Jailhouse snitch claims avery confessed

[proudfootz]

The problem this would present for me is that the Dassey statements (a mare's nest of contradictions all by themselves!), both prosecution theories, and now this alleged jailhouse confession (hearsay at best IMO) are in contradiction to the physical evidence and none of them make any sense. It couldn't have happened umpteen different ways.

Just throwing anything and everything against the wall hoping something will stick stinks of desperation. If Steven's accusers constantly have to reconsider and reinvent what they think might have happened because they doubt their own theories there's no good reason for me to think the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

No one knows how Teresa was killed, when or where this happened. So would-be snitches are free to claim anything that pops into their heads and get an audience. Only the killer would know her hair was cut? There's zero evidence her hair was cut. Only the killer would know manacles were used to restrain Teresa... no, ropes were used... no, socks were used now? The fact is, there is no evidence Teresa was ever restrained at all. She could have been killed while standing toward the rear of her vehicle as indicated by the blood splatter evidence.


All my own opinion, as usual.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

As for the jailhouse snitch, I agree with OceanBlueEyes. IF there's another trial for Avery, this guy could be called to the stand and questioned by both sides and it would then be up to a jury to decide if they believe his testimony or not. If Avery's conviction doesn't get overturned and there's no 2nd trial, then the letter is just another interesting artifact in the case that gets noticed for a time.

IMO the journalist who published the letter is irrelevant. The only relevancy, IMO, is the content of the letter and if that letter is exactly what the inmate (Evans) wrote and if it was published without any alteration. Then it is what it is.

I think it's possible that doubts about Avery's innocence have crept in; some of the statements alleged to be made by Avery are specific and some of what this guy says are not things he would have known by watching the news or reading a newspaper. This guy claims these conversations took place back starting in 2010. This is before Avery had a posse of supporters and fame from a miniseries. I suspect these 2 did talk.

In cases where an inmate or 2 or 3 testifies, they tend to be believed, especially if they haven't made some deal for less jail time in exchange. Local murder case in my area had 2 inmates the perp had talked to in jail, neither of the 2 inmates he told knew each other. One was put on the stand and the things he learned about the perp and the case were things he could not have known--they were things only one of the killers knew. Jury believed the inmate, as did pretty much everyone who followed the case.

Again, another great post Madeleine.

I do believe the inmate is being truthful. SA has always struck me as a man that cant keep his mouth shut about his crimes. He seems very proud and arrogant. Again, SA is mistaken when he thinks he is 10 feet tall and bulletproof. He thinks he is all that and a box of rocks and everyone will keep his dirty little secrets he tells while in prison. He now thinks of himself as an untouchable rock star.

I do believe Ms. Hartman about the filthy nicknames he applied to her. It is obvious to me at least that SA is a women hater who has absolutely no respect for women and I think it began way before even his rape conviction or the murder of Theresa. The rape conviction only helped to enrich his hatred toward all women. He physically abused women, degraded them emotionally, and he fits the profile of someone who would do the murder of Theresa. IMO. This is who he is and has been for a very long time.

I do believe he targeted TH. He had her right where he wanted her that day. Alone and vulnerable. Imo, he took all of his hatred of women and rage out on this very innocent woman. By then he already thought he was 10 feet tall and bulletproof due to being exonerated. He felt he could easily say that he was framed again and thought at the time the jury would believe such nonsense. Imo, when he served time for a rape he did not do he fully felt the women in society owed him one rape and of course the only way he could do that would be to rape and then silence the victim, which he did. so he could falsely claim he was framed.

I am going to purchase Kratz' new book. Many times new things will be divulged that weren't testified to in court. Example: The nurse who drew his blood back in the 80s wasn't called to testify but she did give a statement/interview stating she is the one who put the puncture in the stopper of the blood vial. I suspect he may include more. While Kratz was very wrong to send sexual text to a victim that never means he didn't try this case properly. That is just a side issue and really is irrelevant to the Avery trial case. Neither one of the appeal courts have cited he tried this case incorrectly.

