Yes, there are any number of possible explanations, therefore it's hardly very strong evidence Steven 'changed his story'.

None of the three people committed any crime against Teresa, AFAICT.

I have no evidence Steven ever planned to claim she never showed up.

Refresh my memory - what did I claim about RH? Quotes only. please.

Funny - Steven reports seeing TH on Monday, 10/31 at the salvage yard. Several people report seeing her after her visit to ASY.

Yes, Teresa was reported missing the evening of November 3rd. Steven on November 4 truthfully says Teresa showed up and left when her job was done.

When is Bobby D supposed to have 'ruined' Steven's alleged plot to deny Teresa ever showed up?

No. As I have explained, there is no reason anyone should accept this theory of yours that Steven 'planned' to claim Teresa never showed up on 10/31.

Steven had matters of business to discuss with Teresa, with whom he had a business relationship.

???

Even if people saw Teresa driving down Steven's driveway he could still claim she didn't show up?

This makes zero sense.

Two people claimed he said she never showed up to his trailer. Both of these people made this claim before SA was a suspect or before they knew anything had happened to her. That is GOOD evidence he actually said she never showed up. Is it strong enough to get a conviction? No of course not. But it is strong enough to say "it is most probable steven avery originally told people she didn't show up"


You support KZ narrative dont you?


What? Who? Show me who said this.

This was again, 5 days after she actually went missing.

Time t= the time SA thought no one knew TH went to his house

Time Tx= the time SA knew someone knew TH went to his house.

Time t is sometime before nov 4th and after 10/31, time x is sometime after nov. 3rd

What don't you understand? At some point SA found out Bobbey Dassey saw her. This would be inevitable.



I gave you reasons. My contention is this "it is most probable SA originally told people she never showed up. " And I have more than supported that contention.



Why would he call her blocked and not give his name before she showed up then call her unblocked after she showed up? What changed?



No, who would see her driving up his driveway? You do realize people don't normally pay attention to cars going up driveways right? It is a normal occurence.

Which two people? Fabian's story could easily be before Teresa showed up, as has been patiently explained to you already.

Who is this other person?

You know Fabian's story was taken down on November 10th, right? That is after Steven was arrested November 9th.

Fabian's testimony isn't very convincing that Steven ever claimed or planned to claim Teresa didn't show up at the appointed time and place. Most likely there was discussion before she arrived, so she hadn't been there yet.

I only support scenarios that conform to the facts.

You don't seem to be aware is that Monday October 31st is the day Teresa is supposed to have gone missing. Steven said he saw her, she took photo of the vehicle for sale, and left. A propane delivery driver saw Teresa's vehicle leaving the vicinity at exactly the time she would be leaving.

The day after Teresa was reported missing, the earliest moment anyone would be asking about her, Steven said she showed up, took her photo, and left. No indication Steven ever said or ever intended to say anything but the truth.

Your attempt to turn this into an equation doesn't help you.

There's no evidence Teresa ever went to Steven's house. Therefore no reason for Steven to care whether anyone knew that or not, or cared what they thought. It is completely unimportant.

The first time anyone asks him about whether Teresa came to take photos (on November 4th), Steven says she did show up.

All the evidence we have points toward Steven only ever saying she showed up, and none that he ever said otherwise and no evidence he intended to say anything else.

Except the Fabian document doesn't say what you wish it did.

And that appears to be all you have.

Teresa would have to drive through the customer parking area at Avery Salvage Yard to come down Steven's driveway. Who would see her? Just about everyone who was there - family, co-workers, customers.

No one can take seriously the notion that Teresa could drive through the busiest part of the business without being noticed.

Two people say SA said TH was never there.

Fabian
The employee from autotrader.

That is two people with 0 motive to lie.

TH was at SA house BEFORE according to fabian and the employee at auto trader SA said she wasn't.


WHo is this person who said they saw TH leave? Where can I read his testimoney?

Actually, the fabian thing happend at 430. We both know she was there by then.

As has been explained, if someone asked before Teresa was there yet before she was there, the truthful answer is that she wasn't there yet. That sounds like what Fabian might have heard.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this alleged phone call from Steven to Autotrader.

Steven has 0 motive to lie, either.

Fabian isn't saying what you claim.

There is no evidence Steven called Autotrader at that time to say Teresa didn't show up.

Fabian did not say that. Fabian never claims that he saw Teresa there.

There is 0 evidence such a call ever took place.

John Leurquin saw the RAV4 drive away at exactly the time Steven saw Teresa leave. Two people with no motive to lie.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...8.pdf#page=122

If this is true, then Fabian is a good alibi witness for Steven: Fabian, Chuck, Earl and Steven were hanging out shooting the breeze when Teresa was somewhere else getting murdered.

Ok, this is what you initially said.

When asked who? you said this.

I will explain basic logic to you in a moment but assuming steven is innocent in this conversation and counting him as a witness to TH leaving is beggin the question and fallacious. Anyways, as for the truck driver. Here is what you said.

First of all, SA does have a motive. We are discussing whether or not hes guilty, so we must examine the claim through that fact. This is how it works, if you say "he couldn't be lying because hes innocent and has no motive to lie" that is begging the question. You are asking WHY hes guilty (even if indirectly) so you must examine the evidence provided to you with the idea hes guilty in your mind.

As for Johns testimony. All he says is he MAY have saw TH vehicle, hes sure (according to him) it was a green suv, and hes sure (according to him) that it was on monday oct 31st. However, he can't identify any other vehicle, or anything to indicate he knew what day it was, the whether, what else he saw going on etc..

