I've reviewed the evidence
No you haven't.*
One fallacy you're falling for is the notion that if the prosecution is wrong about one particular, then SA must be innocent.
What if they're wrong about dozens of particulars? (Whatever a "particular" is)
How many "particulars" can they be wrong about before we are allowed to question the conclusion the jury came to?
This isn't rhetorical, how wrong can the prosecution be before we get suspicious? You can present this number as a percent. IE the prosecution can be 12% wrong, for example.
That isn't true. I don't know whether TH was killed indoors, outdoors, or in a car.
The police don't know either, which is a pretty big deal considering they asserted a time and location where she was killed in the trials. This REALLY matters. They, at best, misrepresented the data they had.
I don't know how soon the nephew, BD, became involved.
* This is how I know you haven't reviewed the evidence.
We know that SA is a psychopath.
This is a thing you have made up, or it is a thing someone else made up and you are repeating.
If you want me to get pedantic, psychopathy isn't currently a recognized medical diagnosis by
any psychology or psychiatric organization
in the entire world.
And even if it was a real, accepted diagnosis, you are not qualified to make it.
And even if you were, you have not personally taken the steps to make an honest and accurate assessment of his mental health, meaning you are engaging in an unprofessional and unethical behavior. Diagnosing from afar is usually a big no-no. It is even, usually, frowned upon when trying to diagnose a historical figure who is long dead.
News flash: non-psychopaths don't grill live kittens to death over an open flame for kicks.
You're misinformed. The "cruelty to animals is a sure sign of a killer" is wrong. And has been known to be inaccurate for quite a long while now. It is pretty common, but not necessarily an indicator that juvenile perpetrators of animal cruelty will necessarily grow up to be killers.
Cruelty towards animals is far more likely to indicate the person was abused, excessively humiliated, or neglected. You find a kid that hurts animals and you have found a kid that needs help, pronto.
Plus, there absolutely are people that hurt animals, weren't abused, and didn't grow up and murder and dismember someone.
Also, Steven didn't grill kittens over an open flame. This is a thing you made up, or someone else made up and you are repeating.
His psychopathic personality
This is still a thing you made up off the top of your head. Just re-iterating this fact because it needs re-iterating.
The remaining evidence all points to his guilt as well
TH's blood in the back of her car points to Steven's guilt? The panties and cell phone boxes the police took from TH's home prove Steven is guilty? There was A LOT of evidence, (a lot of it probably leads nowhere) and the fact that you generalize it so broadly (and wrongly) further illustrates, in my opinion, that you haven't really looked into this crime. Someone with specific knowledge can be specific can make clear, accurate, and specific pints. My guess is that you read internet opinions instead of primary source documents.
despite any acrobatic attempts to dismiss it. I don't know whether the jury believed every aspect of the prosecution's theory of the case, but no
jury has to do that.
Who has ever made this argument? This is a straw man. No one said the jury had to believe every little thing, but the fact that the prosecutor didn't believe it should be strong enough reasonable doubt. The series/timeline of events changed from one thing in Steven's trial to another during Brendan's. They either presented the truth in one trial and not the other, or the truth in neither trial.
But people are free to believe that police planted evidence in a conspiracy of DaVinci-Code proportions. That's the more likely scenario to a certain type of person, apparently.
This is another mis-characterization. There are people that believe in vast, complicated conspiracies, but I see none routinely posted on this website. I don't even remember a huge, wide conspiracy being espoused in
any of the MaM threads here,
ever.
Widespread laziness, stupidity, and incompetence are far more common explanations for the poor quality of the investigations.
And honestly, I have said this before, but Steven is a good suspect. I think he very well could be guilty. But I do know the investigation and following trials were utter train-wrecks from the get-go.
Justice is a process, not a result. Justice cannot be done if the process is broken. Otherwise, lynchings would sometimes be a good thing. If he really is guilty, the police could have rolled up their sleeves, did things by the book, and made an unimpeachable case. Instead, we have a case where the medical examiner was barred (the ME used the phrase "Walled off")from looking at the remains on the scene which is illegal from what I can tell. The investigation involves the police committing at least one crime.
...
...
!!!
Actually, the fact that a bunch of people (the cops) worked together to commit this particular crime probably counts as a conspiracy. Congratulations, you have just caused me to realize at least one (minor) conspiracy did in fact occur.
Why we are expected to trust the results of this flawed and faulty investigation, is beyond me.
