One of the reasons I personally think Steven is guilty are his inconsistent statements. Some examples:
* On 31 October, hours after TH supposedly left, Steven told his brother Chuck and relative-in-law Robert Fabian that "she hadn't shown up".
Some people I've discussed this with said Steven meant she was supposed to come back for a second appointment, to photograph a loader he was supposedly selling. But in his affidavit from 2017 Avery is trying to remove Fabian from the scene of 31 October and places him on 24 October, suggesting that conversation in which he said that, took place one week earlier, on a day he had no appointment with TH, nor was trying to make one. In other words, the whole loader selling theory has no connection to this quote.
* On 3 November in the evening he told Colborn that he "never talked to her" and that he only saw her out his window.
Some people suggest he didn't literally mean "never talked to her", but rather meant "didn't really talk to her". Well, okay. May be so. But it's not what he said and he never clarified that's what he meant either. Plus, he also said he only saw her from his window. Imo this is his second attempt to distance himself from the appointment with TH. If Steven is innocent you may wonder why he chooses to distance himself from this appointment before it became known as a homicide case.
Also interesting to note is that after he told Chuck and Fabian she hadn't shown up, he learned that Bobby actually saw her. Is this why he didn't tell Colborn the same story as Chuck and Fabian?
* On 4 November in the morning he told Remiker and Lenk that he did talk with her and that he took Teresa inside his trailer, where he paid her. She then left.
Interesting to note is that when Chuck gave his first interview to LE he said Steven never told him he left work on the 31st for his appointment with TH. He later learned this from his mother, Delores, cause apparently Steven did tell her about the appointment. Delores was with Steven when Remiker and Lenk questioned him. Is this why he suddenly changed his story? He had no choice but to change it now that his mother was with him.
Furthermore, Remiker noted that Steven was very surprised and came across as if this was the first time he learned of TH being missing. However, he already learned of this fact one day prior.
* Later on 4 November Steven told David Beach, a cousin of Teresa who was searching for her and also, like everyone else, ended up checking the salvage yard, that she showed up, but that Steven took her to behind the garage where there was a car to be photographed. Again a different story.
Again, another Avery was with him. Was this Avery the reason why he changed his story, again?
* In the evening of 4 November he gave a TV interview. The one we saw in MaM.
It's quite the same as the response he gave to David Beach, except that he talks about Teresa in past tense ("she used to come over to take pictures").
* On 5 November Steven was interviewed by O'Neill of Marinette County. Steven told him he paid her at her car and that he touched her car in the process.
This is different from the version he told Lenk and Remiker, where he said he paid her inside his trailer. Notice that this interview was taken after the car was found. Was he trying to give an explanation in case DNA or prints of his might be found?
* When Steven met Sandra Greenman she once asked him if he did it. Steven's response was that she came to his door where he paid her.
This is different from his other interviews, where he said he paid her at the car, or inside his trailer.
* In his affidavit Steven says she was walking towards his trailer, but halfway there she noticed Steven behind his window and waved at him and turned around, walking back to her car.
Seems like he is trying to create an "average" narrative here based on his previous statements.
About the bonfire and the cleaning of a red fluid in his garage he made similar inconsistent statements:
* On the 31st of October, while having a bonfire, he had Jodi on the phone and did not mention the fire, but did mention Brendan helped him with cleaning something.
He never told any investigator nor any of his lawyers he actually cleaned a red fluid from his garage floor on the 31st.
* On 5 November, when O'Neill of Marinette asks Steven what his activities were on the 31st, Steven omits the bonfire and the cleaning and doesn't mention seeing Brendan at all.
Since the bonfire started about 7PM (iirc) and the fire was still burning at 11:30PM you have to wonder why Steven would omit something that took a huge chunk of time out of his evening.
* On 6 November he told O'Neill and Skorlinski of The DCI he "hadn't burned anything for weeks".
Interesting to note is that on the 5th, the DCI learned from Joshua Radandt that a fire, the size of a burn-barrel fire, was seen near Avery's property. This is probably why the cops suddenly start asking Steven specifically about burning stuff, which he thus denies.
* On 9 November he told Wiegert and Fassbender he hadn't burned anything for more than a week and hadn't burned anything "that night".
The next day Robert Fabian told investigators he saw smoke coming from a burn barrel on the 31st, earlier Radandt said he had seen a burn barrel fire, and Blaine Dassey testfied he saw Steven throw stuff in the burn barrel where later the smoke came from.
* On 5 November Brendan Dassey also omitted, up to three times, he spent the 31st having a bonfire and cleaning the garage with Steven.
Two people remove themselves from the bonfire and garage before they became a crime scene.
Just wondering, what's the general opinion on these changing statements by Steven and Brendan?
Also found some pretty telling videos about these statements about the appointment and bonfire:
[video=youtube;iTR4kERdbBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTR4kERdbBw[/video]
[video=youtube;m3e4BCL_YZE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3e4BCL_YZE[/video]
* On 31 October, hours after TH supposedly left, Steven told his brother Chuck and relative-in-law Robert Fabian that "she hadn't shown up".
