Steven's inconsistent statements

Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by ACJL, Feb 28, 2018.

  1. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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]
     
    entrustEd likes this.
  2. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No opinions on this?
     
  3. Limaes

    Limaes New Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, three people saw the smoke coming from his burn barrel with one describing the smell as burning plastic.

    The truth doesn't change and that is one version Avery refuses to tell despite the overwhelming evidence.
     
  4. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    He won't ever, because his family and millions of "fans" world-wide believe he is innocent. He has a lot to lose.
     
  5. proudfootz

    proudfootz Active Member

    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    According to Earl, he and Fabian stopped by Steve's place about 4:45 PM. According to prosecution theory of the crime, Steven is holding Teresa prisoner, or raping her, or killing her, or chopping her up, or throwing her bodily onto a bonfire at this point.

    Neither of these two noticed anything unusual and apparently had a casual conversation. I don't recall either of them reporting Steven was unavailable, or building a bonfire, or excited, or sweaty, or nervous, or covered with blood, or anything else that might indicate they had interrupted a monstrous crime in progress. They drove by even later in the evening and saw Steven hanging out with either Bobby or Blaine outside.

    Perhaps Fabian is mistaken.
     
    Jaiddie likes this.
  6. proudfootz

    proudfootz Active Member

    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Jaiddie likes this.
  7. proudfootz

    proudfootz Active Member

    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Q. When, sir, did you first make a written report of
    23 anything having to do with the November 3, 2005,
    24 meeting with Mr. Avery?
    25 A. June of '06 I believe.

    1 Q. Does June 29, 2006 sound correct?
    2 A. Yes.
    3 Q. A few days short of the 4th of July?
    4 A. Yes, sir.
    5 Q. Not quite 8 months after the conversation with
    6 Mr. Avery?
    7 A. Yes, sir.
    8 Q. Was that a timely report?

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Trial-Transcript-Day-7-2007Feb20.pdf#page=173


    It's difficult to parse Colburn's alleged memory of an exchange that supposedly occurred in the distant past.

    The habit of law enforcement to write their reports months or years after the fact is troubling.
     
    Jaiddie likes this.
  8. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Perhaps. I don't know the details tbh about the State's timeline. Did they ever mention the times when Steven did what? Often when the killer admits he did it and shares the details, it shows that the timeline presented by the prosecution was far from errorless. This case probably won't be any different.

    The bonfire didn't happen until 19:00h. Teresa could've/would've been held captive as early as 14:31h. Her car was seen by Bobby Dassey, but Teresa was seen nowhere near it even though Steven said she was pretty much always near either her own car or the red van.

    Robert Fabian did notice Steven had changed his clothes that day and appeared freshly showered and his behaviour was different. Bryan Dassey also (several days later) Steven was not himself. Very quiet and acted unusual and had sayd he "may have done something" and wanted to run. Fabian also noticed smoke and the smell of plastic coming from Steven's burn barrel which later turned out to contain the burned phone, burned PDA and burned camera. Quite the coincidence that the "real killer" would've picked a barrel that was actually used on the 31st after TH was last seen alive to plant the electronics in. The "real killer" became even more lucky when Steven started denying he used the burn barrel or had any fire at all.

    I think this was on another day? Steven made no mention of this in any of his reports iirc.

    About what? The date? The quote?
     
  9. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If this stood out to him, it makes sense he has always remembered it and wrote it down in his report. And why wouldn't it stand out to him if this is what SA actually said? AC has always been consistent about this though, even at trial while under oath.

    He contacted Investigator Wiegert about it as well, just after he left Avery's. So it's not like he had any room for error.
     
  10. Limaes

    Limaes New Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    IIRC RF testified it was about 5.45pm that they went past SA the second time but this was not possible since EA had already finished at his Eye glasses appointment at about 5.30pm. I think he was confused about the time due to daylight savings but he was consistent with what he saw.

    I don't remember the State ever claiming that Teresa was being murdered at this time though.
     
  11. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,102
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    ACJL ~ Do you think there is a reason that Fabian didn't testify about SA changing clothes? why he didn't testify about his demeanor? didn't testify about overhearing a conversation between SA and his brother? As for SA wanting to run... heck, he had spent how many years in prison because they railroaded him once already? He was already hearing rumours about LE planting the RAV4 at the Salvage yard, from whatshername... Tammy? Is it really that unreasonable to think that he was concerned in light of the history? I don't think so. JMO

    AC wrote his report almost 8 months later, and only after they had a group LE meeting with KK and he was told to make a report about it. What he wrote in his report is not what Wiegert reported after speaking to AC.

    IMO, the 31st was just another day at the salvage yard for SA and his family, trying to remember what you wore, what you did, what time this or that happened, in an otherwise uneventful day is not that easy, but again, that is JMO.
     
