MaM a Year Later - Reconstruct the Crime

[proudfootz]

??

During a witness's deposition only the witness, his/her attorney, and the plaintiff's attorneys and plaintiff is in the room (aside from reporter or videographer). No witness is privy to another witness's deposition, they don't get to watch, they don't see the transcript or get to see the video. Only SA as the plaintiff and the attorneys got to see and hear it all as it was occurring.

...and the evidence that these testimonies (which some have asserted were quite favorable to Steven's suit) somehow caused him to commit any kind of crime?

I sort of suspect people who work for the same outfit might actually talk to each other outside of the room where depositions are taken.

 

[proudfootz]

The question that's been posed before: did SA's defense team introduce any evidence showing SA did use or had a pattern of using *67 before October 31, 2005? The state is not required to prove SA always or never did use *67 prior, so I'm not sure why the expectation that they should have presented evidence to weaken their own argument exists.

No speculation is needed. The phone call evidence on October 31, 2005 is what it is.

The defense is not required to prove anything.

If the State cannot produce any of these records they are claimed to be sitting on that Steven specifically targeted TH with this *67 thing, there is no reason for me to imagine such a suggestion is the least bit tenable.

Yes, the phone calls for one day are the evidence for phone calls on one day - it says nothing about Steven's habits or intentions regarding TH.

The theory that Steven 'lured' anyone is what it is - a fantasy built upon nothing.

 

[Madeleine74]

...and the evidence that these testimonies (which some have asserted were quite favorable to Steven's suit) somehow caused him to commit any kind of crime?

I sort of suspect people who work for the same outfit might actually talk to each other outside of the room where depositions are taken.

I never claimed it, I was questioning your assertion, that LE might become "angrier and angrier" as a result of the deposition of various persons.

What keeps getting left out or perhaps forgotten is that the 2 known people responsible for SA's 1985 conviction (the Sheriff and the DA) were no longer working for the county by the time of SA's civil suit. Those are the 2 people who were responsible for SA being wrongfully charged and those 2 could have been personally liable for damages.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The question that's been posed before: did SA's defense team introduce any evidence showing SA did use or had a pattern of using *67 before October 31, 2005? The state is not required to prove SA always or never did use *67 prior, so I'm not sure why the expectation that they should have presented evidence to weaken their own argument exists.

No speculation is needed. The phone call evidence on October 31, 2005 is what it is.

I completely understand what you're saying.

The State has no burden to present exculpatory evidence to the jury. They are only required to provide that evidence to the defense.

It's up to the defense to take any exculpatory evidence and present it to the jury. That's why we have two sides at trial and not just the State presenting all of the evidence. JMO

 

[proudfootz]

I never claimed it, I was questioning your assertion, that LE might become "angrier and angrier" as a result of the deposition of various persons.

What keeps getting left out or perhaps forgotten is that the 2 known people responsible for SA's 1985 conviction (the Sheriff and the DA) were no longer working for the county by the time of SA's civil suit. Those are the 2 people who were responsible for SA being wrongfully charged and those 2 could have been personally liable for damages.

In the post to which I was responding, it was suggested that somehow the lawsuit caused Steven to become enraged to the point of committing a random murder.

"Do you think SA sitting through the depositions in the days leading up to the murder, fueled his rage even more? Hearing the testimony of those who put him in jail surely had some effect on him?"

As a counterbalance to such speculation, we should consider that Steven was not the only human being who might be affected by the lawsuit.

 

[proudfootz]

I completely understand what you're saying.

The State has no burden to present exculpatory evidence to the jury. They are only required to provide that evidence to the defense.

It's up to the defense to take any exculpatory evidence and present it to the jury. That's why we have two sides at trial and not just the State presenting all of the evidence. JMO

BBM

Do you think this explains why the prosecution didn't enter the whole record into evidence? That it tended to be exculpatory?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

BBM

Do you think this explains why the prosecution didn't enter the whole record into evidence? That it tended to be exculpatory?

The more important question should be why the defense didn't present exculpatory evidence to the jury if it existed. I betting on it doesn't exist.

I can see you don't understand the point I'm making so it's time for me to say lets agree to disagree and let it go.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

The defense is not required to prove anything.

Very true.

If the State cannot produce any of these records they are claimed to be sitting on that Steven specifically targeted TH with this *67 thing, there is no reason for me to imagine such a suggestion is the least bit tenable.

No one is required to believe a story; the jurors got to make the determination as to the veracity of the evidence and what they believed and didn't believe.

