Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (1 Viewer)

[parrot]

See that's the thing, I don't take it on faith that her experts would hold up in court. In fact, by all appearances, appellate courts haven't found her experts compelling at all. These are people experimenting with scenarios that they will even admit might not be accurate depictions of how things happened. They experiment until they can find a way that yields a desired result. That's good enough for the doc but not good enough for the courts. And thank goodness the courts have a higher standard than Netflix.

This.  In some cases she hasn't even accurately relayed what her experts actually said.  

 

[parrot]

Fair enough.   is that linked from the SA site?

Yes I believe so, but that bill is part of the trial record.  

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Gonna need names. At least 2 of those 3 were in season 2 and are definitely not dead ends. I have no clue whose father-in-law you're referring to.

Dassey's father in-law.. She suddenly shifted to the father in-law at one point because a RAV-4 was seen parked on a property he hunted on. No mention in the doc that the abandoned RAV-4 wasn't even the same color as Teresa's. That's also the wrongly identified RAV-4 she tried to use as proof of a conspiracy that the patrol deputy was part of a cover-up. Outside of the doc it's been proven that abandoned RAV-4 on the side of the road was a different color than Teresa's and that it indeed was followed-up on by law enforcement.

But when the doc leaves that out, suddenly Conspiracy!!!

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

You're right. She's a putz. GUILTY!  

 

[parrot]

You're right. She's a putz. GUILTY!  

It's funny how she was never interested in his case until MaM.  Money can't buy this kind of publicity.  

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Anyone starting to see the foolishness of relying solely on a doc to form an opinion? Just seeing where we stand.

 

[parrot]

Dassey's father in-law.. She suddenly shifted to the father in-law at one point because a RAV-4 was seen parked on a property he hunted on. No mention in the doc that the abandoned RAV-4 wasn't even the same color as Teresa's. That's also the wrongly identified RAV-4 she tried to use as proof of a conspiracy that the patrol deputy was part of a cover-up. Outside of the doc it's been proven that abandoned RAV-4 on the side of the road was a different color than Teresa's and that it indeed was followed-up on by law enforcement.

But when the doc leaves that out, suddenly Conspiracy!!!

Step-dad.  Scott Tadych.  I think he was just Barb's boyfriend at the time though.  

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Step-dad.  Scott Tadych.  I think he was just Barb's boyfriend at the time though.  

Yes, that's who I'm referring to. Thank you. And my apologies, step dad not father in-law. The last thing I want to do is add inaccuracies and confusion.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Wowza, this thread moves fast at times. It can be hard to keep up. Just thinking back to those reports of the abandoned RAV-4 on the side of the highway. As I recall more, not only was it the wrong color, it had some windows blown out. So for anyone hung up on that theory, not only would it have had to be painted, it also would have needed the back windows replaced to be the one (Teresa's) later found on Avery's property. The real question is, why would MaM leave those details out? Gee, I wonder.

 

[shuke]

It was totally Scott Tadych!  But actually Charles Avery had had the motive and opportunity so it was him.  Hold on, you can tell in the interviews, it had to have been Ryan Hillegas, and Mike Halbach helped cover it up!  Oh wait, it was absolutely Bobby Dassey!!!

I love conspiracy theorists.

Bump

 

[Mr Anonymous]

NRJ to be clear, I don't question your intelligence. I'd bet you're more intelligent than me. I simply believe that if the MaM doc had included these known details and facts you would have come to form a much different opinion.

Beyond that, I believe that if MaM had included all known facts, you never would have seen MaM or heard of Steven Avery because either the doc never sees the light of day or isn't attention-grabbing enough to be widely viewed.

 

[Dickies]

Comments added above.

Just curious. What is your exact theory on what happened?  You agree beyond reasonable doubt with everything the state presented at the original trial?

He can't.  His explanation of how everything went down was not what the prosecution, or Dassey presented.

 

[Dickies]

Anyone starting to see the foolishness of relying solely on a doc to form an opinion? Just seeing where we stand.

I know I'm not relying solely on the doc, and I also know NRJ is not relying solely on the doc.  Am I 100% confident that he is innocent?  No.  Do I think the investigation and much of the evidence raise a lot of red flags?  Yes.

 

[chet]

I will make the following two observations:

1) Bobby Dassey is a ####ed up individual; and

2) Excluding the coroner from the investigation is also majorly ####ed up and smells awful.