    Jaiddie likes this.
  12. Cherry

    Cherry Pie

    Messages:
    3,710
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is pertinent to watch the Trial, not a TV show. I did, they are both guilty. I am sure there is a youtube archive for the actual trial.
     
  13. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,102
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Actually, there is no archive of the trial.

    There is however all the transcripts, from pre-trial, trial, post-trial, appeals, police reports, photo's, and many many more documents available at www.stevenaverycase.org , way more than what was presented at the trial, and many of us have read or looked at them :) 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.
     
    Jaiddie likes this.
  14. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It seemed to be about the burning/disposal of evidence and establishing a timeline rather than anything else. I don't know why KK didn't ask him about it. Plenty of other stuff KK could've asked him or others but he didn't. I don't know why. Maybe because he was trying to establish a narrative and this wasn't part of it? I could be wrong about this, but overhearing is inadmissible in court afaik, so that's probably why he wasn't asked about the quote.

    He didn't just say he wanted to run, he also said he may have done something and was unusually quiet. Not really the kind of behaviour one would have if he was innocent and in fear of being framed.

    You're doing a lot of explaining for someone who is supposed to be innocent. I don't think an innocent man has that much explaining to do, especially about things that could not have been planted.

    You cannot just explain away Colborn's report either just because he wrote it 8 months after the fact. He had informed CASO on the day itself about what Steven told him, so it's not like he could just start making things up. Steven never stated anywhere he disagreed with Colborn's report. Colborn testified under oath to it and never changed his story (unlike Steven). And if this stood out to him, and why not... I mean the guy had an appointment with her and he NEVER talked to her and just watched her from his window!? Surely a cop will remember that. It's weird.

    Steven had no difficulties remembering minor details like the phone calls with Jodi (and it's contents), times he called AT, left ASY, when his mom stopped by, going to Bobby, dropping AT mag on his desk, the cash he used to pay TH, the time when Fabian dropped by and why he was there etc, etc, but for some reason he has no memory of the bonfire, the burn barrel fires, the cleaning of a "red fluid" in the garage, several trips on a golf cart collecting wood and whatever, seeing Brendan at all, altogether which took a huge chunk of time of his evening, or rather, encompassed his entire evening until at least 23:30h. He also doesn't really place these events at any other date. He completely omitted them!
     
  15. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,102
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    ACJL ~ I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree, on just about everything haha I have been on this forum for 2 1/2 years, and I/we have discussed just about everything, in length, and over and over again (probably close to or over 100 threads with different topics!) It's obvious that you have an opinion, and I have an opinion that probably won't be changed at this point.

    I am open to discussing things, but I don't think there is anything you can post that I haven't read already, the only thing new that I have found since you started posting was about the bones and the size, and after doing some reading I found that it was very misleading......yet again.

    What I don't understand with those that believe that SA and/or BD is guilty is that the majority also are okay with the investigation. When the investigation is flawed or in question, it brings everything into question IMO

    I hope Zellner files something soon, although she has asked for yet another extension, and then we will have something new to discuss :)

    Have a great Sunday :)
     
    Jaiddie likes this.
  16. proudfootz

    proudfootz Active Member

    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I don't know that the state will ever come up with a plausible timeline, with people coming and going unexpectedly at random times all evening it would be difficult to fit in all the things Steven is accused of. The only direct evidence we have is of the recorded phone calls between Steven and Jodi which betray no evidence of a crime in progress, let alone the horrifying scenario imagined by the prosecution.

    Yes, the RAV4 was not observed at ASY after it was seen driving away by witnesses until a neighbor saw it driving toward ASY shortly before it was 'discovered'. And in between people at ASY who would notice a nice new car among the wrecks did not notice this vehicle parked in the spot where it was 'found'.

    Oddly, in initial statements no one seems to have mentioned this huge bonfire. That would tend to indicate it wasn't unusual or perhaps happened on another night.

    For anyone who's worked it would not be unusual to expect a person to have a shower and change clothes after physical labor.

    Again, there's nothing bizarre about burning something that smells like plastic. What's interesting the no one reports smelling the unmistakable stench of burning human flesh. No one.

    What would be unusual is to start and tend 3 or 4 different fires dozens of yards apart while people come and go all night long, including a bonfire that Steven invited people to join him at. Was the plan to have everyone making s'mores over a burning corpse?

    According to statements Earl and Fabian dropped in on Steven twice that evening.

    Fabian could easily be wrong about either. For everyone who was coming and going it was an unremarkable and unmemorable evening.
     
  17. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Fair enough. I would agree.

