[Ammi]

..atm I'm leaning very much toward guilty with Steven because guilty is the most logical..a big thing for me are the previous things before his wrongful imprisonment..the cat and his threatening his cousin with a gun...those are things that don't really show a 'healthy mind' ..although a long time ago, that unhealthy mind wouldn't really right itself...and torturing an animal, as has been said many times can be a huge red flag to identifying a murderer...there are many inconsistencies with possible suspects which can make theories but that's all they are, inconsistencies ..there is nothing with any other possible suspect that says that unhealthy mind the way Steven's past has said...Teresa's charred remains were found on his property, her car was found on his property, he was 'the last person', so the most logical is that he killed her and surely the most logical is more often than not, the correct..?...and added to what we do know pretty much for certain, that he was a disturbed person....


..the timing of it Girth with his lawsuit case..?..yeah, that does throw it off but I don't even think that's something that Steven would have considered because his mind wasn't/isn't healthy ..in the relatively short time before the wrongful imprisonment that he spent as a free man, he displayed 'disturbing' on two occasions...and in the short time of 2 years since his release, he's killed someone..that to me is the most logical but it's been completely complicated because of the ineptitude and bungling of the police dept and forensics team....

[Ammi]

..the problem is because the police dept only ever fully investigated Steven, we'll never know the for sure because all and any possible 'absolute' evidence is now lost...

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..atm I'm leaning very much toward guilty with Steven because guilty is the most logical..a big thing for me are the previous things before his wrongful imprisonment..the cat and his threatening his cousin with a gun...those are things that don't really show a 'healthy mind' ..although a long time ago, that unhealthy mind wouldn't really right itself...and torturing an animal, as has been said many times can be a huge red flag to identifying a murderer...there are many inconsistencies with possible suspects which can make theories but that's all they are, inconsistencies ..there is nothing with any other possible suspect that says that unhealthy mind the way Steven's past has said...Teresa's charred remains were found on his property, her car was found on his property, he was 'the last person', so the most logical is that he killed her and surely the most logical is more often than not, the correct..?...and added to what we do know pretty much for certain, that he was a disturbed person....


..the timing of it Girth with his lawsuit case..?..yeah, that does throw it off but I don't even think that's something that Steven would have considered because his mind wasn't/isn't healthy ..in the relatively short time before the wrongful imprisonment that he spent as a free man, he displayed 'disturbing' on two occasions...and in the short time of 2 years since his release, he's killed someone..that to me is the most logical but it's been completely complicated because of the ineptitude and bungling of the police dept and forensics team....

every single straight male i grew up with tortured animals. my best friend in elementary school loved to collect caterpillars in a jar during recess... and as soon as we got inside he's fill the jar with water to kill them all. He was certainly not a murderer. well he was a caterpillar murderer when he was 8 years old, but he's certainly not a murderer as an adult. I had plenty of friends that would pour salt on slugs, or take great glee in killing spiders with boots. stomping on ant hills, bashing bee hives with baseball bats.

[Josy]

I still don't believe he did it, and I don't believe Brendan was anything at all to do with it either.

Stevens asked his new lawyer to carry out every forensic test available, would amguilty person really do that?

[Josy]

[Josy]

Theres a hair on that piece of paper and it's annoying me

[DemolitionRed]

Something like thirty percent of children who have witnessed or been the subject of abuse will go on to harm animals. Stephen was a teenager and so was well aware that what he did was wrong but that doesn't make him a sociopath/psychopath, though it likely does mean he had anti-social behavioural problems. He did this in front of friends and so it could of been peer pressure, alcohol or substance abuse.

At no point (from what I've seen so far) has there been any sign of child or partner abuse. It was repeatedly pointed out what a loving dad and partner he was and this doesn't ring true with a low functioning sociopath, though of course he could be.

There doesn't seem to be any psychiatrists involved in this case though which is odd. If this trial had been in the UK, at least one psychiatrist would of studied Stephens personality. Perhaps they did and we just weren't shown that.

Edited to add: Steven does appear to be void of emotions. He could be a sociopath but even if he is, that doesn't mean he committed this murder.

[DemolitionRed]

One things for sure, this would never of been admissible in a British court and those detectives who interviewed Brenden certainly wouldn't be practising detectives any more. A confession doesn't make a person guilty unless there's proof to back that confession up. Brenden was a vulnerable teenager with intellectual impairment and its exactly this sort of person who will wrongly confess under pressure.