When he calls women p----- or va----- that is exactly how he thinks of them. He identifies them as sexual objects only and not human beings with value.

I think the man he confessed to will do very well on the stand if he should be called to testify against SA if there is a new trial.

Now since KZ thinks its necessary to get into his personal relationship, which is very odd, I am wondering now if SA has told Ms. Hartman things he will come to regret especially if there is another trial. I am glad to see she is exercising her right to have freedom of speech and refuses to be threatened and bullied by KZ. Did KZ put up the quoted words she sent to Ms, Hartman in her tweets about telling her more or less to shut up and be quiet? If so, that is a very odd thing to do for an attorney especially when she knows there are no laws supporting her threat to suppress Ms. Hartman from speaking out.

I use to have a lot of respect for KZ but in this case it seems like because of MaM drama-rama it has gone to her head. I have read some of her tweets on this case and find some of them rather childish for an esteemed attorney like she is suppose to be. Before its all over with I imagine she will have to try and put out more fires trying to convince everyone that anyone who may speak out in the future against SA are lying and he is honest Abe. LOL!

For my own selfish reasons I wish he would get a new trial but as you have said that will only happen if the presiding trial Judge made errors that were so egregious it could have affected the outcome and verdict. That is a very high threshold and its already been up on appeal twice and denied both times. So I honestly don't think he will get a new trial.

Let me ask something please. I still don't fully understand this part but if the items KZ is testing points to SA does she have to report the results to the state?

 

[Madeleine74]

Dassey's statements were not used in the Avery trial and Dassey did not testify in Avery's trial, so his statements don't help (or hurt) Avery, except that Dassey did disclose items of evidence that allowed investigators to go and find them months after the murder and have them tested and the results of that did further incriminate Avery (and helped corroborate things Dassey told investigators). So an Avery jury didn't hear anything about Dassey's statements, no confusion there. And Avery didn't testify at Dassey's trial either.

BTW, a jury doesn't have to believe the crime occurred exactly the way either side presents it, their only job is to evaluate the evidence, including the witnesses' testimony under oath, and determine what evidence to believe and how much weight to assign it and determine if the state met their burden of proving guilt for the charges BARD. A jury or some jury members might have their own personal theory about what happened and it could differ from either side; that doesn't matter as long as they follow the rules given to them by the judge and apply the law as given to them in their written pattern jury instructions.

Many people who watched MaM came away with a certain strong emotional opinion based on how the scenes were done, what was shown, how it was shown, what wasn't shown, and creative editing. The miniseries was not a search for the truth, but, IMO, was a propaganda piece. The trials were not following the MaM script and MaM created its own narrative.

It comes back to evidence. What there is, who it points to, what kind of evidence, etc. There's not just a little bit of evidence in this case.

 

[Madeleine74]

Again, another great post Madeleine.

I do believe the inmate is being truthful. SA has always struck me as a man that cant keep his mouth shut about his crimes.

I do believe Ms. Hartman about the filthy nicknames he applied to her.

I do believe he targeted TH.

I am going to purchase Kratz' new book.

When he calls women p----- or va----- that is exactly how he thinks of them. He identifies them as sexual objects only and not human beings with value.

I think the man he confessed to will do very well on the stand if he should be called to testify against SA if there is a new trial.

Now since KZ thinks its necessary to get into his personal relationship, which is very odd, I am wondering now if SA has told Ms. Hartman things he will come to regret especially if there is another trial.

I use to have a lot of respect for KZ but in this case it seems like because of MaM drama-rama it has gone to her head.

Let me ask something please. I still don't fully understand this part but if the items KZ is testing points to SA does she have to report the results to the state?

Ocean, I've snipped your post to save space...

- I don't know if Evans is being truthful or not. He might be totally truthful or he might be partially truthful. I don't think he just made the whole thing up -- there are things in his statement that can be corroborated.

- No doubt SA is an abuser and has a propensity for inappropriate (and criminal) sexual behaviors and violence. The sexting of an underage (teenage) girlfriend of one of his nephews the day before TH came to the salvage yard is but one example. The letters and treatment of his ex-wife, his ex-girlfriend, running his cousin off the road and pointing a rifle at her...the list goes on, including more than 1 young female relative saying they were molested by Avery (and BD told his mother on the phone from jail that SA touched him too).

- I also believe SA wanted TH to come that day and I believe he fully intended to make a sexual pass at her. Had she agreed to what he wanted, I don't think she would have been murdered, since a crime would not have taken place if the sex would have been consensual.

- As for KZ, she has a client who she cannot control, a client she knows threatens women, a client who doesn't keep his mouth shut, and a client who is known to be a hothead. Since she can't control Avery, she then tries to control in the other direction, to the extent she can. I think it's reasonable to believe Avery told things to Ms. Hartman in the course of hundreds of hours of phone calls. KZ is quite concerned about what Avery may have disclosed, as she should be.

- Yes, the testing results have to be shared with the state, per the order.

- I don't see Avery getting a new trial, but who knows...

 

[proudfootz]

The letter from Evans, who still blames his wife for her own murder despite his 'getting religion' and becoming an ordained minister, appears to be a sloppy attempt to curry favor from authorities in the prison system. Everyone knows snitches have a certain quid pro quo going with their captors, so it's difficult to shake the impression that Evans is reporting what he thinks the authorities want to hear. If Evans can't be honest about his own conviction, I find it difficult to lend him any credibility regarding alleged conversations he had with other inmates.

Ultimately it shouldn't matter if Zellner is able to show that police made efforts to frame Steven, but there will always be those who desperately want to believe he is guilty (just as there are still those who believe Steven is guilty in the Beerntsen case!), and it will come down to the 'framing a guilty man' theory. Of course, jurors might not consider the question: If there was sufficient evidence that Steven was guilty, why the need to frame him?

So it is difficult to predict the outcome of another trial (if it comes to that). People are much more likely to respond emotionally than rationally. I think this is how Steven came to be convicted in the first place - the Kratz press conference poisoned the minds of potential jurors before one iota of evidence was presented. So Steven had to go up against a 'presumption of guilt' - the exact opposite of what the judicial standard requires.

All my own opinion.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

The letter from Evans, who still blames his wife for her own murder despite his 'getting religion' and becoming an ordained minister, appears to be a sloppy attempt to curry favor from authorities in the prison system. Everyone knows snitches have a certain quid pro quo going with their captors, so it's difficult to shake the impression that Evans is reporting what he thinks the authorities want to hear. If Evans can't be honest about his own conviction, I find it difficult to lend him any credibility regarding alleged conversations he had with other inmates.

Ultimately it shouldn't matter if Zellner is able to show that police made efforts to frame Steven, but there will always be those who desperately want to believe he is guilty (just as there are still those who believe Steven is guilty in the Beerntsen case!), and it will come down to the 'framing a guilty man' theory. Of course, jurors might not consider the question: If there was sufficient evidence that Steven was guilty, why the need to frame him?

So it is difficult to predict the outcome of another trial (if it comes to that). People are much more likely to respond emotionally than rationally. I think this is how Steven came to be convicted in the first place - the Kratz press conference poisoned the minds of potential jurors before one iota of evidence was presented. So Steven had to go up against a 'presumption of guilt' - the exact opposite of what the judicial standard requires.

All my own opinion.

.
:ditto::goodpost::yeahthat:

 

[missy1974]

The letter from Evans, who still blames his wife for her own murder despite his 'getting religion' and becoming an ordained minister, appears to be a sloppy attempt to curry favor from authorities in the prison system. Everyone knows snitches have a certain quid pro quo going with their captors, so it's difficult to shake the impression that Evans is reporting what he thinks the authorities want to hear. If Evans can't be honest about his own conviction, I find it difficult to lend him any credibility regarding alleged conversations he had with other inmates.