    I can understand you would think my opinion on the bones "only large bones on the burn barrel - only small bones in the pit" could be misleading. My fault for trusting armchair detectives before checking up the facts. When we did check the facts though, it wasn't really proven to be false, though. Two people said "the bones in the burn barrel are noticeably larger". Perhaps it would've been less misleading to you if he said "all the bones in the burn barrel are noticeably larger", but imo they mean the same.

    Please explain the "....yet again".

    I don't think you and I ever discussed the investigation itself.
     
  18. ACJL

    ACJL Member

    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    There is plenty of evidence. Steven and Jodi called while there was a fire going on outside. He called with his landline afaik. He omitted the fire to Jodi, but then mention doing some cleaning with Brendan. What would you have expected from a phone call like this? TH was already dead. The crime had already been committed.

    This was a case about circumstantial evidence, not really "direct" evidence. Other noteworthy evidence would be:

    - Steven and Brendan had a bonfire shortly after TH left
    - Steven and Brendan both lied about the bonfire
    - Burned cremains found in the burn pit that Steven and Brendan used and both lied about using before the burn pit was ever investigated.
    - Steven using the burn barrel
    - Steven lying about using the burn barrel
    - Burned electronics found in the burn barrel Steven lied about using.
    - Steven and Brendan cleaned the crime scene shortly after TH left
    - On the crime scene a bullet with TH's DNA was found
    - Steven and Brendan both lied about cleaning the crime scene
    - Steven had no alibi
    - Steven took a day off (very rare for him) and Jodi was in jail. The Janda's weren't home (= opportunity).
    - Steven's .22 caliber rifle fired the bullet with TH's DNA.


    Nobody saw the RAV4, iirc. The neighbour you are talking about could not tell exactly when he saw a RAV4. Was it after the third of November, when TH was reported missing? Or was it before? Was it on the 31st? Was it even TH's RAV4? Was TH inside it? How goos is this guy's memory 12 years after the fact? Let these witnesses first show how reliable they are, before we put any meaning to their claims.

    I believe there was another one who talked to Colborn at a gas station or something? Didn't he say he saw Colborn in a patrol car and wearing his uniform on a friday or saturday? Those are Colborn's days off. Why would he be in a patrol car and wearing his uniform? These witness statements shouldn't be considered factual imo, until further investigation.

    Was anyone particularly asked about the bonfire? In the end, many people came forward seeing the bonfire, including Steven (and Brendan), on multiple occasions, including his own affidavit.

    Yes, before your appointment, not after. And his behaviour is described as unusual as well. He also said "she hadn't shown up".

    I sense a total lack of even remotely considering something SA did as suspicious. We are talking here about the last person to have seen TH alive, who has no alibi, had opportunity, used items/places on the 31st that were later determined to have been part of the crime/crime scene, and who has contradicted himself on multiple occasions. She was not seen again by anyone after "leaving" this man's property.

    There is indeed nothing bizarre about burning something that smells like plastic. It becomes suspicious though when the man who burned it on the 31st says he did "not burn anything that night". It becomes suspicious when he says he didn't burn anything for two weeks, even before any of the burned material was found. It becomes suspicious when burned items belonging to the victim are found in that burn barrel that he lied about.

    Zellner's expert John DeHaan wrote in his affidavit that he agrees with Eisenberg that Teresa was burned outside, and yes, nobody smelled that. Even if someone other than Steven Avery burned TH outside, nobody ever smelled that. There are also sources that say it doesn't smell that bad and that it's smell can easily be mistaken for the burning of something else than a human. Since nobody smelled anything, maybe that's what happened?

    This source says "burning skin has a charcoallike smell, while setting hair on fire produces a sulfurous odor." http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/03/barbyou.html?nav=tap3

    There is no conclusive evidence that there were 3 or 4 different fires dozens of yards apart. Only two fires were seen: a burn barrel fire and a bonfire in a burn pit.

    Steven could've burned the body somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but a fire is easily seen in the dark. He would also have to explain why he wouldn't just use his burn pit for it.

    Who did Steven invite for the bonfire on the 31st other than Brendan?

    "Could".

    Except he was never proven wrong. His wife agreed with him. You're not really bringing an argument to the table tbh.

    Steven acknowledged Fabian was at the yard and gives about the same time as Fabian did. Obviously he omitted the quote.

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...1/Steven-Avery-Interview-Report-2005Nov09.pdf
     
  19. proudfootz

    proudfootz Active Member

    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I was speaking of his demeanor. I would expect someone in the middle of a crime who is interrupted by random visits and phone calls to behave differently. Steven is often accused of having anger problems and poor impulse control, yet here he is cool as a cucumber. It can't be both ways.

    In this thread my focus is on the half dozen or so people who interacted with Steven while he was allegedly committing this crime. For the time being I am not interested in a list of all the weak 'circumstantial evidence' cited in this case.

