Thank you for replying. I guess you are right and we will have to agree to disagree.
Wouldn't it be a real drag if we were all the same?
To me anytime someone blocks their number there is a purposeful intent in doing so and this is the woman who's remains were found on his property. Blocking numbers is secretive.
But if Steven talks to Teresa when he calls, or leaves a message, it will be pretty obvious that the caller is not a woman and she'd probably recognize Steven's voice as they've already done business.
I'm not sure why exactly he blocked his personal phone on those calls. It would be interesting if police wanted to suggest this was something he only did to Teresa for all his phone records to be shown so we can see for ourselves this was something unusual for him. Do you suppose there is a reason they did not do this?
The Judge allows only evidence to be entered when he/she thinks it is relevant evidence to the particular case. They don't just let everything come in from either side. Each side has to show a good faith basis how it is relevant and that is why Judges either rule it in as allowable or doesn't due to being irrelevant. Of course they rule on other evidence and may find it too prejudicial to come in against the defendant. Do you know if this particular Judge did rule some of the evidence too prejudicial to come in? In many cases I find the evidence that wasn't allowed in to be the most interesting sometimes if it is divulged after the trial is over with.
I'm not so familiar with the case that I can comment on all the rulings of the judge hearing this case. I know that in some quarters his rulings caused controversy. But for me the judge allowing the prosecution to argue the *67 calls were significant and the defense arguing they weren't is simply getting on with the case and isn't meaningful.
I agree that sometimes stuff the jury isn't allowed to hear can be interesting. In this case I feel I have a certain amount of advantage over them since I can look at the mutually contradictory 'theories of the crime' put forward by the prosecution. That suggests to me that even the prosecution had doubts about their case.
Let me ask you this please. On the phone calls he doesn't block his number when calling AT, right?
As far as I know he didn't block Barb Janda's number when he called in the morning. I haven't seen any phone records produced for any of the other half dozen occasions when he's done business through Auto Trader.
Wouldn't they relay to her she would be meeting with the sister when she got there?
The woman who took the call, Dawn Pliszka, knew that it was a man calling, did not write down the name as 'Barb' but simply put the initial letter. Steven did not tell Auto Trader that Barb would be meeting the photographer, and Dawn did not tell Teresa that a woman would meet her at Avery's.
It doesn't look like there is any evidence indicating that there was any effort to fool anyone at Auto Trader or to fool Teresa. She knew exactly where she was going, according to Dawn who talked to her that afternoon.
Did he ever call TH that day and speak with her without blocking his number other than the two he did block? Did he also block the last call he made? If not, why do you think he didn't block his number then?
I don't know for a fact why he blocked his number on the previous two calls.
Perhaps he was frustrated she didn't answer his calls when the *67 was being used (I used to get harassing phone calls and would not accept calls from blocked numbers). Then he called without blocking in hopes that she'd pick up knowing it was him, a regular paying customer.
She still thought she was going to meet his sister. I don't agree he had to give his sister's name and address to get TH to come out and take photos. TH wasn't buying the vehicle and only taking photos of it. TH wouldn't care who the vehicle belonged to legally. She would know only the legal owner would be able to sell the van anyway. BTW, since the vehicle supposedly to be sold belonged to his sister why wasn't she there to meet TH? Didn't she live in the same compound? Did she know before the murder that SA had called TH to take photos of a van that belonged to her and not him? Did she sell her van shortly after TH was murdered? He had dealt with this company before so he easily could have told them he needed them to come out to meet him and take photos of a van his sister was selling. When she took photos of the sister's van did it have a for sale sign in the window? My husband has used AT about 6 years ago and I was the one who called and had them come take photos since he was at work during the day and the truck was in his name only. They never asked me to prove the truck was in my name or even his. They have no part in the actual sell by the legal owner.
No one told Teresa she was going to meet a woman, so she had no reason to expect that.
Barb Janda wasn't at home Monday, she was at work. So of course she couldn't be there to meet Teresa.
AFAIK Barb has never claimed to have forbidden Steven to sell the van, nor has she ever expressed surprise that he called Auto Trader. That they had a disagreement over whether it was worth the fee to have it listed indicates he was completely above board with her, just as he was with Auto Trader.
I find it hard to believe with all of the advance forensic testing now there isn't a reliable test to find or exclude EDTA.
At the time of the trial there was no universally recognized and reliable test for EDTA. The problem is if the chemical has broken down to the point where it is below the threshold necessary to be detected. Apparently the FBI quickly came up with a test they thought might work for this particular case.
But if the blood was planted (a big if!) it is not necessary to have EDTA in the blood used at all.
The trial was in 2005 or 2006 wasn't it? If so, forensic testing has advanced by leaps and bounds since then. Wasn't this test being done in the early 90s over 20 years ago? Has the FBI said they cant test for EDTA? I seem to remember something about it being in the OJ case concerning the blood found on the back gate at Nicole's. They are able to extract multiple DNA profiles from the same sample so finding the additive EDTA shouldn't be hard at all since it is not a part of the blood makeup so anything foreign should be easy to find when separated from the blood. Has KZ even tried to find experts who do this type of testing? I thought I read she is doing different testing altogether on other items which puzzles me since there was so much ado about the blood belonging to SA being planted from the old blood vial. I think I also remember they made a huge ado about the puncture in the top of the vial. However; the nurse who actually drew his blood back in the 80s said she is the one who made the puncture in the top and it was standard procedure. She didn't testify back in his murder trial but I am sure she will if there is a retrial.
I think all of this will come out when the defense presents its case. Yes, forensic science has come a long way even in a couple of decades. Like most people who take an interest in this case, I can only await developments.
ETA: Oh I meant to ask you this too. Why do you think his behavior shows he is innocent? Is it because he went about his day/s as if nothing had happened? TIA
imo
Beginning at the beginning:
Steven contacted a photographer through Auto Trader, leaving a trail that points straight at him if anything bad happens to her. But he could have called her directly, as court testimony shows he did previously, without any record of her coming to the salvage yard.
Steven would not need a real car being sold to get Teresa to come and take photos, he could have picked any of hundreds there on the lot. Announcing to everyone he knows that a photographer from Auto Trader is coming is something an innocent person would do.
When Teresa turns up missing Steven is very cooperative with police, answering all of their questions and allowing them to search anyplace they like - just like an innocent person with nothing to fear.
When police coerced Brendan into a series of bizarre incriminating statements Steven did not blame Brendan.
Steven continues to maintain his innocence, just as he did in the previous wrongful conviction when 'confessing' would have gotten him out of jail.
