Setting a cat on fire and opening a door with nothing but a towel on, and you say that doesn't remotely relate to torture or rape?
He was still the most well known of the family in the area with the police, and be the most likely to flee. You wouldn't ask about his mom or dad, or sister. Perhaps brother but if YOU were from that area and were told that the found the vehicle of a missing girl on the family property I am sure the first thing that would come to your mind also would be him, not other members of the family.
He was jacking off in the front yard and waving to the people driving by. He has some things that would make me suspect he might be capable of this crime for sure. The girl met with Avery. Unless I am mistaken nobody else met with her. Was anyone else even home at the time?
I get it, but finding someone guilty on a hunch or because of the past isn't criteria for the justice system. You have to have evidence that HE did it specifically. Let me tell you a little story. I've ridden past people I didn't know in a park and flashed my butt with my cheeks spread from the passenger seat when I was in high school. I also hit a few live frogs with a baseball bat with my cousins before. I was young and dumb, yet I am not a murderer.
But what if some women was found beat to death by a bat and there were signs of fecal matter around? lol just saying, burning a cat is not a normal young teen boy thing to do. Firecrackers up a bullfrog butt yeah, but not torching a cat.
He wasn't found guilty at that moment. That same comment about whether he was in custody can be looked at in different ways depending on how it was portrayed in the show. They want to make it look like a conspiracy so that is the way they present the comment. If they presented it from law enforcements point of view, it is a logical question given the circumstances.
It was a recording presented in court between an operator and officer that occurred moments after the car was found, and no other family members were mentioned in the phone call. If that isn't targeting then I don't know what is. I get it, but the whole thing is a controversy. There's people out there who think OJ was innocent and I think they are crazy, so I get it. Different perspectives and opinions, which is fine.
Yes they were targeting him, because he was one of if not the most likely suspect immediately when the vehicle was found on the family. When married woman are found murdered, the spouse immediately becomes the prime target of the investigation. When they investigated the properties, they didn't just look at his home, they looked at every building of the family.
Yes he was smart enough to clean up all the blood and crime scene, but left the RAV in back with a few branches and a pallet and tarp to hide it. Why use the car crusher, when it's hidden so well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Steven Avery has been accused of many things however he has never been accused of being intelligent. To me it sounds like the family didn't allow Steven to touch or operate the big equipment, like the front end loader or the car compactor.
Incorrect (according to the show). he used the car compactor the day before the girl disappeared. And used it often.
Question (may have been discussed already) - Did they search for fingerprints on any of the scraps covering the RAV?? Or door handles? Or find any evidence beyond the blood in the RAV (Fibers from pants, etc)? Can't recall from the show if they did and just thought about it.
Ya think? I think that is what some are saying. He was smart enough to do what he did but not crush the car? I even admit that is strange Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There were no fingerprints of Avery on the car, just the mysterious blood that he "accidentally" left (sarcasm). He was so good at cleaning up every bit of blood in his trailer and wiped down the entire RAV4 so to not leave a single trace (except the blood in convenient places to be found), additionally he conveniently decided not to crush the RAV4. Hopefully some of my sarcasm can be sensed here. I also thought it was odd that he needed to put her body in the back of the RAV4 to haul her a whole 20 feet from his trailer to the fire pit. That's honestly what the prosecutors are implying. It's complete nonsense, just like the rest of the evidence.
Well at this point Netflix should do a special with Maury Povich and put Steven on a lie detecter on live TV
Crushing doesn't get rid of the vehicle. It would still need to be disposed of somewhere. Harder to move around when crushed and it can still be identified once crushed. Finding the car crushed would eliminate any possibility of claiming it was put their by somebody outside the family. There was additional dna of avery found on the car also.
He had some of the best lawyers around, do you honestly think that same idea did not cross their minds and that they didn't argue the same point to try and create reasonable doubt. having never murdered somebody myself, I would guess, there is a lot of things running through a murders mind which explains why so often, it is stupid little things they do or don't do that gets them caught.
Lighting a cat on fire, jacking off while people pass by in broad daylight, and answering the door in a towel as the victim stands there should send alarms to everyone the guy is suspect numero uno. Other than that, I dont know the facts of the case and I don't plan to watch the one sided "documentary".
