You can't really predict how someone will behave at a time like that and you don't know what exactly was going on when he talked to Fabian and Chuck for example. Maybe she was already dead and thus he wasn't interrupted at all. He was expecting those phone calls by Jodi.. she called him every night. He was prepared for those.
Maybe so. I just have to use my best judgement. To me there is nothing suspicious about how Steven acted as if nothing unusual was going on if in fact nothing unusual was going on. Go ahead and search. Here, take my DNA samples. Maybe I'll just go away for the weekend while you take over the area where I left evidence in plain sight for anyone who looks. My theory is that he acted innocent because he was innocent. Shortest route between two dots is a straight line.
If he's trying to hide something, why not act as cool as a cucumber as you say? Did he even act "as cool as a cucumber" though? His behaviour was different, according to Fabian. It was also different according to Bryan Dassey few days later.
If Steven was acting different after cops start coming around investigating him regarding Teresa's disappearance, it would hardly be surprising he wasn't feeling care free knowing how he was railroaded by police into prison for a crime he did not and could not have committed.
I created this thread to focus on Steven's inconsistent statements. Your response to that was that Fabian could be wrong, but left that unsubstantiated.
I was interested in the telling details of the story. There's nothing to substantiate that Fabian's hearsay claims are correct.
I never said they are common. I'm just pointing out nobody ever said they saw Teresa inside the RAV4 and nobody ever said it was the RAV4. For all we know it could be Steven inside the RAV4 trying to hide it somewhere. It's a pretty weak argument. We know someone must have transported the RAV4 to where it was eventually found, and it wasn't Teresa.
Since it came up, I was pointing out how we have several witnesses to the RAV4 leaving ASY, which tends to go against the narrative that Teresa and her vehicle never left.
And the propane truck driver claimed to have seen the RAV4 at what, 3:30? Didn't the bus driver say something similar? We all know how unreliable she turned out to be. First you're saying that nobody remembers the bonfire because such a mundane thing, yet you're not applying this to some totally random propane driver!? It's even more mundane to him than any other person we talked about.
I'm not sure what kind of comparison you're trying to make between someone actually recalling something specific and people not mentioning something that may not have happened.
Then maybe you should make a thread about his demeanor.
I probably should - since so much of the Steve-did-it hypothesis relies on Steven being someone who can't control himself and that is his 'motive' for his allegedly committing this crime, it seems that it would be a good reminder that on this occasion he was not in any state such as that which was allegedly his entire motivation.
Nobody anywhere in Wisconsin mentioned this "unforgettable stench of burning human flesh", while TH was confirmed to have been burned outside by Eisenberg and DeHaan. My link also showed you that it may not always smell the way you claim it should smell. So perhaps it just didn't.
Just about every source I have consulted (even the one you provided) claims it is an unmistakable and unforgettable stench, I think it is safe to conclude that no body was burned in the vicinity of Steven Avery's home that night since no one noticed any such thing. This would appear to be confirmed by Dr Fairgreave's testimony. Sadly, since the site was not forensically examined due to some bizarre effort of police investigators to block the county coroner's office from doing their job, it will never be known for certain if TH was cremated there.
Fabian was sure enough about it to tell the cops about it and incriminate his own relative-in-law and the brother of the man he was going to hunt with that day.
Steven has never been consistent about any statement regarding anything that either links him to the crime scene or the victim, and this quote fits right into that.
Some of these 'quotes', like Fabian's, I can't confirm that Steven actually said them. So that slows down my acceptance of this claim.
I don't think everything is suspicious about him, but changing your story so often, including denying she showed up to removing yourself from the crime scene, even before it was designated as the crime scene, are definitely suspicious.
Since I can't be sure of the provenance of some of these 'quotes', I can't be positive that Steven changed his story. Every direct quote of him from any recorded source I've seen mentions that Teresa was there. Since in my opinion it would be a dumb lie in the first place, it would make more sense to say she came and she went - and this would obtain whether he did commit a crime or was completely innocent.
Then there is also the mountain of evidence that has yet to be explained away as well.
There is no 'mountain of evidence'. There is an vehicle, which by virtue of its wheels, can be easily moved from place to place. There are a few spots of blood, which once they leave a person's body are also quite portable. We have some burned materials, which may or may not have been moved. We have 'sweat DNA' which mysteriously appears in amounts far beyond what scientific experiment would indicate is normal. We have a forensics lab which can't avoid contaminating samples. We have
molehills of evidence.
