That's a large problem with this Fabian guy's story.

We're not sure what day this conversation allegedly took place.

And apparently Fabian never made a sworn statement in court about this incident.

The report you linked to is dated November 10, so it would be 10 days after Teresa's disappearance and 7 days after she was reported missing.

It was a Thursday.

If this was really important to note, it'd help to have the facts straight.

Proudfoot, would you consider the following line of reasoning to be valid:

- The suspect's blood was found in the victim's vehicle. This is evidence of the suspect's guilt.

- The suspect has not been convicted in a court of law and is therefore presumed innocent. Therefore there is no reason for his blood to be in the victim's vehicle. Therefore it wasn't his blood.

Those are two quite different things. Are they meant to be one 'line of reasoning'? Because I could quite easily find myself considering one statement to be valid and the other less so.

Is this discussion about blood meant to substitute for the discussion above about witness statements?

Would you consider the second statement a valid response to the first?

And if not, how does this situation differ from your analysis of Avery's changing of his story?

this is false, there is 1 person who claimed to see her leave the salvage yard, the man who murdered her. The other person you mentioned testified to seeing a green suv leave the salvage yard, he didn't say who was driving it, or if it was TH car.

Its also clear on Cross that he has no reason to be sure of the date he claims this happened.

The report is noted 11/05, where do you see it took place on the 10th?

Fabian is sure when it happened, and he presented good reasons to be sure of his date.

Fabians statement wasn't needed to convict him. Really the vehicle with his blood in the car would have on its own been enough for a conviction, most of the time.

Obviously, since you are assuming the conclusion as one of your premises, it is you who 'begs the question'.

Steven witnesses Teresa climb into a green SUV and drive away. Leurquin saw a green SUV drive away from ASY at the exact same time.

Occam's Razor suggests this is the same green SUV in that remote area.

Fabian was apparently so unsure about the supposed 'Steven claimed she never showed' story that he didn't testify under oath in court that it actually happened.

To address the second question first, do you understand the difference between physical evidence and eyewitness evidence?

If you don't, then the whole discussion about eyewitness statements is likely to go over your head.

The Fabian report you cited:

Top of page 208:

DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/10/05

In US parlance, that would be November 10, 2005

On Thursday, 11/10/05 at approximately 11:35 a.m., Special Inv. GARY STEIER of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT along with Special Agent JAMES SIELEHR Of thE STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION (DCI) interviewed the following:

CINDY L. FABIAN. F/W. DOB O5/31/69
and
ROBERT M. FABIAN JR.. M/W, DOB 04/03/66

Ahh ok, I must have misread the month and year as the month and day

SA has motive to lie if I am right, none of the other people we mentioned do. You can't use avery as an alibi for himself lol. Get real dude.


No it doesn't/ Leruquins testimony is weak. He has no honest way of remembering the dates, his testimony is months after the fact, and giving there is significant evidence she never left the ASY occams razor does not dictate she did because one guy remembers an event months ago that involves the color and size of a car.



How do you know he was asked to?

This is completely irrelevant to the question I asked, but okay fine. Let's change it up.

Person A: "The suspect's close friend reported seeing him commit the murder. We should consider this strong evidence of the suspect's guilt."

Person B: "The suspect has not been convicted in a court of law and is therefore presumed innocent. Therefore the eyewitness testimony is mistaken."

Would you accept the reasoning of person B? If so, why? If not, how does this case differ from your analysis of the police statement from the Auto Trader worker indicating that Avery changed his story.

Your position does not make sense.

You claim the presumption does not apply because SA was convicted in a Court of Law. That is not an unfair statement, BUT, then you bring in "facts" which were not part of the trial that convicted SA.

Accordingly, you are analyzing this de novo which requires the application of the presumption of innocence.

Otherwise, under your methodology, you can "pile on" untested evidence and simply state it must be valid because SA was already declared guilty. It doesn't work that way.

We need more clear thinkers here like ProudFootz.

Why do you persist with this crap?

Person A: Yes, but only after the testimony has been subject to cross-examination and accepted by the trier-of-fact.

Person B: These do not connect. The status of the defendant has no bearing on the testimony. The testimony is either competent, or not.

If it is competent, it must be assigned weight. Those things can only be done within the process of a trial. and determined by the trier-of-fact

If a defendant is on trial, the presumption of innocence applies. If this "evidence" is being offered post-conviction, it is merely untested evidence. Whether it is competent, or not, depends on it being presented in an appropriate legal setting and not whether the defendant had been previously convicted.