    I have a sneaking suspicion RAV4's aren't as common on this dead end road as might be imagined. If the propane truck driver spots a RAV4 leaving ASY around the time people at ASY report she left in her vehicle I'm inclined to think it's not some other vehicle which coincidentally came out of nowhere to visit at the same time Teresa would be there.

    I'm not interested in that in this thread - I am discussing Steven's demeanor by people who stated they saw and spoke with him while [allegedly] in the middle of committing a monstrous crime.

    A reasonable explanation for why a bonfire was not mentioned is that it wasn't remarkable - not a 'huge' bonfire, and did not have the unforgettable stench of burning human flesh.

    This is a claim made about what Steven allegedly said supposedly overheard by a third party after TH was reported missing.

    In my view, it is weak sauce.

    I'm not interested at this time in a list of other claims. I sense a total commitment to find everything SA did was suspicious. He doesn't mention having a fire while on the phone to Jodi, was one of several people who saw TH before she disappeared, who may have not perfectly remembered the picayune details about a mundane evening at home, etc. In my opinion Steven was so busy chatting with half a dozen people at various times it's difficult to imagine he needs any more of an alibi.

    Burning trash is so common in rural areas, one need not be condemned as a 'liar' if they don't recall the specifics about such an unremarkable event.

    Since none of the many people who were in the vicinity of Steven's place smelled a body being burned, it stands to reason the body was not burned there.

    Since we know Steven was at home, it follows that Steven did not burn the body.

    From your link:

    "Police in Houston said on Saturday that the remains of a woman who had been strangled by her ex-boyfriend may have been burned over a barbecue on his balcony. * Neighbors said they noticed an awful, acrid odor coming from the grills for two days. What does burning human flesh smell like?

    You'll know it when you smell it."

    None of the many people who were on site noticed any such thing. Neither Steven nor Brendan had the stench of burning human flesh clinging to their clothes, their hair, or their skin.

    Looking at the map of the cul-de-sac I can measure it is a fair distance between the fire pit behind the garage, the burn barrel out front by the driveway (which appears to be about 40 yards away from the bonfire location), and the Janda burn barrels in their back yard (about 70 yards away in the other direction). For the time being let's just put a pin in the burned bones found about half a mile away.

    Based on the evidence I have discussed here, I conclude no body was burned at ASY. Since that is where Steven was I conclude he didn't burn any body.

    Apparently Brendan and Blaine planned to do something for Halloween involving the bonfire. Brendan doesn't mention who all was invited.

    https://www.docdroid.net/2KmgtSR/mishicothstranscript.pdf#page=4

    To be honest, I think you just don't like what I'm bringing to the table - multiple witnesses who interacted with Steven during the time he was allegedly committing a hedeous crime who report nothing suspicious.

    One reason Steven might have ommitted the hearsay from Fabian is that it never happened. Certainly Steven would be aware that having told everyone he was taking time off to meet the photographer people might notice the RAV4 coming onto the property. There'd be no reason to lie about her coming and going.

    Interesting - Steven advised the officers that his mother stopped by his house after Teresa left (or after Teresa was supposedly tied up and screaming her head off in the bedroom). Another witness to nothing unusual going on.
     
    Jaiddie likes this.
  20. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,102
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Just a few things on Fabian, and I guess Earl.

    IF Fabian actually overheard that conversation, which I don't believe that Chuck ever mentions this comment anywhere, it places SA at the shop, which would have been after 4:30, when he said he arrived. Earl says it was 3:30.

    Fabian says he got home at 6pm, and it takes 10-15 minutes to get home from ASY. Earl had to have left by 5:10, to pick up his glasses at 5:30, this was verified in the CASO report, the date, the time, and how long it took to get there.
    It wasn't Fabian's wife that said it was a different day, it was the sister of Fabian's wife that spoke to Earl's wife, who said it was a different day. IIRC Fabian's wife is the sister of Earl's wife... so the "sister" would have to be a sister to both Earl and Fabian's wives.

    Earl in his first interviews, also thought it could have been Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday that Fabian was there.

    All of this information can be found in the CASO report.

    I do have to agree with you proudfootz, there was A LOT of people coming and going that day/night, awfully risky. And no smell of a burning body OR tires. I work at a livestock auction place, and I have been in the building when they are branding, if that is anything like a burning body, the smell is disgusting and you are right, the smell remains in your clothes and on your body, and I'm not even remotely close to where they are doing it. I imagine even the smell of the burning tires would linger as well. Which actually Fairgrieve testified that typically the smell of the accelerant would stay on the remains that they recovered, and Eisenberg testified that she never smelled anything.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice