Bothers me hugely that Steven is being convicted of crimes on this thread that never even saw the inside of a courthouse.
Surely we are not so naive here, are we, to assume that a complaint = factually proven event?
No one, least of all me, is minimising the cat on the bonfire incident....it's unspeakably cruel. But to say, "Well the FBI came up with a TRIAD of behaviours which, when taken in conjunction, predict future homicidal behaviour" and then present just ONE of those behaviours and claim that therefore Steven fits the profile! That's ridiculous.
I think someone who has hurt an animal like that is more likely to hurt a human being than someone who hasn't or wouldn't - but to lift it to the degree that murderous behaviour was predictable is an unwarranted leap.
Either he fits the FBI profile or he doesn't. He doesn't. So the point is non-existent.
Steven was never tried for the rape allegation(s). Using this against him is therefore no better than the ignorant prejudicial way he was treated by his community.
I don't believe, having read the conversation AND the police interview immediately beforehand, that Steven molested Brendan. I don't think that even Brendan thinks that. It is yet another incident of police feeding Brendan lines.
Much more worrying is Brendan's description of coming into a room and finding Steven "touching" a girl...but this was not pursued or questioned.
I don't understand the notion that the documentary makers should have "addressed" all this? Addressed what? There were no formal complaints, no charges, no one kicking up a stink about it. They were documenting information about the court case. They were never suggesting that Steven was a precious angel who wouldn't hurt a fly. They were promoting neither innocence nor guilt, just the way that information regarding the TRIAL was mishandled.
It's interesting to me that people are doing a pretty credible job of proving the documentary makers point....bringing in "evidence" that was never proven or tested to make judgements about Steven and decide whether he may have committed this crime.
Steveml is right....without Brendan's "confession" there is not the slightest, merest hint that the crime against Theresa was sexually motivated. Therefore, trying to decide whether he (Steven) was the type of guy to sexually abuse someone and basing that determination on untested claims that may or may not have been true is blatantly unfair and exactly the kind of prejudgement that stops the justice system working as it should.
You have no problem with excluding the following information that was brought up in trial or otherwise documented in other legal documents filed with the court or from previous convictions and arrests of Steven Avery? I do not understand how you can be okay that. Even if the evidence wasn't allowed in court it's still in all the legal paperwork filed for the case. You don't know what Brendan thinks because no one asked him!
Used in court
1. In the criminal complaint, Brendan's mother noted that brendan had bleach on his pants and that he told her that he was helping clean Avery's garage floor. "On February 27, 2006, your complainant spoke with [Brendan's mother] Barb Janda. Barb Janda stated on October 31, 2005, when Brendan Dassey returned from Steven Avery's residence, Dassey had bleach stains on his jeans. Barb Janda asked Dassey what happened to his jeans, he told her that his jeans were bleached while he was helping Steven Avery clean his garage floor with bleach. On March 1, 2006, Investigator Wiegert recovered the jeans worn by Dassey on October 31, 2005. Investigator Wiegert noted that the jeans contained bleach spots and other stains."
Used in court
2. Avery bought shackles and handcuffs just weeks before, and his sister was with him. They were found in the burn barrel.
Used in court
3. Avery used a different name when requesting Halbach for taking photos. He called her phone several times that day using *67 to hide his phone number.
Was not allowed in court. Testimony was from TH coworker.
4. Halbach noted she was uncomfortable in going to Avery's place because he has answered the door in only a towel before.
5. In addition to Steven previous convictions, both his brothers Chuck and Earl had been convicted of previous sexual assault which is why the locals felt this way about the family. It was not just based on gossip. Of course, this has no bearing on his guilt in this case, but it explains the overall distrust and dislike of the family.
Used in court
6. Susan Brandt, who worked an internship as a counselor at Mishicot middle and high schools in early 2006... Brandt said Kayla Avery told her and a Mishicot counselor in January 2006 that 'she was scared because her uncle Steven Avery had asked one of her cousins to help move a body.' The girl didn't specify which of her cousins allegedly helped Avery, Brandt said, and she was scared but not 'confused.'"
7. This earlier interview with Brendan, with a completely different and more plausible scenario was not addressed in the documentary
https://youtu.be/drwb15E_taM
Used in court
8. Rav 4 battery had been disconnected and Avery's non blood DNA was found on the hood latch.
The transcript of the phone call was used in court because Bredan tells his mother he committed the crime during the course of the investigation.
9. Brendan claims Avery sexual molested him and other children while speaking to his mother.
Previous arrest information. The documentary never mentioned any domestic issues with Jodi.
10. The documentary painted the relationship between Steven and Jodi as a rosy, trouble free relationship. They failed to disclose Avery was arrested for violating a disorderly conduct ordinance after a domestic incident with Jodi. The court ordered him to stay away from the woman for 72 hours and pay a fine of $243.
Used in court.
11. According to a prison informant, Avery drew a torture chamber while in prison and according to statements made by other victims, Avery was violent to other women
According to an Appleton Post Crescent article from March 9, 2006, "While he was in prison, Steven Avery planned the torture and killing of a young woman, new documents released Wednesday indicate. The allegations are included in 22 pages of court documents accompanying additional charges filed by Calumet County Dist. Atty. Ken Kratz. ... Kratz also included in Wednesday's filings statements from prisoners who served time with Avery at Green Bay Correctional Institution. They said Avery talked about and showed them diagrams of a torture chamber he planned to build when he was released."
Furthermore, reported the newspaper, "The filings also include statements from a woman, now 41, who said she was raped by Avery, who told her if she yelled or screamed there was going to be trouble. There also is an affidavit from a girl who said she was raped by Avery. The victim's mother indicated that the victim does not want to speak about the sexual assault between her and Steven Avery because Steven Avery told her if she 'told anyone about their activities together he would kill her family,'" the filing said. According to the newspaper article, "The affidavit said Avery admitted to his fiancee that he had sexually assaulted the girl