The entire conviction was unsafe because it lacked evidence and the evidence found pointed towards corruption.
The police officer who called in the Toyota registration 2 days before the car was found.
The key thob turning up and found by one of the police officers who was about to be financially burdened by Stevens compensation claim.
The key thob having none of the murder victims DNA but had Steve's DNA on it.
The blood file that had been tampered with and clearly had a needle mark in the top.
No blood in the garage or blood or bodily fluids in the bedroom.
A spent bullet which had been contaminated.
Inconsistent witness statements, especially over the time of day.
Deleted messages on the murder victims mobile phone.
Important footage of Brendan's interviews missing in the court room.
Relatives not investigated. There could of been very good reasons for sibling murder but they didn't bother to find out.

It all screams of a set up so far but I should watch it all before sticking with that conclusion.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..atm I'm leaning very much toward guilty with Steven because guilty is the most logical..a big thing for me are the previous things before his wrongful imprisonment..the cat and his threatening his cousin with a gun...those are things that don't really show a 'healthy mind' ..although a long time ago, that unhealthy mind wouldn't really right itself...and torturing an animal, as has been said many times can be a huge red flag to identifying a murderer...there are many inconsistencies with possible suspects which can make theories but that's all they are, inconsistencies ..there is nothing with any other possible suspect that says that unhealthy mind the way Steven's past has said...Teresa's charred remains were found on his property, her car was found on his property, he was 'the last person', so the most logical is that he killed her and surely the most logical is more often than not, the correct..?...and added to what we do know pretty much for certain, that he was a disturbed person....


..the timing of it Girth with his lawsuit case..?..yeah, that does throw it off but I don't even think that's something that Steven would have considered because his mind wasn't/isn't healthy ..in the relatively short time before the wrongful imprisonment that he spent as a free man, he displayed 'disturbing' on two occasions...and in the short time of 2 years since his release, he's killed someone..that to me is the most logical but it's been completely complicated because of the ineptitude and bungling of the police dept and forensics team....

Yeah, I keep flip flopping back and forth but I think this probably right too, I do however think the Police interfered with the investigation and because of that they muddied the waters, i think if they'd investigated it properly their case might actually have looked more solid

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

every single straight male i grew up with tortured animals. my best friend in elementary school loved to collect caterpillars in a jar during recess... and as soon as we got inside he's fill the jar with water to kill them all. He was certainly not a murderer. well he was a caterpillar murderer when he was 8 years old, but he's certainly not a murderer as an adult. I had plenty of friends that would pour salt on slugs, or take great glee in killing spiders with boots. stomping on ant hills, bashing bee hives with baseball bats.

Steve was 20 though when he did that to the cat, wasn't he?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

I still don't believe he did it, and I don't believe Brendan was anything at all to do with it either.

Stevens asked his new lawyer to carry out every forensic test available, would amguilty person really do that?

Maybe if he thought it was his only chance and it got him off last time

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Steve was 20 though when he did that to the cat, wasn't he?

I thought he was a juvenile but even if he was 20, he probably had the mental capacity of a 16 year old.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Something like thirty percent of children who have witnessed or been the subject of abuse will go on to harm animals. Stephen was a teenager and so was well aware that what he did was wrong but that doesn't make him a sociopath/psychopath, though it likely does mean he had anti-social behavioural problems. He did this in front of friends and so it could of been peer pressure, alcohol or substance abuse.

At no point (from what I've seen so far) has there been any sign of child or partner abuse. It was repeatedly pointed out what a loving dad and partner he was and this doesn't ring true with a low functioning sociopath, though of course he could be.

There doesn't seem to be any psychiatrists involved in this case though which is odd. If this trial had been in the UK, at least one psychiatrist would of studied Stephens personality. Perhaps they did and we just weren't shown that.

Edited to add: Steven does appear to be void of emotions. He could be a sociopath but even if he is, that doesn't mean he committed this murder.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-innocent.html

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I thought he was a juvenile but even if he was 20, he probably had the mental capacity of a 16 year old.

Also, Brendan told police that Steve used to touch him and other kids inappropriately, that wasn't shown on the Documentary but it was recorded ona phone call he made to his mother from prison

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I thought he was a juvenile but even if he was 20, he probably had the mental capacity of a 16 year old.

No I double checked it, he was 20 when he did that

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, I keep flip flopping back and forth but I think this probably right too, I do however think the Police interfered with the investigation and because of that they muddied the waters, i think if they'd investigated it properly their case might actually have looked more solid

..you know what I think (atm..)...and this a bit way out there, I know..(which is why I only voiced it privately to Drew a while ago and then said I would shoot him and burn his body if he ever said anything..)...