Yes, the phone calls for one day are the evidence for phone calls on one day - it says nothing about Steven's habits or intentions regarding TH.

SA spent some big $$$ on Strang and Buting and they gave SA a vigorous defense. IF those attorneys had evidence to help their client they would have presented it either through their own witness or, more likely, by using the phone company witness the state called. They knew the *67 was problematic because they attempted to address it in their argument to the jury, which is not evidence. Attorneys opening and closings are not evidence and the jury is instructed on that.

The theory that Steven 'lured' anyone is what it is - a fantasy built upon nothing.

He wanted "the same girl" to come out and he wanted her to come out that day to photograph a van his own sister didn't really want to sell and and at a time when she was not available due to working full time. He set up the appointment--an appointment that no one asked him to set up. He arranged to get photos for a vehicle that wasn't his to sell, for a sister who told police she didn't want to sell said vehicle because she wanted it for one of her sons. He gave the phone number for B Janda--a call that would not be answered because no one would be home, especially not B Janda. He called TH directly twice within a 20 min window, obscuring his phone information. Doesn't sound like nothing to me.

 

[IDK]

In the post to which I was responding, it was suggested that somehow the lawsuit caused Steven to become enraged to the point of committing a random murder.

"Do you think SA sitting through the depositions in the days leading up to the murder, fueled his rage even more? Hearing the testimony of those who put him in jail surely had some effect on him?"

As a counterbalance to such speculation, we should consider that Steven was not the only human being who might be affected by the lawsuit.

:goodpost:Absolutely correct. The lawsuit was a huge embarrassment to local law enforcement in general, not just the individuals involved. IMO, "the wall of blue silence" was at play.

 

[IDK]

I never claimed it, I was questioning your assertion, that LE might become "angrier and angrier" as a result of the deposition of various persons.

What keeps getting left out or perhaps forgotten is that the 2 known people responsible for SA's 1985 conviction (the Sheriff and the DA) were no longer working for the county by the time of SA's civil suit. Those are the 2 people who were responsible for SA being wrongfully charged and those 2 could have been personally liable for damages.

I think I responded to the wrong post previously, but LE is known to be extremely protective of other individuals within the "brotherhood". An attack on one is an attack on all, in many cases. (not all, of course) IMO. "The wall of blue silence" is a well known phenomenon, so it is not surprising at all that fellow officers would be on the defensive. The whole department was being impugned, not just two individuals.

 

[proudfootz]

Very true.



No one is required to believe a story; the jurors got to make the determination as to the veracity of the evidence and what they believed and didn't believe.

Yes. This juror has very reasonable doubts about this ridiculous 'luring' hypothesis.

SA spent some big $$$ on Strang and Buting and they gave SA a vigorous defense. IF those attorneys had evidence to help their client they would have presented it either through their own witness or, more likely, by using the phone company witness the state called. They knew the *67 was problematic because they attempted to address it in their argument to the jury, which is not evidence. Attorneys opening and closings are not evidence and the jury is instructed on that.

He wanted "the same girl" to come out and he wanted her to come out that day to photograph a van his own sister didn't really want to sell and and at a time when she was not available due to working full time. He set up the appointment--an appointment that no one asked him to set up. He arranged to get photos for a vehicle that wasn't his to sell, for a sister who told police she didn't want to sell said vehicle because she wanted it for one of her sons. He gave the phone number for B Janda--a call that would not be answered because no one would be home, especially not B Janda. He called TH directly twice within a 20 min window, obscuring his phone information. Doesn't sound like nothing to me.

Unless the idea is that Steven was going to disguise his voice and pretend to be Barb, it comes to naught.

There is no need for Steven to involve Barb, have a real vehicle to sell, or contact Teresa through Auto Traders IF there was some wild idea from nowhere to suddenly kill someone for no discernible reason.

Instead he does what an honest person would do - discusses the sale of the vehicle with his sister, gets Auto Trader involved, practically advertises to everyone who is the least bit interested that Teresa is coming to the Savage Yard.

Teresa knows exactly where she is going, as she tells Dawn at Auto Traders.

And if Steven talks to Teresa on the phone -as he was apparently trying to do - then she'd know exactly who was going to handle the sale of this vehicle, just as they'd done on several occasions already.

Cut away all the specious speculation, it is perfectly plain and above board.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Very true.



No one is required to believe a story; the jurors got to make the determination as to the veracity of the evidence and what they believed and didn't believe.



SA spent some big $$$ on Strang and Buting and they gave SA a vigorous defense. IF those attorneys had evidence to help their client they would have presented it either through their own witness or, more likely, by using the phone company witness the state called. They knew the *67 was problematic because they attempted to address it in their argument to the jury, which is not evidence. Attorneys opening and closings are not evidence and the jury is instructed on that.



He wanted "the same girl" to come out and he wanted her to come out that day to photograph a van his own sister didn't really want to sell and and at a time when she was not available due to working full time. He set up the appointment--an appointment that no one asked him to set up. He arranged to get photos for a vehicle that wasn't his to sell, for a sister who told police she didn't want to sell said vehicle because she wanted it for one of her sons. He gave the phone number for B Janda--a call that would not be answered because no one would be home, especially not B Janda. He called TH directly twice within a 20 min window, obscuring his phone information. Doesn't sound like nothing to me.

Months ago after reading many pro-Avery posts I felt that maybe Strang and Buting did a horrible job in defending him. I was told by many that wasn't the case and they did a good job.

It's funny that when I post that they would have presented exculpatory evidence if it existed is ignored and the blame for not knowing about prior *67 use is put on the State. LOL

 

[proudfootz]

The more important question should be why the defense didn't present exculpatory evidence to the jury if it existed. I betting on it doesn't exist.

I can see you don't understand the point I'm making so it's time for me to say lets agree to disagree and let it go.

JMO

I suppose if this case goes any further, we might see the rest of the evidence left out of the first trial.

 

[IDK]

Yes. This juror has very reasonable doubts about this ridiculous 'luring' hypothesis.



Unless the idea is that Steven was going to disguise his voice and pretend to be Barb, it comes to naught.

There is no need for Steven to involve Barb, have a real vehicle to sell, or contact Teresa through Auto Traders IF there was some wild idea from nowhere to suddenly kill someone for no discernible reason.

Instead he does what an honest person would do - discusses the sale of the vehicle with his sister, gets Auto Trader involved, practically advertises to everyone who is the least bit interested that Teresa is coming to the Savage Yard.

Teresa knows exactly where she is going, as she tells Dawn at Auto Traders.

And if Steven talks to Teresa on the phone -as he was apparently trying to do - then she'd know exactly who was going to handle the sale of this vehicle, just as they'd done on several occasions already.

Cut away all the specious speculation, it is perfectly plain and above board.

Nope, doesn't sound like the actions of someone plotting a murder, not in the slightest. If he were truly trying to lure her, he would have bought a "throwaway" phone and used that to contact her. Something that could not be tied back to him. Using his own phone, contacting her through her place of employment, all are the actions of an innocent person, IMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I suppose if this case goes any further, we might see the rest of the evidence left out of the first trial.

I don't think that any *67 evidence was left out of the trial. I said to agree to disagree about this and move on. Please respect that.

 

[proudfootz]

Happy New Year!

 

[Madeleine74]

I think both Strang & Buting are smart, qualfied, and competent defense attorneys who vigorously advocate for their clients. An attorney, even the best of the best, can only work with what they've got, and that's what Strang & Buting did, to the best of their ability.

 

[Madeleine74]

Nope, doesn't sound like the actions of someone plotting a murder, not in the slightest. If he were truly trying to lure her, he would have bought a "throwaway" phone and used that to contact her. Something that could not be tied back to him. Using his own phone, contacting her through her place of employment, all are the actions of an innocent person, IMO.

I don't think he was pre-planning a murder. I think what transpired happened and unfolded after TH arrived and as a result of in-person interactions between SA and TH.

 

[IDK]

Months ago after reading many pro-Avery posts I felt that maybe Strang and Buting did a horrible job in defending him. I was told by many that wasn't the case and they did a good job.

It's funny that when I post that they would have presented exculpatory evidence if it existed is ignored and the blame for not knowing about prior *67 use is put on the State. LOL

Aww, I don't think anyone is trying to ignore you. There is a lot of back and forth going on and sometimes posts get "lost". We don't know what records were available to the defense. Maybe SA's attorneys did not realize that the use of *67 would come to be seen as such a pivotal piece of information. Many of us here don't find it suspicious or noteworthy in the slightest. Maybe his lawyers didn't see it that way either.

 

[IDK]

I don't think he was pre-planning a murder. I think what transpired happened and unfolded after TH arrived and as a result of in-person interactions between SA and TH.

Thanks for clarifying as there are several other posters who believe SA plotted and planned the murder ahead of time, including luring TH to the salvage yard, covering his bed with tarps ahead of time, etc.