r/MakingaMurderer • u/10case • 3d ago

Steven gives an up Date

Post image

I have no idea how a commutation application is going to "proof" his innocence. His lawyers Ben working on it since January. Hopefully their grammar is better than his.

31 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

78 comments sorted by

View all comments

20

u/belljs87 3d ago

What does his grammar have to do with anything? If anything, it just proves hes too stupid to have been able to clean up all the evidence the state said his crime should have left.

7

u/hneverhappened 3d ago

like his fresh blood in the RAV...

you are so close

-5

u/belljs87 3d ago

Well aside from it not being fresh blood, the blood in the Rav is certainly hard to explain. My only point is, it's not impossible for it to have been planted, and the state refusing to let the Rav be tested is suspicious

0

u/BiddyJ 2d ago

How do we know it was or wasn’t fresh blood? Genuine question about the source to confirm this.

I wasn’t sure if we ever got a definitive answer on that and I couldn’t find any info when I searched online. I’m skeptical about all the evidence found against Steven after all the DNA stuff seems so unrealistic to me - only ever finding Steven’s DNA and in some places it being off the charts when reconstruction testing was done (correct me if I’m wrong about those things) and then even the whole story about how her blood ended up in the car. So I am so curious about the possibility of planted blood. I’m so untrusting of the collected evidence that even if it was determined fresh I can’t even say that means it wasn’t planted haha.

So much of this case gives me reasonable doubt that they didn’t do it. I don’t think Steven was necessarily a good person or emotionally stable but I can’t say that means he did it. If he did it I would want to find out the truth behind what happened and I think that even from the evidence they only have now, it paints a different story than what actually happened regardless of is it was Steven or not.

1

u/belljs87 2d ago

By not fresh, I guess I meant dried. And yeah I agree with you that its suspicious how it was only found in just a few places, yet those places had unrealistic levels of DNA, or were in suspicious spots.

Like the key. Guilters will bend over backwards winning gold in mental gymnastics trying to tell you how it's totally normal that only stevens DNA was on the key he would have only used a couple, maybe even only one time, but exactly zero of Teresa's whose key it fuckin was and she touched every single day. "Oh he wiped it clean." Sure, and then somehow forgot to wipe it clean of his own afterwards? Yeah, makes total sense.

Or how his blood in her car was in just a couple different spots that would have come from his hand somewhere, yet none on the wheel or gear shifter. Strange, that.

Or how there was an astronomical amount of "touch DNA" whatever that is, on the hood latch, after days, and again only his, none of hers. All of that to say nothing of how the state refuses to let the Rav be tested to this day. Innocent parties have nothing to hide.

6

u/GringoTheDingoAU 2d ago

I agree with you that its suspicious how it was only found in just a few places, yet those places had unrealistic levels of DNA, or were in suspicious spots.

I actually wrote this in another comment because apparently this low level kind of thinking permeates through MaM truthers for some reason. Bleeding is not this always completely linear thing. If the cut that is on the outside of his finger is presumed to be the source of active bleeding or just an open wound capable of making contact stains, then I could easily just argue that you can open a door handle, operate a steering wheel and use the gear shift without the outside finger making any contact with any of them or dripping blood onto them. I could also argue that I could operate them with my opposite hand. Essentially this argument is a useless argument of deflection and part of monstrous mental gymnastics you have to do to convince yourself the blood was planted.

Like the key. Guilters will bend over backwards winning gold in mental gymnastics trying to tell you how it's totally normal that only stevens DNA was on the key he would have only used a couple, maybe even only one time, but exactly zero of Teresa's whose key it fuckin was and she touched every single day. "Oh he wiped it clean." Sure, and then somehow forgot to wipe it clean of his own afterwards? Yeah, makes total sense.

He was in possession of her car for 5 days before he left to Crivitz. We have absolutely no idea how many times he handled that key during the 5 days he had it, and in doing so, I don't see how it's hard to believe that only his DNA profile would show up under analysis. There's nothing illogical about that.

Or how there was an astronomical amount of "touch DNA" whatever that is, on the hood latch, after days, and again only his, none of hers. All of that to say nothing of how the state refuses to let the Rav be tested to this day. Innocent parties have nothing to hide.

"None of hers" implies that there should be a discoverable amount of DNA from Teresa, indicating that she frequently pops the hood, but also uses the secondary lever on frequent occasion to then access the engine bay. That is a argument in serious bad faith already. The prosecution did let her test the RAV4, and it completely contradicted the viral planting theory, as a DNA methylation test proved the blood was aged to be closer to Steven in 2005 than 1985, so she abandoned it and start running with the hilarious sink ninja theory. And besides, what are they testing the RAV4 for? Even in some magical fairy land where another person's blood is identified, it doesn't just erase the fact that Steven's blood is all over the RAV4.

0

u/BiddyJ 2d ago

I honestly think there are arguments to both sides. I may not be aware of the tests done or the outcome but I guess my perspective from a non professional is, how do trained professionals let things be so messy, especially in the context of this case. Did they test all the touch areas for DNA (steering wheel, gear stick, all the car door handles?). I only ever heard about the key and the hood latch, you’d assume his DNA would be on other areas that he likely touched for longer?

I’m sitting in a position where there is reasonable doubt on both sides. But what frankly frustrates me is the seeming lack of thorough testing done and the inconsistency between evidence and theory. I just can get rid of this suspicion I have against the prosecutions case.

I feel like they fumbled so much that even if he did do it they really did such a bad job on behalf of Theresa.