Ultimately it shouldn't matter if Zellner is able to show that police made efforts to frame Steven, but there will always be those who desperately want to believe he is guilty (just as there are still those who believe Steven is guilty in the Beerntsen case!), and it will come down to the 'framing a guilty man' theory. Of course, jurors might not consider the question: If there was sufficient evidence that Steven was guilty, why the need to frame him?

So it is difficult to predict the outcome of another trial (if it comes to that). People are much more likely to respond emotionally than rationally. I think this is how Steven came to be convicted in the first place - the Kratz press conference poisoned the minds of potential jurors before one iota of evidence was presented. So Steven had to go up against a 'presumption of guilt' - the exact opposite of what the judicial standard requires.

All my own opinion.

:goodpost:


How does one become an ordained minister in prison anyway? Mail-order? lol It can be done online I think... maybe his fiance did that for him too? :biggrin:

 

[Karinna]

As a lot of peeps are sayng Tick Tock Manitowoc.

 

[Karinna]

What Ms. Zellner wrote to Hartman is the equivalent of a cease & desist letter i believe.
Ignoring a Cease-and-Desist Letter: What Can Happen?
2. You May Get Sued.

Slightly more ominous and with definitely more legal effect is receiving a summons and complaint—letting you know that you’ve been officially served with a lawsuit. The complaint will be a copy of the one that the opposing party sent to the court, and the summons will tell you when you’re required to appear in court for the case. Unlike a cease-and-desist letter, a complaint is the real beginning of a lawsuit, and you should call an attorney.

 

[Karinna]

:goodpost:


How does one become an ordained minister in prison anyway? Mail-order? lol It can be done online I think... maybe his fiance did that for him too? :biggrin:

Haha,

 

[Saul Vesalot]

do believe they will have this guy testify at the next trial if it should happen.

This could be entertaining. If he testifies, then wouldn't that mean Zellner gets to ask him questions and try to impeach him?
This guy, who shot his wife to death and claims it was her fault? I would NOT want to be the one in charge of making sure this guy is ready to testify.

Countless murder cases have had jailhouse inmates testify against the defendant when the defendant ran their mouth about their crime to them. It will be up to the jury to weigh the credibility of the inmate who testifies that a confession was made to them. In the trials I have seen where they have testified I cant remember one case where the jailhouse inmate's testimony wasnt believed by the jury.

People are the worst

Hartman, 54, said she has no doubt Avery told convicted murderer Joseph Evans Jr.how he raped and killed Halbach.

This is a silly claim to make. "I genuinely believe he told this one guy this thing he told no one else. I base that off of....uh..."

He has a very unique dialect.”

For example, Evans claims Avery shot Teresa Halbach in the va****, and joked that he did so to “make sure her p**** was dead.”

“Steven would refer to me as his ‘va*****,’ and his ‘p****,'” Hartman said. “I told him to stop, and that he could call me Lynn, his girlfriend–even his wife, but not his ‘va*****.'

Vagina and pussy aren't all that distinct...and people with really distinct mannerisms are probably the easiest people in the world to fake. Think of Elvis or someone like that. You don't have to try very hard to get people to understand what you are going for. There is a whole industry of people making a living doing mediocre impressions of Elvis.

She said instead of growing in love together, an explosive and threatening side of Steven Avery emerged. He went from a man with grand promises of a new life, to the cold-blooded killer Evans describes.

Who did she see him kill in cold blood? Or did Hartman mean Steven was actually a big old meany-head? A lot of this just rings of the same old same old "Avery is a , which is evidence that he killed someone!"

Long story short, his testimony cannot be verified very well, and a healthy portion of what can be verified is wrong. Trusting his testimony is an act of faith. And Hartman sounds like a bitter ex, some of which is definitely justified, Steven is a largely. But at the same time things like "I AM SUPER CONVINCED HE HAD A CONVERSATION I WASN'T AROUND TO HEAR" makes her sound like a kook to me.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

:goodpost:


How does one become an ordained minister in prison anyway? Mail-order? lol It can be done online I think... maybe his fiance did that for him too? :biggrin:

.