 

[doowain]

What also stood out to me was the level of DNA found under the hood latch and that no other DNA was found there. If it was sweat DNA as they claimed, how do you explain the high level of DNA found? And why was only Steven's DNA found there?

I'd like to hear this one explained away by the guys who are certain of his guilt.

And expanding on that, how do you explain that there was NOT ONE Steven Avery fingerprint in, or on, the car (not even on the hood latch with his "sweat" DNA - did he open the hood with his forehead)?  How do you bleed inside a car and leave behind your sweat, but not leave a single fingerprint?

(This isn't even mentioning how oddly placed the blood in the car was.)

 

[shuke]

I'd like to hear this one explained away by the guys who are certain of his guilt.

And expanding on that, how do you explain that there was NOT ONE Steven Avery fingerprint in, or on, the car (not even on the hood latch with his "sweat" DNA - did he open the hood with his forehead)?  How do you bleed inside a car and leave behind your sweat, but not leave a single fingerprint?

(This isn't even mentioning how oddly placed the blood in the car was.)

Are you saying it’s impossible to transfer sweat from your forehead to another surface while wearing gloves?  I can do a demonstration if you need.  

 

[cockroach]

2) Excluding the coroner from the investigation is also majorly ####ed up and smells awful.

The guilters will (disingenuously IMO) say that she was kept from the scene to prevent a conflict of interest as she was a county (which Avery was suing) employee.

 

[doowain]

I'd like to hear this one explained away by the guys who are certain of his guilt.

And expanding on that, how do you explain that there was NOT ONE Steven Avery fingerprint in, or on, the car (not even on the hood latch with his "sweat" DNA - did he open the hood with his forehead)?  How do you bleed inside a car and leave behind your sweat, but not leave a single fingerprint?

(This isn't even mentioning how oddly placed the blood in the car was.)

Are you saying it’s impossible to transfer sweat from your forehead to another surface while wearing gloves?  I can do a demonstration if you need.  

So how do you explain the blood getting into the car if he was wearing gloves?

And how do you explain the high amount of DNA on that hood latch if it was indeed sweat?  

 

[parrot]

I'd like to hear this one explained away by the guys who are certain of his guilt.

And expanding on that, how do you explain that there was NOT ONE Steven Avery fingerprint in, or on, the car (not even on the hood latch with his "sweat" DNA - did he open the hood with his forehead)?  How do you bleed inside a car and leave behind your sweat, but not leave a single fingerprint?

(This isn't even mentioning how oddly placed the blood in the car was.)

How often does a hoodlatch on a Toyota really get used?  It's also out in the weather so it's constantly being scrubbed by wind and the elements.  As far as prints, testing for DNA can obscure prints and testing for prints can make it impossible to find DNA, so they sometimes have to pick their poison.  Also,  according to forensic scientists it's not unusual for the last person to touch something like a metal surface to leave the only full DNA profile, and it's not unusual to not find clear fingerprints in a a car due to the materials and nature of the surfaces.  

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  

Speaking of being under the hood, why would anyone but Avery go to the trouble of removing the battery and the plates?

 

[parrot]

And how do you explain the high amount of DNA on that hood latch if it was indeed sweat?  

Who said it's a "high amount" other than Zellner, based on her sample of three squeaky-clean law clerks?  Have her sample a thousand working guys with nasty, flaky junkyard hands and compare it and it might mean something.  

 

[parrot]

The guilters will (disingenuously IMO) say that she was kept from the scene to prevent a conflict of interest as she was a county (which Avery was suing) employee.

She's not just an employee, she's an elected official.  It makes perfect sense they would keep her away to prevent the appearance of conflict of interest.  And speaking of disingenuous, truthers would never shut up about it if she had been involved, for just that reason  Or is she for some reason assumed to be the one honest person in the LE world who wasn't involved with the effort to frame Avery?

What exactly was there for a coroner to do anyway?  There was no body on site.  By the time the bones were determined to be human they had already been transported away.  

 

[Dickies]

How often does a hoodlatch on a Toyota really get used?  It's also out in the weather so it's constantly being scrubbed by wind and the elements.  As far as prints, testing for DNA can obscure prints and testing for prints can make it impossible to find DNA, so they sometimes have to pick their poison.  Also,  according to forensic scientists it's not unusual for the last person to touch something like a metal surface to leave the only full DNA profile, and it's not unusual to not find clear fingerprints in a a car due to the materials and nature of the surfaces.  

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  

Speaking of being under the hood, why would anyone but Avery go to the trouble of removing the battery and the plates?

Why would they lead Dassey on that Avery opened the hood of the car if they had not done any testing there?  Seems odd that the two major pieces of evidence were insisted on by the interrogators without Dassey mentioning them at all, only to then go out and find the evidence after the Dassey 'confession'.

 

[shuke]

So how do you explain the blood getting into the car if he was wearing gloves?

And how do you explain the high amount of DNA on that hood latch if it was indeed sweat?  

Why don't you answer my question first.  You are acting like it is virtuously impossible to get sweat on a surface and I think it would be pretty easy.  

This is what I love about you guys.  You get one answer and then it's "but, but, but..."

 

[doowain]

So how do you explain the blood getting into the car if he was wearing gloves?

And how do you explain the high amount of DNA on that hood latch if it was indeed sweat?  

Why don't you answer my question first.  You are acting like it is virtuously impossible to get sweat on a surface and I think it would be pretty easy.  

This is what I love about you guys.  You get one answer and then it's "but, but, but..."

What? You never answered my questions, which were asked first.  You picked one piece of what I posted and answered.  You didn't address any of the other questions.  You ignored them.

 

[doowain]

I love that you guys paint Steven Avery as this bumpkin with "nasty, flaky junkyard hands".

But he's intelligent enough to wear gloves when he moves the RAV4, disconnect the battery and remove the plates.  He's also such a master criminal that he staged a Dexter style kill room wherein not a single bit of DNA evidence proving that TH was ever in his trailer was found.

And somehow his blood and DNA is all over the front of the RAV4, but nowhere in the back where TH was placed for transport.  And vice versa.  Her blood is found nowhere in the front of the RAV.  I know....he must've used different gloves when he put her in the back!  Then since he was such a careful criminal, he knew to use different gloves when he moved the RAV so he didn't get her blood in the front and didn't leave behind any prints!

However, although a modern day Jack the Ripper, he's not quite smart enough to ensure that he hasn't bled so much that it leaked out of his gloves and inside the car in 6 different places. He also hasn't made sure not to wipe his sweaty forehead with his gloved hand before opening the hood.  

Very odd that you paint him both ways.

 

[parrot]

I love that you guys paint Steven Avery as this bumpkin with "nasty, flaky junkyard hands".

But he's intelligent enough to wear gloves when he moves the RAV4, disconnect the battery and remove the plates.  He's also such a master criminal that he staged a Dexter style kill room wherein not a single bit of DNA evidence proving that TH was ever in his trailer was found.

And somehow his blood and DNA is all over the front of the RAV4, but nowhere in the back where TH was placed for transport.  And vice versa.  Her blood is found nowhere in the front of the RAV.  He must've used different gloves when he put her in the back!  Then since he was such a careful criminal, he knew to use different gloves when he moved the RAV!

However, although a modern day Jack the Ripper, he's not quite smart enough to ensure that he hasn't bled inside the car in 6 different places and to not wipe his sweaty forehead with his gloved hand before opening the hood.  

Very odd that you paint him both ways.

There are pictures of his hands.  They are not the manicured hands of a law clerk.  He may or may not have been wearing gloves when he removes the battery and the plates.  It's not even certain that those things occurred at the same time.  Regardless, I don't know what his hands have to do with his level of intelligence, so I'm not sure what you're blathering about with a lot of this post. 

I do think he's dumb but not so dumb that he was incapable of doing some level of trying to cover his tracks, like by cleaning up a large bloodstain in his garage and possibly shampooing his carpets.  It doesn't take Dexter to do those things.   I don't think Dexter would have left his blood in her car, his DNA in her car, her bones in his firepit and burn barrels, her belongings in another burn barrel, her car key in his bedroom with his DNA on it, and a bullet with her DNA fired from his gun in his garage.  Otherwise, great analogy.  

 

[doowain]

There are pictures of his hands.  They are not the manicured hands of a law clerk.  He may or may not have been wearing gloves when he removes the battery and the plates.  It's not even certain that those things occurred at the same time.  Regardless, I don't know what his hands have to do with his level of intelligence, so I'm not sure what you're blathering about with a lot of this post. 

I do think he's dumb but not so dumb that he was incapable of doing some level of trying to cover his tracks, like by cleaning up a large bloodstain in his garage and possibly shampooing his carpets.  It doesn't take Dexter to do those things.   I don't think Dexter would have left his blood in her car, his DNA in her car, her bones in his firepit and burn barrels, her belongings in another burn barrel, her car key in his bedroom with his DNA on it, and a bullet with her DNA fired from his gun in his garage.  Otherwise, great analogy.  

So he was careful enough to remove all microscopic traces of TH from his trailer but was dumb enough to leave his DNA all over the car.  That's what you are going with?

 

[parrot]

So he was careful enough to remove all microscopic traces of TH from his trailer but was dumb enough to leave his DNA all over the car.  That's what you are going with?

It's not at all clear what exactly transpired in the trailer but I think he probably burned the bedding which would have gotten rid of the lion's share of Theresa's DNA,  and he may have shampooed the carpets.   I also understand that this was a real world case and not an episode of CSI so the trailer wasn't actually gone over with microscopes inch by inch so things might well have been missed.  As for the car, her blood is in there and it's on his property.  If it's found he's pretty well ####ed.  He knows he has to effectively destroy it or it's game over so he probably wasn't terribly concerned about forensic evidence.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

So how do you explain the blood getting into the car if he was wearing gloves?

And how do you explain the high amount of DNA on that hood latch if it was indeed sweat?  

sometimes he was wearing gloves....sometimes he wasn't...?....

he probably moved that vehicle several times over the course of the events taking place....

 

[Don't Noonan]

I do find it interesting that the locals are so sure that Avery is guilty.  What other information do they know that we don't?  We are not going strickly on MAM, we have read the court transcripts too.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Why would they lead Dassey on that Avery opened the hood of the car if they had not done any testing there?  Seems odd that the two major pieces of evidence were insisted on by the interrogators without Dassey mentioning them at all, only to then go out and find the evidence after the Dassey 'confession'.

if they knew the battery was removed......it would not be unusual to ask about somebody going under the hood....they get the info....they test...

 

[doowain]

sometimes he was wearing gloves....sometimes he wasn't...?....

he probably moved that vehicle several times over the course of the events taking place....

Let me wear these gloves only some of the time while I'm touching this hugely incriminating piece of evidence.  That's like shooting someone while wearing gloves but then taking them off before sitting the gun next to the body.  It doesn't make any sense.

I just don't get how you guys can be so definitive on things that make him guilty, but throw your arms up in the air or say "this is probably what happened" over things that raise questions.

For the record, I've flip flopped back and forth between guilt and innocence and now sit firmly in the "maybe he did it, but maybe he didn't" camp.  There are enough questions and weird #### that happened that I can't be so confident in either direction.  Which is why I find it so strange that some of you can be so resolute in your stance.

ETA: Maybe I'm giving Steven too much credit for his innocence based on the fact that I think Brendan is innocent.  I guess they don't have to go hand in hand.

 

[Dickies]

I do find it interesting that the locals are so sure that Avery is guilty.  What other information do they know that we don't?  We are not going strickly on MAM, we have read the court transcripts too.

I think it has a lot to do with the Kratz press conference.  They hadn't seen the Dassey confession on video, so it's understandable when they hear that there is a confession they make the automatic assumption that they are guilty and that's how they reported on it.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I love that you guys paint Steven Avery as this bumpkin with "nasty, flaky junkyard hands".

But he's intelligent enough to wear gloves when he moves the RAV4, disconnect the battery and remove the plates.  He's also such a master criminal that he staged a Dexter style kill room wherein not a single bit of DNA evidence proving that TH was ever in his trailer was found.

And somehow his blood and DNA is all over the front of the RAV4, but nowhere in the back where TH was placed for transport.  And vice versa.  Her blood is found nowhere in the front of the RAV.  I know....he must've used different gloves when he put her in the back!  Then since he was such a careful criminal, he knew to use different gloves when he moved the RAV so he didn't get her blood in the front and didn't leave behind any prints!

However, although a modern day Jack the Ripper, he's not quite smart enough to ensure that he hasn't bled so much that it leaked out of his gloves and inside the car in 6 different places. He also hasn't made sure not to wipe his sweaty forehead with his gloved hand before opening the hood.  

Very odd that you paint him both ways.

I think the thing is that Avery wasn't really "bleeding out"....so not finding his DNA in the back or "mixed" with her DNA is easily explained.....he may have been wearing gloves sometimes, but wasn't at others and got careless, thus leaving the blood smudge by the ignition when he wasn't wearing gloves.....he may have given the car a quick wipe down of some sort which got rid of fingerprints, etc. elsewhere, but he wasn't good enough/Dexter enough to get rid of all of it....nobody is calling him an expert criminal (not sure there is one) in fact he was far from it....because he was good enough to get rid of much of the physical evidence....just not all of it...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Let me wear these gloves only some of the time while I'm touching this hugely incriminating piece of evidence.  That's like shooting someone while wearing gloves but then taking them off before sitting the gun next to the body.  It doesn't make any sense.

