My problem isn't with the claim he snuck into the trailer (although there is no evidence that he did other than SA remembering some noise 15 years ago) My problem if it wasn't obvious is with the totality of the claim that RH

1) snuck into a trailer
2) Found blood in a sink
3) collected the blood before it could coagulate
4) Planted the blood in a rav 4 which he held onto for days
5) Returned to the site to plant the blood
6) ran through the ASY to plant the license plates and tires elsewhere
7) Planted blood in averys grand prix that matched the same kind of transfer stain found in the rav 4

vs

Avery (the man with a large cut on his finger) bled in both the rav 4 and grand prix.

Footz,

From your own link

This report is also 15 years old. Not sure why you used this one when there are more recent reports that say its innacurate. Not to mention, there are even courts who reject this kind of evidence.

Its pretty clear I was talking about BD being at averys helping him clean. This corroborates his story that he was cleaning up the scene of a murder.

So Brendan helped Steven clean up some transmission fluid in a garage? [/YAWN]

You highlighted the wrong sentence:

"Each cell phone sends a distinct signal. When a call is made, the cell phone signal immediately attaches to the closest cell tower, which transmits the call."

Glad to help you out!

Considering avery murdererd her that night, I am afraid that is unlikely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.7e43f822362b

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...falls-it.shtml

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...ell-the-police

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...e_critics_say/

Here are more recent articles about cell phone towers, as you can see this has unfortunately resulted in wrongful convictions.

The problem with this notion is that in every place Steven is known to have been there is no trace of Teresa being there.

So if she was murdered on Monday Steven and Brendan had an alibi - they weren't at the murder site. They were at home.

This isn't true, nor is it as important as you think. It doesn't matter if we are lacking evidence (in your opinion) to prove exactly how, when or in what way TH was murdered. What matters here is the evidence that SA is responsible.

But there is indeed evidence that she was where Steven was. Steven didn't leave his home, TH didn't make or receive any calls after she arrived at his home. Steven was in his garage cleaning up , There was a bullet fragment recovered in the garage fired from his gun with her dna on it. Steven was running a bonfire all night according to multiple witnesses (including dassey and steven himself) the same pit he used to run a fire happens to be the location of TH remains.. Burned remains. Two witnesses say they saw SA burning stuff in his burn barrel, and that is where we find all of TH property. This is exactly the kind of evidence you are asking for.

Actually more importantly, after 3:00.. Where was TH?

Of course it matters if Teresa was killed at location X while Steven was at location Y.

The only way Steven could be responsible is if one believes in magic.

None of that is the evidence that would show that any crime against Teresa was committed at this location. The cops looked again and again and came up empty.

Indeed, much of the stuff you are citing is either irrelevant or dubious, as you already know.

Interestingly, Loof the scent-tracking bloodhound tracked Teresa on the Radant quarry site.

No bloodhound ever tracked Teresa to either Steven's house or garage.

More evidence pointing towards Steven's innocence of any crimes against Teresa.

Location x is unknown according to you. Right?

So location y can be location x. I just gave you a ton of evidence that she was murdered at his place. Regardless if we can pinpoint in what exact location (garage, bedroom, bonfire, car etc..) where she took her last breath those are all places SA was.

How do you know this? Because they got excited about some blood that turned out to come from a dead animal?

Also,

http://imgur.com/a/h3Hkj

Looks like you impeached your own witness. Again.

All we know is that location X =/= location Y.

Location Y has been checked out very thoroughly.

Teresa supposedly not receiving calls and Steven possibly having a bonfire doesn't tell us anything about where Teresa was.

That's not even a gram of evidence, let alone a ton.

Now you sound like Kratz when he tells the jury 'It doesn't matter if cops planted the key in Steven's trailer.'

It does matter.

Huh? What are you talking about. You said that loof didn't respond to TH scent at the avery residence, which is untrue.

So now on top of all the other evidence she was killed there, the one piece of evidence you thought you had that she was killed elsewhere actually indicates she was killed at averys.

It is also important to note that Loof was a cadaver dog. Meaning she was specifically looking for the smell of TH decomposed body. As you can see, she was alerted to averys trailer, his garage, burn barrel and her vehicle.

Yes and we locate a bullet with her dna, her vehicle, her property, her remains, and now a cadaver dogs scent.



Dude, let me spell this out for you since you keep misrepesnting the facts.

Avery had a bon fire the night she visited him
Averys fire pit where he had the bonfire is where we find TH burned remains

If that isn't evidence to you what is? Oh yea, cadaver dogs are good evidence to you! So are you now willing to accept avery is guilty since the cadaver dog picked up on her scent at averys?