Some people I've discussed this with said Steven meant she was supposed to come back for a second appointment, to photograph a loader he was supposedly selling. But in his affidavit from 2017 Avery is trying to remove Fabian from the scene of 31 October and places him on 24 October, suggesting that conversation in which he said that, took place one week earlier, on a day he had no appointment with TH, nor was trying to make one. In other words, the whole loader selling theory has no connection to this quote.
* On 3 November in the evening he told Colborn that he "never talked to her" and that he only saw her out his window.
Some people suggest he didn't literally mean "never talked to her", but rather meant "didn't really talk to her". Well, okay. May be so. But it's not what he said and he never clarified that's what he meant either. Plus, he also said he only saw her from his window. Imo this is his second attempt to distance himself from the appointment with TH. If Steven is innocent you may wonder why he chooses to distance himself from this appointment before it became known as a homicide case.
Also interesting to note is that after he told Chuck and Fabian she hadn't shown up, he learned that Bobby actually saw her. Is this why he didn't tell Colborn the same story as Chuck and Fabian?
* On 4 November in the morning he told Remiker and Lenk that he did talk with her and that he took Teresa inside his trailer, where he paid her. She then left.
Interesting to note is that when Chuck gave his first interview to LE he said Steven never told him he left work on the 31st for his appointment with TH. He later learned this from his mother, Delores, cause apparently Steven did tell her about the appointment. Delores was with Steven when Remiker and Lenk questioned him. Is this why he suddenly changed his story? He had no choice but to change it now that his mother was with him.
Furthermore, Remiker noted that Steven was very surprised and came across as if this was the first time he learned of TH being missing. However, he already learned of this fact one day prior.
* Later on 4 November Steven told David Beach, a cousin of Teresa who was searching for her and also, like everyone else, ended up checking the salvage yard, that she showed up, but that Steven took her to behind the garage where there was a car to be photographed. Again a different story.
Again, another Avery was with him. Was this Avery the reason why he changed his story, again?
* In the evening of 4 November he gave a TV interview. The one we saw in MaM.
It's quite the same as the response he gave to David Beach, except that he talks about Teresa in past tense ("she used to come over to take pictures").
* On 5 November Steven was interviewed by O'Neill of Marinette County. Steven told him he paid her at her car and that he touched her car in the process.
This is different from the version he told Lenk and Remiker, where he said he paid her inside his trailer. Notice that this interview was taken after the car was found. Was he trying to give an explanation in case DNA or prints of his might be found?
* When Steven met Sandra Greenman she once asked him if he did it. Steven's response was that she came to his door where he paid her.
This is different from his other interviews, where he said he paid her at the car, or inside his trailer.
* In his affidavit Steven says she was walking towards his trailer, but halfway there she noticed Steven behind his window and waved at him and turned around, walking back to her car.
Seems like he is trying to create an "average" narrative here based on his previous statements.
About the bonfire and the cleaning of a red fluid in his garage he made similar inconsistent statements:
* On the 31st of October, while having a bonfire, he had Jodi on the phone and did not mention the fire, but did mention Brendan helped him with cleaning something.
He never told any investigator nor any of his lawyers he actually cleaned a red fluid from his garage floor on the 31st.
* On 5 November, when O'Neill of Marinette asks Steven what his activities were on the 31st, Steven omits the bonfire and the cleaning and doesn't mention seeing Brendan at all.
Since the bonfire started about 7PM (iirc) and the fire was still burning at 11:30PM you have to wonder why Steven would omit something that took a huge chunk of time out of his evening.
* On 6 November he told O'Neill and Skorlinski of The DCI he "hadn't burned anything for weeks".
Interesting to note is that on the 5th, the DCI learned from Joshua Radandt that a fire, the size of a burn-barrel fire, was seen near Avery's property. This is probably why the cops suddenly start asking Steven specifically about burning stuff, which he thus denies.
* On 9 November he told Wiegert and Fassbender he hadn't burned anything for more than a week and hadn't burned anything "that night".
The next day Robert Fabian told investigators he saw smoke coming from a burn barrel on the 31st, earlier Radandt said he had seen a burn barrel fire, and Blaine Dassey testfied he saw Steven throw stuff in the burn barrel where later the smoke came from.
* On 5 November Brendan Dassey also omitted, up to three times, he spent the 31st having a bonfire and cleaning the garage with Steven.
Two people remove themselves from the bonfire and garage before they became a crime scene.
Just wondering, what's the general opinion on these changing statements by Steven and Brendan?
Also found some pretty telling videos about these statements about the appointment and bonfire:
[video=youtube;iTR4kERdbBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTR4kERdbBw[/video]
[video=youtube;m3e4BCL_YZE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3e4BCL_YZE[/video]
I will only speak for myself, but MaM for me was just a starting point, I have never watched it again and I was only a few episodes in before I started looking for more information. I have followed for the last 2 1/2 years, I still have doubts, as do many others.