That bullet was completely smashed…not sure how they would find the grooves and lands in that. I still don’t see how she could have been shot and/or killed there with no other trace evidence. It is impossible. Tack on the blood sample and there is no doubt in my mind something was afoot. Reasonable doubt? Hell yes!
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
Looks like an appeal was filed Monday:
http://time.com/4178293/making-murderer … ry-appeal/
Also, did you guys catch that 7 jurors had thought "not guilty"…and then changed their minds, due (possibly) to various pressures as mentioned by the one juror who was excused for family emergency reasons. That juror went on to support the nephew’s family.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
One thing that baffled me is that the prosecutor, at least as far as was shown in the film, never offered a motive for the crime or explanation for what exactly happened. I was waiting for it the whole time. I guess aside from that kid’s account, the investigators had no idea.
I suppose that it’s possible, but it’s not typical that a person just decides to murder a random person for no apparent reason.
One thing that baffled me is that the prosecutor, at least as far as was shown in the film, never offered a motive for the crime or explanation for what exactly happened. I was waiting for it the whole time. I guess aside from that kid’s account, the investigators had no idea.
I suppose that it’s possible, but it’s not typical that a person just decides to murder a random person for no apparent reason.
I got the impression it was like a rape gone bad. Maybe he had come-on to her and things went bad. While they said he was a bad seed prior to the original rape conviction, I think they were insinuating prison made him even worse.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
I think that is very plausible. If he did it, he might not have started out committing any crime at all, perhaps just a misunderstanding. But the fear that he might get sent back to prison again could have spurred him in to increasingly drastic and violent means of trying to cover that up. Pure speculation of course, but that is normal for a trial and a jury usually feels more comfortable hearing a story they can understand, instead of just a list of evidence that requires them to use their own imagination.
Another thing I find laughable is the placement of her car.
Avery must have gone to extraordinary lengths to eliminate some of the evidence, yet he parks her car on his property and covers it with some wood strips and scant bushes?
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
Most of these things come down to opinion, as in whose side you believe. There’s a couple of iffy points, but the car is the one glaring spot for me. It doesn’t seem to fit for either the prosecution or the defense’s versions.
Planting a few items here and there that could be easily accessed and concealed is one thing, but I just don’t buy the police driving the car onto the property and eliminating all the trace evidence and just hoping that no one would notice them doing it. I think that goes too far. A third party doing it creates an even greater suspension of disbelief as it adds even more conspiracy.
Any scenario with Steven involved with the car is equally implausible and doesn’t fit with the rest of the actions as they appear to have occurred.
I agree.
I don’t think LE put the car there. If anything, it was the 3rd party, imo. Maybe when the cops found no evidence in the vehicle, the blood came into play…?? I don’t know–it’s a bizarre case for sure.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
Do you remember if the blood in the car was DNA linked to Teresa? I don’t see how that is possible, since they wouldn’t have had her DNA on file. Either way, that goes against the cops planting it because they wouldn’t have had access to her blood. It being someone or something else’s blood doesn’t seem likely. I think we have to assume it was hers and that meant she was in the car.
The only theory I can come up with that I think makes sense is she was killed by someone on the Avery property, probably not Steven, and not killed in Steven’s house. The killer then put her body in the car to dispose of both somewhere else, but realized that was a bad idea. They then hastily covered the car on site and took her body away to where they burnt it. I think this scenario strongly points towards a juvenile offender who doesn’t know what he is doing and working with an accomplice. That accomplice might have been Steven, who helped to burn the body, but wasn’t involved in the murder. He might want to help out a friend or family member cover it up and would not turn against them because he is against the police and court system. But he would also believe and maintain his own innocence for the murder.
Do you remember if the blood in the car was DNA linked to Teresa? I don’t see how that is possible, since they wouldn’t have had her DNA on file. Either way, that goes against the cops planting it because they wouldn’t have had access to her blood. It being someone or something else’s blood doesn’t seem likely. I think we have to assume it was hers and that meant she was in the car.
The only theory I can come up with that I think makes sense is she was killed by someone on the Avery property, probably not Steven, and not killed in Steven’s house. The killer then put her body in the car to dispose of both somewhere else, but realized that was a bad idea. They then hastily covered the car on site and took her body away to where they burnt it. I think this scenario strongly points towards a juvenile offender who doesn’t know what he is doing and working with an accomplice. That accomplice might have been Steven, who helped to burn the body, but wasn’t involved in the murder. He might want to help out a friend or family member cover it up and would not turn against them because he is against the police and court system. But he would also believe and maintain his own innocence for the murder.
Yes, her blood was found in her car. I’m sure they used a family member to confirm the DNA. In regards to a juvenile being guilty because of the hastily car cover up I’m not sure that’s completely true. Keep in mind that Stevens IQ places him in the range has having Intellectual Disabilty (formally mental retardation) and the family as a whole is very uneducated. Someone may have thought that they wouldn’t notice the car on the large lot of cars or just didn’t know what else to do.
I’m wouldn’t go as far to say that Steven is guilty, but I also can’t say that I think he’s innocent either. There is a good bit of incriminating info that was left out. I do really feel for him over the horrible wrong conviction in the past and it’s inexcusable what they did, but this is another case all together. I do lean towards someone on the property that is either a family member or affiliate as the guilty party.
The blood that was found in odd ways (and places) in her car was Avery’s, hence the concern with the tampered blood vile.
I don’t recall them saying anything about her blood; that’s not to say it wasn’t, I just don’t remember. Her own DNA wasn’t even found on her car key, but his was. None of his hairs or fingerprints or other type of DNA were in her car. No blood, hairs, fingerprints, etc., in his house either. They found her blood on a smashed bullet fragment in his garage–after it had been searched a couple of times, but not one shred of evidence aside of that and her key openly on the floor after having shown a photo of the same spot with nothing there.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
The blood that was found in odd ways (and places) in her car was Avery’s, hence the concern with the tampered blood vile.
I don’t recall them saying anything about her blood; that’s not to say it wasn’t, I just don’t remember. Her own DNA wasn’t even found on her car key, but his was. None of his hairs or fingerprints or other type of DNA were in her car. No blood, hairs, fingerprints, etc., in his house either. They found her blood on a smashed bullet fragment in his garage–after it had been searched a couple of times, but not one shred of evidence aside of that and her key openly on the floor after having shown a photo of the same spot with nothing there.
Her blood was found in her car. They showed it in the documentary and Avery’s lawyers argued that if he had killed her he would not have a reason to put her in the car because they are stating he killed her on his property and burned her behind this place. So if she was placed in the car, as the blood evidence suggested, then he could not have done it. It wasn’t a big part of the documentary but it was in there.
The blood in the car also lines up with something his nephew "confessed" to. He said Steven placed her body on her car because he was going to dump it, but decided to burn her body instead. It was something along those lines. They showed photos of her blood in the car on the documentary as well. The blood smeared in the back they claimed was hers. Stevens was by the ignition and the side.
Since the prosecution did not want to call his nephew it could not be used in trial. The blood should have counted in Steven’s favor.
Mystery solved. Apparently it was 72 year old Edward Edwards. He really got around.
Yah, isn’t that the most ridiculous thing you ever heard? Actually, when it comes to this case…probably not.
Cameron starts to look more and more the fool.
“…they may be dealing with one or more ersatz Zodiacs–other psychotics eager to get into the act, or perhaps even other murderers eager to lay their crimes at the real Zodiac’s doorstep.“ L.A. Times, 1969