Yes it can...
http://www.wikihow.com/Become-an-Ordained-Minister-Online

Don't think I will be letting my children attend Sunday school with this guy if he ever gets out. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[proudfootz]

I don't think Steven is a model citizen or anything, but look at the rogue's gallery of his accusers - a sheriff who lies about who will be allowed to investigate due to conflict of interest, a department that blocks actual forensic scientists from examining the alleged crime scene, the forensic lab that can't conduct the key key test in the biggest case to hit the area without screwing it up, a drug abusing sexual pervert as the prosecutor, etc.

The same sort of people responsible for his wrongful conviction which allowed the real perpetrator continue his career of rape and assault on innocent women (hence the lawsuit that caused the conflict of interest which the sheriff admitted existed).

Now we add the murderer-turned-minister who can't even take responsibility for his own crime joining this A-Team of deplorables.

Birds of a feather...

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The letter from Evans, who still blames his wife for her own murder despite his 'getting religion' and becoming an ordained minister, appears to be a sloppy attempt to curry favor from authorities in the prison system. Everyone knows snitches have a certain quid pro quo going with their captors, so it's difficult to shake the impression that Evans is reporting what he thinks the authorities want to hear. If Evans can't be honest about his own conviction, I find it difficult to lend him any credibility regarding alleged conversations he had with other inmates.

Ultimately it shouldn't matter if Zellner is able to show that police made efforts to frame Steven, but there will always be those who desperately want to believe he is guilty (just as there are still those who believe Steven is guilty in the Beerntsen case!), and it will come down to the 'framing a guilty man' theory. Of course, jurors might not consider the question: If there was sufficient evidence that Steven was guilty, why the need to frame him?

So it is difficult to predict the outcome of another trial (if it comes to that). People are much more likely to respond emotionally than rationally. I think this is how Steven came to be convicted in the first place - the Kratz press conference poisoned the minds of potential jurors before one iota of evidence was presented. So Steven had to go up against a 'presumption of guilt' - the exact opposite of what the judicial standard requires.

All my own opinion.

BBM

Who are you speaking of when you say 'desperately wants to believe he is guilty'. But for the record as it stands now he has been found guilty BARD by the jury who sat in judgement during his case. So, yes, he is legally guilty of murdering TH and is serving time in prison for the offense. Those are the facts as they stand now and doesn't have one thing to do with anyone being 'desperate.'

I am certainly not desperate about anything concerning this case but I most certainly do believe he is guilty. This is just another case among many discussed here on WS. Most posters who believe he wasn't framed and believe he is guilty have moved on to other cases. Only a few posters remain regulars whether it is on the SA support threads or the ones who believe he is indeed guilty.

I don't understand why 'desperately' is even interjected into any post about this case. I have not seen one poster show desperation of any kind when giving their entitled opinion of SAs guilt.

I would never say to any of the SA supporters they are desperately trying to make up excuses for SA when anything bad comes to light against him. I am aware there are differing opinions about how SA is seen and respect those differing opinions.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This could be entertaining. If he testifies, then wouldn't that mean Zellner gets to ask him questions and try to impeach him?
This guy, who shot his wife to death and claims it was her fault? I would NOT want to be the one in charge of making sure this guy is ready to testify.


People are the worst


This is a silly claim to make. "I genuinely believe he told this one guy this thing he told no one else. I base that off of....uh..."

Vagina and pussy aren't all that distinct...and people with really distinct mannerisms are probably the easiest people in the world to fake. Think of Elvis or someone like that. You don't have to try very hard to get people to understand what you are going for. There is a whole industry of people making a living doing mediocre impressions of Elvis.