I am confident PF would not accept the reasoning of person B because such reasoning (being charitable with that) is ******ed.

Obviously it is not correct reasoning.

Proudfoot used a similar argument earlier regarding the testimony of a witness in the Avery case, which is why I am asking.

No he didn't. I don't even know what you are referencing and I know you are wrong.

If you assume the conclusion that Steven is guilty, then he has motive to lie.

But you can't use your conclusion as evidence or a premise - that is what begging the question means.

One important aspect of what Avery witnessed is that another person, totally unrelated to him, confirms that a green SUV left ASY at exactly the time Steven saw it leave with Teresa driving it.

There is no evidence Teresa never left AFAICT.

Leurquin confirms Steven's eyewitness statement.

The problem with this Fabian story is that in the statement itself the date is disputed, and the story is one of those things the prosecution left out.

If it was all that important or revealing, I suspect the State would have included it.

In this hypothetical scenario, A's statement would appear to be strong. B's statement is a little too strong. No one here is making that argument.

The argument I am making with regard to the person at AutoTrader who claimed someone calling themselves Steven Avery called to reschedule a missed appointment is that we can't assume Steven is guilty and therefore anything and everything that looks bad for him must be believed.

One thing that would help this story is a phone record which showed a phone call between Steven and AT at the time alleged. If there was no phone call at all, we can very easily believe the witness was mistaken about the content of that call.

I don't recall making an argument along these lines:

Person B: "The suspect has not been convicted in a court of law and is therefore presumed innocent. Therefore the eyewitness testimony is mistaken."

I was merely arguing against the line of 'logic' which appeared to me to be "If Steven lied then he is guilty, Steven is guilty and must have lied, therefore Steven is guilty".

There is no record that I am aware of which strongly indicates Steven 'changed his story' - it has been consistent as far as the public record shows. In statements coming directly from Steven. What Steven is known to have said is very strong evidence of what Steven has said.

That in itself neither exonerates nor inculpates Steven, it is a side issue.

What we have in opposition to that is a statement by Fabian which can be interpreted in such a way as to suggest Steven lied.

We also have a statement that someone claiming to be Steven called AT complaining that Teresa never showed up.

It would be interesting to know if such a call ever took place (surely there'd be a phone record of such contact?) even if we can never know what the content of the call was or what it might mean.

I don't know what lkasigh is talking about either.

That's why a quote function on this board would be very helpful!

It is interesting that we have fallen into this 'he said/she said' sort of thing on a discussion board where everything we 'say' is recorded and can be referenced while we are trying to discuss what witnesses think they heard and we can't just pull up the page and give a verbatim quote.

I have two people saying sort of the same thing now so I will try and clarify this again. I am sorry if I am not being clear.

There are two possible scenarios here, one must be true and one must be false (a dichotomy)

Scenario 1) Avery is guilty
Scenario 2) Avery is innocent

under scenario 1 avery will say TH left the ASY
under scenario 2 avery will say TH left the ASY (assuming she actually did, which he claims so if he is innocent this is most likely true)


Proud foots is assuming scenario 2 which is question begging, because I am arguing something in support of scenario 1 and Foots is just skipping my argument and moving onto the conclusion then arguing backwards. This is fallacious, that is all I am sayind and no it doesn't matter in this context what legal rights SA has for one we are not a courtroom and for two these are logical principles.

Please reconsider this.

Her vehicle was found at his salvage yard, that alone makes it more probable she didn't leave.

she didn't use her phone after visiting his salvage yard

Her human remains were at his salvage yard

all her personal items she left with that day were at the salvage yard

no one can recall seeing her after that day or after she was at the salvage yard (the closest you have to this is one person recalling months later a vehicle of the same color and size leaving the property)

I mean, why would this statement be used in court?

They already have

*multiple people witnessing a bonfire the night she went missing
*Her body burned in this fire
*Her vehicle with both his and her blood in the vehicle
* a blood spatter expert testifying that there are mutliple different kinds of stains (passive, contact and gravity drops) all of which are found in SA own vehicle
* A bullet from his gun with her dna on it found in his garage
* a garage reactive to luminol ( a chemical that reacts to blood and or bleach)

Not to mention that mountain of circumstantial evidence IE: Her last known wherabouts were with him, he asked for her specifically, blocked his number before she arrived and unblocked it after she arrived etc..


There is no need to confuse the jury with fabians report of remembering avery telling his brother she never showed up. If I were an attorney I wouldn't include this. I already have all the facts on my side.