..I don't think that the police interfered as much as we think they did, I think they did go onto his property illegally and find Teresa's car so that's been suspicious..but I think that Steven killed Teresa and then himself 'planted evidence' and he did that because he wanted it to be the same as before/the conspiracies and the suspicions etc, so he had to remove evidence and then plant it...it's the most logical thing that the killer is the one who had her car key and I believe he killed her...the dna/sweat/blood..?..well...(those are all things he could get from himself and he seems like a bit of a sweaty person..)...and the charred bones obviously, although he may not have so much planted them later, as burned her body later....


...the 'psychology' I think is a little like I said in another post about Brendon, that he seemed to lead an 'invisible' life in terms of his family/social groups etc and the only pic I've seen him smiling in was one which was taken in prison, that maybe prison has given him something..?...and ok, well he wouldn't have smiled that much with what he was going through/nothing to smile about...but then what would there be to smile about in prison either and I've googled so many pics, not one of him smiling except that one...

..anyway, that's Brendon...with Steven, well not many people seemed to think of the whole family in anything but a negative way/that creepy weirdo family, type thing...and within the family environment itself..?...again, brother, cousins, nephews etc...all probably a little 'invisible'...so Steven was also a disturbed mind as well..(I think..)...had he have been convicted for the original 6 years for threatening his cousin with a gun/jumping out at her etc...he would have been a guilty man, serving a sentence, nothing more than that...as it was and because of an incompetent forensics person plus a police dept that were all too willing to believe he raped as well...he served 18yrs of a legitimate protested innocence...and the 'attention' that received, suddenly Steven Avery was someone and he was someone in a positive way, because he was an innocent man..people fought for him..'his supporters', he had the full attention of his parents, it became his life for 18yrs and in a perverted, disturbing way..something he likes....he was 'Steven Avery' an innocent man....so I think it became his 'comfort zone' almost but also gave him 'fame'...he killed Teresa I think because, he is a disturbed person, he's a killer...but being a guilty man would give him nothing that he'd been given before and nothing that he 'craved', so he had to try to become an innocent man and 'interfere' himself....


..I guess what I'm thinking as well, is of killers like Mark David Chapman who killed John Lennon, he wanted to be 'famous' and obviously an unwell mind...with Steven I don't think that he wanted to or craved until it came to him through incompetence and a conviction that was wrongful...through that, he got so much attention and I think that was a world that he wanted to live in again....so many people out her, fighting pleading his innocence and focusing on him...

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by lostalex

every single straight male i grew up with tortured animals. my best friend in elementary school loved to collect caterpillars in a jar during recess... and as soon as we got inside he's fill the jar with water to kill them all. He was certainly not a murderer. well he was a caterpillar murderer when he was 8 years old, but he's certainly not a murderer as an adult. I had plenty of friends that would pour salt on slugs, or take great glee in killing spiders with boots. stomping on ant hills, bashing bee hives with baseball bats.

..the caterpillar killer, would make a great serial killer name though.....but killing a caterpillar though Alex is not the same as what Steven did to the cat...if you had, had a family cat/dog and your best friend came around and picked it up, through it on a fire and burned it...I don't think that you would be thinking, well I had a best friend and he did that, but well doesn't everyone do that../or every straight male as you describe...

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-innocent.html

Clearly this programme is biased.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..you know what I think (atm..)...and this a bit way out there, I know..(which is why I only voiced it privately to Drew a while ago and then said I would shoot him and burn his body if he ever said anything..)...

..I don't think that the police interfered as much as we think they did, I think they did go onto his property illegally and find Teresa's car so that's been suspicious..but I think that Steven killed Teresa and then himself 'planted evidence' and he did that because he wanted it to be the same as before/the conspiracies and the suspicions etc, so he had to remove evidence and then plant it...it's the most logical thing that the killer is the one who had her car key and I believe he killed her...the dna/sweat/blood..?..well...(those are all things he could get from himself and he seems like a bit of a sweaty person..)...and the charred bones obviously, although he may not have so much planted them later, as burned her body later....


...the 'psychology' I think is a little like I said in another post about Brendon, that he seemed to lead an 'invisible' life in terms of his family/social groups etc and the only pic I've seen him smiling in was one which was taken in prison, that maybe prison has given him something..?...and ok, well he wouldn't have smiled that much with what he was going through/nothing to smile about...but then what would there be to smile about in prison either and I've googled so many pics, not one of him smiling except that one...