However, when the burn barrels were examined they found something other than just trash, didn't they? They found her electronics. And it's not like he didn't "recall" the "specifics" about such an "unremarkable event", he firmly denied it happened. He was supposedly sure about not burning it. He never said he doesn't recall or that he is uncertain. At the same time he gives a clear picture about even minor details of the rest of the day.
I have myself had occasion to not recall some details of an insignificant event, to the point of thinking it didn't happen on a certain day of the week, but another day. Perhaps he stated this more strongly than he should have. I'm not clear on what alleged purpose a deliberate lie about burning something is supposed to serve. It's his fire pit and his burn barrel. There's no point in having such things without burning stuff in them.
Or a body simply doesn't always smell like that.
I'll just have to stick to what is widely reported by people who have experienced it, rather than supposing this was an exception to the rule.
Yes, but it also included the line I gave you earlier. Is it guaranteed a body smells like you said it does? No. And nobody smelled anything, like you said. Which means that TH's body simply didn't have that horrific smell you're trying to ascribe to it.
You seem to be confusing what I am arguing. A half dozen people were
at Steven Avery's without noticing anything peculiar. But a body burned far away from witnesses would be less likely to have anyone present to notice the stench. The difference is between
near and
far. I am suggesting people
closer to a source would be more likely to smell something than someone who is far away from the source. That would, in my opinion, make a huge difference.
Yes, as that link I showed you already said it doesn't have to smell like you think it should.
Yes, I already addressed your link and quoted the words you left out.
The burn barrel fire was seen about 5PM. The bonfire didn't start until about 7PM or 6:30PM. he didn't have to walk dozens of yards as the barrel and pit were used at different times. The barrel was burning near Avery's house as well, so even if they were used at the same time, they weren't far apart.
It is claimed some of TH's things were also retrieved from the Janda burn barrel, about 70 yards away from the fire pit and easily 100 yards from Steven's burn barrel. Juggling three different fires (if we exclude the fire at the Radant property about half a mile away where human cremains were also discovered) makes it rather more complicated than not. Even if we suppose all these fires were at different times, that just leaves
less time for Steven to do all the things attributed to him.
There is only evidence suggesting the body was burned at ASY.
If we ignore the inconvenient fact of evidence of charred human cremains at the Radant property...
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Exhibit-402-Diagram-of-Avery-Salvage-Yard.pdf
But why should we ignore evidence?
You said Steven invited people (plural). He didn't.
The evidence we have is that he did. I'm not one to ignore evidence
exists.
I don't like nor dislike what you're brining to the table. I think the witnesses are extremely weak, for the reasons I pointed out earlier. They are irrelevant at this point because of the lack of detail, uncertainty about what they saw, the fact they bring it up years after the fact, etc.
Glad to see you admit I am bringing something to the table, even if you think eyewitness testimony is weak.
You have no idea when Steven was doing what. None of the people at ASY except maybe Brendan ever came inside his trailer or garage that day, where TH was being held.
There is no evidence Teresa was being held at Steven Avery's. None.
It's like saying you think your neighbour is innocent of a murder, because you live next to him and noticed nothing unusual, while u never were inside his home. It's not really an argument at all, and it doesn't dispel any of the evidence that was found at ASY nor does it explain Avery's strange inconsistencies.
The evidence we have is circumstantial, which in some cases can be very strong. On the other hand, we have exculpatory evidence, which can also be compelling. So it is up to us to use our best judgement. For me, the fact that Steven acted in a totally believable and innocent manner - instead of like the impulsive, angry, out-of-control monster he is often depicted as - indicates the prosecution narrative is deficient.
Steven never said he never said it. He has tried other things though... such as completely omitting the quote, or by placing Fabian's visit on the 24th of October. But never did he try to say he didn't say that.
Why would Steven say he never said 'X'? Few people spend their time denying things they never said. At least I don't.
Omitting the 'quote' attributed to him by Fabian can easily be explained if Steven did not say any such absurd thing.
Did Steven tell everyone he was meeting a photographer? In Chuck's first interview he said he had no idea and thought Steven was working most of the day.
Certainly Earl must have known - otherwise how would he know to ask how things went with the photographer? The Jandas must have known, as it was their vehicle that they were selling. People at Auto Trader must have known, since he made the appointment with them. What do you suppose he told his co-workers when he knocked off work early? The obvious thing - he had an appointment to sell a vehicle.
Did Delores ever confirm this though? She wouldn't be hesitant to give him an alibi would she?
I'd be be very interested to hear or see a recording of Dolores making a statement.
And thanks for the input.