Who did she see him kill in cold blood? Or did Hartman mean Steven was actually a big old meany-head? A lot of this just rings of the same old same old "Avery is a , which is evidence that he killed someone!"

Long story short, his testimony cannot be verified very well, and a healthy portion of what can be verified is wrong. Trusting his testimony is an act of faith. And Hartman sounds like a bitter ex, some of which is definitely justified, Steven is a largely. But at the same time things like "I AM SUPER CONVINCED HE HAD A CONVERSATION I WASN'T AROUND TO HEAR" makes her sound like a kook to me.

If the case is overturned will KZ be his lawyer at the trial?

Oh I believe she is weird too but that never means she is lying. It has always amazed me how so many females want to have a relationship with a murderer or even serial killers and what is more amazing to me is many are attractive, articulate, and intelligent women.

I do believe this guy will testify if there is a new trial which I seriously doubt there will be since its already been denied twice by the courts. What outsiders believe or dont believe about him is irrelevant. There have been countless cases for decades where an inmate testified to what he/she said they were told by a particular inmate. They all had baggage of their own. It will be totally up to the jury to weigh his credibility. If he is getting nothing in return to testify then that will bolster his credibility.

Both the defense and the prosecution only have theories of what happened just like in every case since neither were there when it happened. The jurors themselves individually are allowed to have their own theories about what they think happened. They only have to be unanimous when agreeing the case was proved BARD. So just because this guy was told something different than the theories doesn't mean the story SA told him was untrue. Again, it will be solely left up to the jurors on whether they believe him or not.

I have seen many inmates testify in court cases for decades now and most all of them were believed no matter how much the defense tried to beat them up in court.

But we arent even at that phase yet and SAs case has not been overturned. If it is then we will see if this guy is called to testify then. I suspect he will be. IMO

IMO

 

[proudfootz]

BBM

Who are you speaking of when you say 'desperately wants to believe he is guilty'. But for the record as it stands now he has been found guilty BARD by the jury who sat in judgement during his case. So, yes, he is legally guilty of murdering TH and is serving time in prison for the offense. Those are the facts as they stand now and doesn't have one thing to do with anyone being 'desperate.'

I am certainly not desperate about anything concerning this case but I most certainly do believe he is guilty. This is just another case among many discussed here on WS. Most posters who believe he wasn't framed and believe he is guilty have moved on to other cases. Only a few posters remain regulars whether it is on the SA support threads or the ones who believe he is indeed guilty.

I don't understand why 'desperately' is even interjected into any post about this case. I have not seen one poster show desperation of any kind when giving their entitled opinion of SAs guilt.

I would never say to any of the SA supporters they are desperately trying to make up excuses for SA when anything bad comes to light against him. I am aware there are differing opinions about how SA is seen and respect those differing opinions.

I'm not referring to anyone in this forum, but I have certainly come across people in other forums whose posts IMO fit that description. It also conforms in my estimation to those who still believe Steven is guilty in the Beerntsen case despite his exoneration (one of the police involved suggested the DNA that freed him was fabricated!). It won't make any difference to these people if Zellner shows that Steven is innocent in this case, too. To these people the evidence doesn't even matter - it appears to be a visceral dislike of Steven.

I apologize if my post did not make it sufficiently clear about the parallel I was trying to draw about those who reject Steven's exoneration in the 1985 case might be expected to reject a possible exoneration in the 2005 case.

All my own opinion.

 

[Madeleine74]

Now we add the murderer-turned-minister who can't even take responsibility for his own crime joining this A-Team of deplorables.

Birds of a feather...

Seriously, who exactly did you think Avery would be meeting and hanging out with in prison? Hard core murderers, rapists, abusers like himself who committed crimes including first degree murder that landed them in long prison terms, up to life like himself, that's who.

You realize that many convicted felons claim to be innocent of their crimes, right? Have they all been framed? Have they all taken responsibility for their own crimes? If that's the standard you're using then that's a bar very few could ever reach. Surely you must realize this guy could be telling what he knows. His sentence will not be reduced, there's no deal he can make with the DA to get out of prison sooner--he'll never get out.