..anyway, that's Brendon...with Steven, well not many people seemed to think of the whole family in anything but a negative way/that creepy weirdo family, type thing...and within the family environment itself..?...again, brother, cousins, nephews etc...all probably a little 'invisible'...so Steven was also a disturbed mind as well..(I think..)...had he have been convicted for the original 6 years for threatening his cousin with a gun/jumping out at her etc...he would have been a guilty man, serving a sentence, nothing more than that...as it was and because of an incompetent forensics person plus a police dept that were all too willing to believe he raped as well...he served 18yrs of a legitimate protested innocence...and the 'attention' that received, suddenly Steven Avery was someone and he was someone in a positive way, because he was an innocent man..people fought for him..'his supporters', he had the full attention of his parents, it became his life for 18yrs and in a perverted, disturbing way..something he likes....he was 'Steven Avery' an innocent man....so I think it became his 'comfort zone' almost but also gave him 'fame'...he killed Teresa I think because, he is a disturbed person, he's a killer...but being a guilty man would give him nothing that he'd been given before and nothing that he 'craved', so he had to try to become an innocent man and 'interfere' himself....


..I guess what I'm thinking as well, is of killers like Mark David Chapman who killed John Lennon, he wanted to be 'famous' and obviously an unwell mind...with Steven I don't think that he wanted to or craved until it came to him through incompetence and a conviction that was wrongful...through that, he got so much attention and I think that was a world that he wanted to live in again....so many people out her, fighting pleading his innocence and focusing on him...

Ohhhhh now that is a very very interesting theory Ammi Definitely one to think about. It would be quite clever but very risky too, is he really that clever? Or incredibly stupid depending on how you look at it?

I need to digest this one properly

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Clearly this programme is biased.

I know, I was so convinced of how innocent he was straight after I watched it, then i started googling lots when i was done and started feeling like an idiot for letting that show manipulate me so much, now I don't know where I stand on the whole thing, it is an intriguing case though

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

One things for sure, this would never of been admissible in a British court and those detectives who interviewed Brenden certainly wouldn't be practising detectives any more. A confession doesn't make a person guilty unless there's proof to back that confession up. Brenden was a vulnerable teenager with intellectual impairment and its exactly this sort of person who will wrongly confess under pressure.

The entire conviction was unsafe because it lacked evidence and the evidence found pointed towards corruption.
The police officer who called in the Toyota registration 2 days before the car was found.
The key thob turning up and found by one of the police officers who was about to be financially burdened by Stevens compensation claim.
The key thob having none of the murder victims DNA but had Steve's DNA on it.
The blood file that had been tampered with and clearly had a needle mark in the top.
No blood in the garage or blood or bodily fluids in the bedroom.
A spent bullet which had been contaminated.
Inconsistent witness statements, especially over the time of day.
Deleted messages on the murder victims mobile phone.
Important footage of Brendan's interviews missing in the court room.
Relatives not investigated. There could of been very good reasons for sibling murder but they didn't bother to find out.

It all screams of a set up so far but I should watch it all before sticking with that conclusion.

Apparently those blood vials all have those needle marks in them, it's how they get the blood into the vials

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Ohhhhh now that is a very very interesting theory Ammi Definitely one to think about. It would be quite clever but very risky too, is he really that clever? Or incredibly stupid depending on how you look at it?

I need to digest this one properly

..yeah I don't know if it was clever or not because 7 jury members at the start thought he was innocent so that could have gone either way...?...so maybe not clever in thinking it through either and the possibility of him not being convicted..but as soon as he was arrested, he was straight in with 'I'm innocent' and he (possibly..)..also factored in the added thing of the timing in killing her, when he was just about to win the lawsuit, so full 'support' with 'corrupt police' dept there as well....

..I just think the most logical is that he killed her....

[Ammi]

..also with the blood vial, well that was contaminated by a complete incompetent who had got the wrong hair DNA in the first trial, she's basically useless...

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..yeah I don't know if it was clever or not because 7 jury members at the start thought he was innocent so that could have gone either way...?...so maybe not clever in thinking it through either and the possibility of him not being convicted..but as soon as he was arrested, he was straight in with 'I'm innocent' and he (possibly..)..also factored in the added thing of the timing in killing her, when he was just about to win the lawsuit, so full 'support' with 'corrupt police' dept there as well....

..I just think the most logical is that he killed her....

Yeah, I guess it would be quite smart really, it almost worked for him too, it was just that the 3 guilty jurors were obviously more stronger willed. he still might get out though

[Niamh.]

Here DR, this is about the Blood Vial :

http://uproxx.com/tv/making-a-murder...-steven-avery/