I just don't get how you guys can be so definitive on things that make him guilty, but throw your arms up in the air or say "this is probably what happened" over things that raise questions.

For the record, I've flip flopped back and forth between guilt and innocence and now sit firmly in the "maybe he did it, but maybe he didn't" camp.  There are enough questions and weird #### that happened that I can't be so confident in either direction.  Which is why I find it so strange that some of you can be so resolute in your stance.

do I think he did it... yeah....do I know exactly how....no...kind of going with where the evidence leads while also keeping in mind that if he didn't do it...it is the most epic frame job of all time....just because there isn't some other physical evidence in other places, does not mean he is innocent...there can be questions in every case...'why wasn't there evidence here, but it was there"....you could ask that all day....but that doesn't mean there is reasonable doubt when there is a ton of evidence that is leading you in another direction.....

he got rid of some stuff....but made some mistakes and didn't get rid of it all....something I could easily see happening if someone is in the midst of doing something so horrible and trying to cover it up quickly....

 

[parrot]

Let me wear these gloves only some of the time while I'm touching this hugely incriminating piece of evidence.  That's like shooting someone while wearing gloves but then taking them off before sitting the gun next to the body.  It doesn't make any sense.

I just don't get how you guys can be so definitive on things that make him guilty, but throw your arms up in the air or say "this is probably what happened" over things that raise questions.

For the record, I've flip flopped back and forth between guilt and innocence and now sit firmly in the "maybe he did it, but maybe he didn't" camp.  There are enough questions and weird #### that happened that I can't be so confident in either direction.  Which is why I find it so strange that some of you can be so resolute in your stance.

ETA: Maybe I'm giving Steven too much credit for his innocence based on the fact that I think Brendan is innocent.  I guess they don't have to go hand in hand.

If you think Brendan is innocent (I don't, for the record) then the absence of more evidence in the bedroom should be a non-issue for you.  The only indication that anything occurred in the bedroom is Brendan saying it did.  If you don't believe Brendan knows anything, there's no reason to expect anything in the bedroom.  

 

[shuke]

What? You never answered my questions, which were asked first.  You picked one piece of what I posted and answered.  You didn't address any of the other questions.  You ignored them.

I was choosing to discuss one at a time. You seem to think it’s entirely impossible to transfer sweat to a metal surface with gloves so I wanted to tackle that one first. Let’s get through that and then we’ll move on.  

Also I think we should be having this discussion at the Liberty Inn.  

 

[Mr Anonymous]

I think it has a lot to do with the Kratz press conference.  They hadn't seen the Dassey confession on video, so it's understandable when they hear that there is a confession they make the automatic assumption that they are guilty and that's how they reported on it.

I was a local at the time and I don't even remember the Kratz press conference. I don't think I saw a minute of it. You sure do like to speak for others. It's amazing how hard you've tried to push the notion that the people who lived this are biased especially given that the first exposure to this case for most here is a very one-sided, biased, loose with the facts documentary. Some of you may have dug deeper, but if that's not starting with a bias I don't know what is.

 

[doowain]

I was choosing to discuss one at a time. You seem to think it’s entirely impossible to transfer sweat to a metal surface with gloves so I wanted to tackle that one first. Let’s get through that and then we’ll move on.  

Also I think we should be having this discussion at the Liberty Inn.  

Sure, it's possible. Just seems like there are a lot of explanations I don't find plausible. Basically my whole line of questions was centered around the fact that I don't think he would be crafty enough to wear gloves. Which means I think he absolutely could've left sweat on the latch. But it doesn't explain why there are no fingerprints. The explanation that was offered to me was that he wore gloves some of the time when interacting with the RAV4 but not all of the time. I just feel that is way less likely than the alternative. If you have the foresight to wear gloves to cover your tracks, you aren't going to pick and choose when to wear them. I dunno. Just my opinion. 

Haha. Agreed. 

(For anyone curious, Liberty Inn is a bar. It is not an actual Inn. We won't be sharing a queen bed. NTTAWWT)

 

[Dickies]

I was a local at the time and I don't even remember the Kratz press conference. I don't think I saw a minute of it. You sure do like to speak for others. It's amazing how hard you've tried to push the notion that the people who lived this are biased especially given that the first exposure to this case for most here is a very one-sided, biased, loose with the facts documentary. Some of you may have dug deeper, but if that's not starting with a bias I don't know what is.