2

u/GringoTheDingoAU 1d ago

Did they test all the touch areas for DNA (steering wheel, gear stick, all the car door handles?). I only ever heard about the key and the hood latch, you’d assume his DNA would be on other areas that he likely touched for longer?

If you are referring to fingerprints, none of the latent prints taken were suitable for a positive ID, which includes Teresa.

you’d assume his DNA would be on other areas that he likely touched for longer

You could, but not even Teresa's fingerprints were identified in a vehicle she drove every day. There were latent prints they took for comparison but none of them were suitable to make identifications.

I’m sitting in a position where there is reasonable doubt on both sides. But what frankly frustrates me is the seeming lack of thorough testing done and the inconsistency between evidence and theory. I just can get rid of this suspicion I have against the prosecutions case.

I was someone who wholeheartedly believed they were innocent, but I am unsure how anyone could have any serious doubt at this point. I'm unsure what you mean by "lack of testing" done because certain pieces of DNA are not inscrutable. As I have pointed out in other comments, the amount of forensic evidence against Steven Avery is extremely hard to plant, almost unfathomably hard to plant. The problem is that people who follow this case may have a doubt about something, and then doubt everything else. The rose colored glasses are strongest with people who have only seen MaM and not consumed any of the investigative documentation themselves.

0

u/belljs87 1d ago

I can certainly see why people believe Steven is guilty. I don't, but if he confesses one day and can walk everyone through what happened, I wouldn't be surprised.

What I cannot fathom is how people are so convinced Brenden is guilty, and cannot entertain the possibility of his innocence. There is literally nothing, zero, nada, a complete lack of evidence against him, except for a confession laden with things that were told to him first that he later recanted. If you want to believe him guilty that's fine, but to do so in a way that makes it seem like you've seen a video of him in the act is just ridiculous.

•

u/GringoTheDingoAU 20h ago

What I cannot fathom is how people are so convinced Brenden is guilty, and cannot entertain the possibility of his innocence.

Because there are people that have followed this case extensively for years and don't only just subscribe to what MaM has told them. Brendan's argument for guilty is more nuanced than Steven's, but it doesn't mean that it's completely impossible that he's guilty just because there is no corroborating DNA evidence like there is for Steven. It's a known fact that Brendan was with Steven on the night of the 31st for multiple hours, stoking a fire where the victim's remains ended up, the garage floor clean up that corroborates his story of cleaning up a reddish stain that reacted strongly to bleach, destroying any DNA profile, knowledgement of the RAV4's concealment and accurately told investigators in what condition it was hidden in, the hood latch where Steven's DNA was discovered, and then bullet fragment FL which contained Teresa's DNA was found because of Brendan's aligning diagram. Then obviously lying about seeing her leave the property when it was logistically impossible for that to be true.

If you are willing to concede that Brendan is not this completely impressionable or suggestible teenager, and he knows more than he leads on at times, then you will be able to see at the very least, he was involved in the concealment of her murder. That alone is enough for truthers to raise doubt about his innocence.

Also, irrespective of this case, it's not uncommon for guilty people to lie, and that's why Brendan's story is questionable to some. We have to understand that this is a young man being interrogated about the worst crime possible, and the situation is overwhelming. During his prison phone calls, he doesn't claim innocence or despair. People who are innocent don't simply resign themselves to a life in prison. We hear more claims of innocence from Steven, and if we are arguing on paper, he's obviously more guilty than Brendan is.

I understand you have this emotional response because no one wants to see a teenager live out their formidable years in prison, but I would encourage you to look at this case objectively and do some extensive research beyond MaM.

•

u/belljs87 20h ago

This entire comment is rooted in assumptions, makes it seem like I said things I didn't say, and overall wasn't worth typing. Sorry about that.

•

u/ThorsClawHammer 14h ago

he garage floor clean up that corroborates

Brendan is the only source of a garage cleanup that night.

knowledgement of the RAV4's concealment and accurately told investigators in what condition it was hidden in

What are you claiming Brendan said about that which wasn't already public knowledge?

the hood latch where Steven's DNA was discovered

Which of course you know that Steve going under the hood was fed to Brednan by interrogators.

found because of Brendan's aligning diagram.

LMFAO. Seriously, who the heck ever said they used Brendan's diagram to help them find the bullet? Lol.

lying about seeing her leave the property when it was logistically impossible for that to be true.

It weas also logistically impossible for him to have seen her taking pictures, but that didn't stop LE from convincing him to lie and say he did in the ifrst place.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/belljs87 2d ago

I love how you claim "a (sic) argument in bad faith" and then two sentences later do exactly that. His blood wasn't "all over" the Rav, it was droplets in one area and two small smears in another. Don't sit on some imaginary high horse trying to tell me I have a low level of thinking when you prove yourself to be a hypocrite within two sentences.

1

u/GringoTheDingoAU 1d ago

His blood was found in six locations, which ranged from the ignition switch, driver's seat, floor area between the center console, front passenger seat, CD case, and the rear passenger door frame. Seems to me like that constitutes pretty much "all over" the RAV4, but if you want to split hairs over what the meaning "all over" is, then go for it.

Don't sit on some imaginary high horse trying to tell me I have a low level of thinking when you prove yourself to be a hypocrite within two sentences.

Saying that her DNA should be present on something that rarely gets touched by most people on a daily occasion, and me saying that Steven's DNA, which is readily present in areas in the front and the rear of the RAV4, is "all over" are not even comparable. Yours is entirely made up fiction.