This in contrast to fabian who can remember specific things about that day, and Racheal who didn't often take calls from a customer looking for a missing girl. So johns testimony is kind of weak here. And it most certainly is not what you claimed initially that multiple people saw her after oct 31st

Couple of other things just to clarify.

I am not saying fabian claims to have seen TH there I understand how it could have been interpreted that way but what I am saying is according to the timeline everyone accepts (what time she was there etc) Fabian is saying this comment from SA happened after she arrived.

In other words

WE (me and you) know she was there by 430
Fabian is saying this happened after 430

Conclusion this happened after she was there.


Secondly, This is not a good alibi for SA. He clearly did other stuff after she was dead. Fabian recalls a fire going around this time, and SA may have been waiting for BD. He also wasn't around them too long and according to fabian seemed really distant and out of place.And on top of that, you are forgetting how guilty it makes SA look that he is telling chuck she never showed up when she did shortly before she goes missing.

You see, I have this idea that until proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, Steven is innocent. Therefore he has no reason to lie.

The presumption of innocence is both logical and a legal thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

If this is your idea of 'logic', then that's not what is being taught in accreditied universities. No responsible person would suggest that you must regard someone as guilty simply because they are accused.

Of course the witness's testimony is 'according to him' - just like Fabian's testimony is according to Fabian, and 'Rachael' story is according to 'Rachael'. Not sure why you seem to think this is a point that doesn't cut both ways.

More than one person gave evidence which indicates Teresa left ASY. Which is all I claimed.

The more I look at it, the more full of holes this Fabian story seems to get.

For one thing, the date of these alleged observations is in dispute - right in the statement itself:

CINDY's sister, THERESA (ph) LNU... has informed either CINDY or ROBERT
that she has talked to CANDY AVERY, EARL AVERY's wife. THERESA LNU tells
ROBERT that she was told by CANDY AVERY that ROBERT and EARL were
rabbit hunting on the property on Wednesday, 11/02/05, instead of Monday,
10/31/05.

Perhaps being mistaken about the date is why Fabian never testified under oath to this alleged conversation in court?

Well firstly, this is only pre conviction. After they are convicted this doesn't apply. Secondly, that isn't what I was saying. I am saying when examining a claim you can't ask for evidence, then say the evidence is false because the claim is false. Which is what you're doing here.

There are two possible worlds

pw1 avery is guilty
pw2 avery is innocent

You are examining my claims in pw2, which is bad logic. In pw1 it doesn't matter what avery says.



Because, my claim is that avery is guilty. Of course if my claim is correct he will deny having any involvement and say TH left his house. What is he going to say? She stayed?

That wasn't what you claimed. You said multiple people said they saw her after october 31st. No one has said this. All we have is someone convicted of murder saying she left his house (which apparently wasn't his original story) and someone who saw a green suv leave the asy on the same day. That was not your claim.

That is unlikely because why would avery be talking about TH showing up on wed?

Because Steven called after Teresa left ASY to see if she'd come back to photograph the loader.

Avery is dexter. Made this call to appear he didn't rape and murder her. Then he cleaned up his bedroom and garage to an extent investigators couldn't find anything.

Obviously, if you're simply going to assume Steven is guilty then there is no discussion to be had.

If it is a question of whether Steven is involved or not, then I have no reason to assume the conclusion that he is guilty. It is an open question.

No, that isn't what I am doing. I am just disputing your assumption Steven is guilty and therefore he is a liar when he denies involvement in crimes against Teresa.

You haven't explained why it is 'bad logic' to consider one of the two possible options you list here.

According to you it doesn't matter what the evidence says, Steven is guilty no matter what the facts are.

There is no evidence Teresa was ever in his house.

But, since you are assuming he is guilty despite the evidence, you are claiming she must have been there.

I only said more than one person saw Teresa leave ASY, but made no claims about there being any sightings after October 31st.

You are wrong in trying to make out that I claimed anything else.

There is no real evidence Steven 'changed his story'. Fabian doesn't even know what day of the week he was at ASY.

Yes, we have Steven saying Teresa left, like she'd done on several previous occasions, and Leurquin saw a vehicle drive away from ASY, a vehicle like the one Steven saw her drive away in, at exactly the time Steven said she drove away. He confirms Steven's observation.

I have a suspicion I know what I was claiming better than you seem to know it.

Nothing about this scenario dreamed up by the prosecution makes any sense.

Nah, because if that were the case Earl would know she was coming a second time. Meaning he would know she came and left.

No this is what you said. Who said they saw TH after her visit to the salvage yard? So far you have provided 0 examples.

I don't know too much about this part of the trial, so just going from above exchange.
But if indeed a second appointment was made for the Wednesday as suggested, and this conversation happened that afternoon, why would we assume anyone was talking about the visit two days earlier?

my apologies. I now know why I have never multi quoted on tapatalk.
i don't think I've ever seen anyone else's posts formatted like that so I could have infact broken the site. again all I can do is apologise


*edit. nvm, for a brief minute every post was showing as double, with pics attached

I am not even sure where the idea that anyone thought she was supposed to come back to photograph came from.

Its also important to note that fabian says he remembers taking the kids trick or treating that same night and is sure it was on monday, this interview took place on friday. (5days later)

I don't see any reason why Earl would know about one visit and not the other.

I have, and we have even discussed them.

Now you are trying to change what happened when everyone can read a few posts up where I named two people who witnessed Teresa leaving ASY and you talked about them.