldn't be able to say I believed he was innocent. there is a distinction there.