 

[Madeleine74]

What Ms. Zellner wrote to Hartman is the equivalent of a cease & desist letter i believe.
Ignoring a Cease-and-Desist Letter: What Can Happen?
2. You May Get Sued.

Slightly more ominous and with definitely more legal effect is receiving a summons and complaint—letting you know that you’ve been officially served with a lawsuit. The complaint will be a copy of the one that the opposing party sent to the court, and the summons will tell you when you’re required to appear in court for the case. Unlike a cease-and-desist letter, a complaint is the real beginning of a lawsuit, and you should call an attorney.

A lawsuit over what? There was no contract or legal agreement of confidentiality. It was a personal relationship with letters, phone calls, and a few visits. If she tells the truth about her dealings with SA, then there's no case for libel or slander either. (Truth is an absolute defense in situations involving libel or slander.)

KZ's letter has already been ignored, more than once. It was a scare tactic that failed to scare. Hartman is free to express her opinions, just like all the sleuthy sleuthers expressing their opinions about people in the case (some of whom have been accused of being involved in TH's murder).
.

 

[proudfootz]

Seriously, who exactly did you think Avery would be meeting and hanging out with in prison? Hard core murderers, rapists, abusers like himself who committed crimes including first degree murder that landed them in long prison terms, up to life like himself, that's who.

You realize that many convicted felons claim to be innocent of their crimes, right? Have they all been framed? Have they all taken responsibility for their own crimes? If that's the standard you're using then that's a bar very few could ever reach. Surely you must realize this guy could be telling what he knows. His sentence will not be reduced, there's no deal he can make with the DA to get out of prison sooner--he'll never get out.

Yes, I'm sure many of the people Steven was forced to meet during his prison stays might be less than model citizens. I don't disagree that many of them might be guilty of the crimes they are accused of. Some might be, like Steven was in the 1985 Beerntsen case, completely innocent.

Could his letter contain true accounts of things Steven might have said? One can't rule that out entirely. I have my reasons to doubt the veracity of the account, but I could be wrong.

There are plenty of ways life in prison can be made more agreeable to prisoners, and ways authorities can make life in prison less agreeable, aside from lengthening and shortening of sentences. There are all kinds of perks and privileges which can be extended or withdrawn that can make all the difference in the world to a convict. Sort of like how one's job satisfaction isn't merely a matter of salary alone, but various benefits and perquisites that might make a job that pays less well attractive because of these other considerations.

MOO

 

[proudfootz]

Regarding Hartman - her story continues to evolve.

At one point she was blaming Steven's family for problems in their relationship, not her growing realization that he must be guilty.

It will be interesting to see what new twists and turns will develop as time goes by.

My own opinion, naturally.

"Steven Avery‘s ex-fiancée tells PEOPLE the convicted killer and Making a Murderer principal is still professing his love for her, and says Avery’s family deliberately sabotaged the couple’s engagement.


“I care about him a lot,” Lynn Hartman says in a new interview with PEOPLE. “I care about him and know that he so badly needs to know that I’m still here for him.”


Despite the couple’s split, says Hartman, she still spends several hours a week talking to Avery on the phone.


“He says I’m his future, that I’m his girl, I’m his life, and he can’t bear to think that I’m not there for him or that I don’t love him,” she tells PEOPLE.

...

According to Hartman, she still has feelings for Avery, and would consider a reconciliation.


“It’s really hard because I never expected him to do something like that to begin with,” Hartman tells PEOPLE. “So to tell you the truth, the person that I loved would never have done that. And it was a pretty big shock for me. So I guess it would depend on whether he’s willing to own up to it and make it right or really show me — actions speak louder than words.”

"


http://people.com/crime/steven-averys-ex-fiancee-says-his-family-soured-their-relationship-but-says-avery-still-loves-her/