Full disclosure, I made this account just to reply to this thread.
1. About the beer cans.
The beer cans were not "fresh" as another user seems to claim.
"According to Ranger Wardlow, the cans, which had some pine needles on top of them and compressed needles below, appeared to have been there longer than Stacey's body."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/34075/20180201153354587_Rodney Reed -- Appendix.pdf - page 126a
It is true than an initial, very broad, DQ-alpha DNA test could not exclude the victim, Stacey Stites and two cops; Ed Selmela/Salmela (spelling differs) and David Hall.
A more thorough DNA test done by the defense’s own expert, Dr. Johnson, did however rule out all three as contributors of the DNA on the beer cans in 1998
“Reed submitted Young's DNA-test results on the beer can (item number 24) found on the road near Stacey's body in his first subsequent state habeas application. Young could not exclude Stacey, Officer Hall, or Investigator Selmala as DNA contributors. But Reed's trial expert, Dr. Johnson, did exclude all three through Polymarker testing.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/34075/20180201153354587_Rodney Reed -- Appendix.pdf - page 181a
2. About the shoe in the truck.
The prosecution theorizes that part of the attack took place in the truck; that Stacey, according to them, was driving on her way to work for her usual shift around 3am, on the morning of the murder. For her shoe to be in the truck is not out of the ordinary, if part of the assault indeed took place in the truck, and that Stacey was pulled from the truck while buckled in.
"However, they and Ranger L.T. Wardlow, the lead investigator on the case, noted the driver’s seat position was reclined with the seatbelt fastened as if someone was pulled out of the seat while buckled in." https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/34075/20180201153354587_Rodney Reed -- Appendix.pdf - page 4a
If the shoe was proof of Jimmy Fennell's guilt, as you seem to be alluding to, why would he himself point it out to investigators? "
Fennell observed several things in the truck that were “out of the ordinary.” First, one of the tennis shoes that Stacey normally wore to work was on the floorboard of the passenger's side of the truck." https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/34075/20180201153354587_Rodney Reed -- Appendix.pdf - page 105a
Lastly, The truck was found in the Bastrop High School parking lot, about sixth-tenths of a mile from Reeds’ residence.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/34075/20180201153354587_Rodney Reed -- Appendix.pdf - page 116a, 207a
Before Reed became a suspect, LE theorized that this location would be convenient to the perpetrator.
3. I will leave you with a question of my own. Why was Reed lying about Stacey being a drug user?
In the 2006 documentary “State vs Reed”, Reed made the following statement about Stecey:
“I remember, there was a time, where Stacey, she would come with marijuana and wanted me to trade it for cocaine, crack cocaine. “ - Timecode approx. 50:49-51:05
Hair sample analysis however, did not reveal Stacey to be a user of cocaine. Likewise was her H.E.B employment drug screening negative for any drugs.
“Regarding the allegation of Stacey's crack cocaine use with Reed, the trial judge found that the toxicology report from Stacey's autopsy was negative for drugs and alcohol. The drug screen conducted by H.E.B. before Stacey was hired was also negative. Further, the trial judge found: Prior to trial, the State sent samples of Stacey Stites' hair to National Medical Services, Inc. in Pennsylvania. That laboratory analyzed 32 centimeters of her hair in order to determine whether cocaine or its metabolites were present. As that laboratory's report indicates, two different analyses were negative for cocaine. Since hair grows at an approximate rate of one centimeter per month, the State was prepared, through the use of these analyses, to prove that Stacey Stites was not a cocaine user for the last 32 months of her life.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1093/34075/20180201153354587_Rodney Reed -- Appendix.pdf - page 179a