As for her not receiving calls, she checked her voice mail and made phone calls after every appointment but averys. She had more appointments after averys. What happened?



You can accept a key was planted ( I don't, planting the key was illogical as they were in his room the night before and didn't know they were returning) and still accept that the evidence indicates he killed her.

This is what you said regarding the dogs tracking Teresa in a location far from Steven's house:

"How do you know this? Because they got excited about some blood that turned out to come from a dead animal? "

When your defense is that dogs are unreliable because we 'don't know' what is exciting them, then there is no point in your citing any dogs as evidence.

The practically non-existent evidence, as you already know...

I was simply answering your question 'Where was Teresa?' by giving you a likely location. I forgot that Loof did seem interested in some places around Steven's house and garage.

It was Loof's indicating there was a 'very strong scent' over by the quarry that caught my interest because of your question.

Was Loof a cadaver dog?

The CASO report would seem to indicate it was a scent tracker:

K9 Loof was harnessed, given the scent article of the insole and given the command of "Find".

http://imgur.com/a/h3Hkj

I think we can safely conclude this was a bloodhound for tracking the living scent of a particular person.

The only thing which isn't as dubious as the others is the tracking dog's work.

But then, Teresa had been there before, as everyone acknowledges.

I am certainly capable of making a mistake. But that isn't the case here.

Who would ever do anything to celebrate Halloween on October 31st?

Burned cremains are in several places - including a spot waaaay over there in the gravel pit.

Of course, it would have helped if these finds were properly catalogued and collected. Sadly the people in charge forbade the proper forensic examination of these finds in situ.

Why the collection of this evidence was botched no one has been able to explain.

Again, it appears this was not a cadaver dog, but a scent tracking dog.

It is comical the way you attempt to 'correct' my post by publishing the most errant nonsense as if it were irrefutable fact.

No one knows what happened. But we will never find the answer by posing rhetorical questions.

That's the problem: you seem to be willing to accept the idea that the cops could plant evidence - just like Kratz did during the trial - and not connect that information with all the other dubious material.

One of the things about people that helps them out is pattern recognition. A planted key. A coerced 'confession.' Some bone fragments that show up at the lab in a cardboard box. Cops telling forensic specialists what they need their findings to be. A forensic lab that can't perform a simple test without contaminating the control sample. There's hardly anything in this investigation that isn't shady.

Footz,

It is you that cited the dogs as evidence. If you want to cite the dogs as evidence you must accept that she was at his trailer.

SA claims she only photographed the car and left.



Loof, the dog you used smelled her around his garage, his house, and the burn barrel. She according to avery was not in any of those places because according to him she didn't leave the road where the van was.

I read somewhere that the Dogs were all cadaver dogs and I believe Julie testified they were but ultimately, its not that important. What is important is that the dogs you want to use as "good evidence" while ignoring all the physical and circumstantial evidence that shows avery killed her, hurts you more than it helps you.

These kind of problems do not make the facts go away. Accidently introducing your own dna on a control sample will not make TH dna appear.

And there is actually 0 evidence anything was planted. All of it is just conjecture. Is it POSSIBLE some of it was planted? Sure. Is it possible all of it was planted? No, I don't think it is. More importantly though, I don't think its even a little bit probable any of it was planted.

On that one day. You didn't acknowledge that Teresa had been to the ASY on other occasions.

Nobody was claiming she didn't come to ASY on several occasions.

Since you've already dismissed Loof's tracking because it could have been something else that excited the dog's interest, you've already closed the door on using that evidence.

This is what you wrote:

Might as well give this up now. Another dry hole for you.

No one denies Teresa's DNA was in the lab. The problem is that when the person in the lab is so sloppy that she contaminates the samples, we'll never know if the DNA was on the bullet fragment before it got to the lab.

Is it POSSIBLE the DNA was there? Sure, maybe. But that is mere conjecture at this point. There is 0 evidence that the DNA was on the fragment before it got to the lab where we know Teresa's DNA was.

Meanwhile we have new evidence regarding this bullet fragment: there is no evidence that it ever had contact with any living thing: microscopic examination showed it had wood and paint on it, not blood and bone.

Most likely a random bullet fragment found by cops that became contaminated. This contamination may well be deliberate given the instructions given to the lab tech regarding items sent to her:



You are obviously free to believe as you like.

I'm just pointing out why the dubious 'evidence' compiled by law enforcement gives people who aren't you more than reasonable doubts about the case against Steven and Brendan.