I definitely started with a bias but have read all of the vast majority of the court docs and evidence presented.  I’m not saying all or even a lot of locals saw the press conference, but I’m confident it influenced the local media’s reporting on the case

I don’t understand how you can say the documentary was loose with the facts when it was footage from inside the courthouse and followed the defense attorneys

 

[cockroach]

I don’t understand how you can say the documentary was loose with the facts when it was footage from inside the courthouse and followed the defense attorneys

For one, they made a whole big cliff-hanger deal about the blood vial having a hole in the top in S1.   I don't think they ever went back to explain that that is perfectly normal (although it looks like there's blood crusted up in the vacuum seal, which shouldn't be there).  I think a lot of the hubbub made of it being 1 sided is horse crap.   Especially since Kratz and co were asked to be featured in the doc, but declined.  But there are things they did for dramatic effect.  I remember there being some issue with how they edited part of Colbourn's testimony too.  There have to be some cuts though. 

 

[Dickies]

For one, they made a whole big cliff-hanger deal about the blood vial having a hole in the top in S1.   I don't think they ever went back to explain that that is perfectly normal (although it looks like there's blood crusted up in the vacuum seal, which shouldn't be there).  I think a lot of the hubbub made of it being 1 sided is horse crap.   Especially since Kratz and co were asked to be featured in the doc, but declined.  But there are things they did for dramatic effect.  I remember there being some issue with how they edited part of Colbourn's testimony too.  There have to be some cuts though. 

The blood vial is fair to criticize, but i’m not 100% convinced there was no foul play with it either. Regardless I haven’t brought up the vial here since perhaps when I first watched the documentary. In the research I’ve done since then there are far more compelling red flags

 

[parasaurolophus]

Is there any evidence that the insurance company would not be the one on the hook for the lawsuit re: the initial conviction?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Sure, it's possible. Just seems like there are a lot of explanations I don't find plausible. Basically my whole line of questions was centered around the fact that I don't think he would be crafty enough to wear gloves. Which means I think he absolutely could've left sweat on the latch. But it doesn't explain why there are no fingerprints. The explanation that was offered to me was that he wore gloves some of the time when interacting with the RAV4 but not all of the time. I just feel that is way less likely than the alternative. If you have the foresight to wear gloves to cover your tracks, you aren't going to pick and choose when to wear them. I dunno. Just my opinion. 

Haha. Agreed. 

(For anyone curious, Liberty Inn is a bar. It is not an actual Inn. We won't be sharing a queen bed. NTTAWWT)

again...he may have wiped some things down, but not everything.......he was careful enough to get rid of some of the physical evidence....but obviously not all of it...

personally I'm not sure he ever wore gloves....I just think he was sloppy in destroying and getting rid of evidence....I believe he was in and out of that vehicle on several occasions....and sometimes in a pretty big hurry....

 

[doowain]

Sure, it's possible. Just seems like there are a lot of explanations I don't find plausible. Basically my whole line of questions was centered around the fact that I don't think he would be crafty enough to wear gloves. Which means I think he absolutely could've left sweat on the latch. But it doesn't explain why there are no fingerprints. The explanation that was offered to me was that he wore gloves some of the time when interacting with the RAV4 but not all of the time. I just feel that is way less likely than the alternative. If you have the foresight to wear gloves to cover your tracks, you aren't going to pick and choose when to wear them. I dunno. Just my opinion. 

Haha. Agreed. 

(For anyone curious, Liberty Inn is a bar. It is not an actual Inn. We won't be sharing a queen bed. NTTAWWT)

again...he may have wiped some things down, but not everything.......he was careful enough to get rid of some of the physical evidence....but obviously not all of it...

personally I'm not sure he ever wore gloves....I just think he was sloppy in destroying and getting rid of evidence....I believe he was in and out of that vehicle on several occasions....and sometimes in a pretty big hurry....

Entirely possible, but it's a pretty big leap for me to believe that he was careful enough to remove EVERY single fingerprint (that are obviously unseen by the naked eye) but not careful enough to remove half a dozen areas with his blood on them (obviously seen by the naked eye).  

 

[parrot]

Entirely possible, but it's a pretty big leap for me to believe that he was careful enough to remove EVERY single fingerprint (that are obviously unseen by the naked eye) but not careful enough to remove half a dozen areas with his blood on them (obviously seen by the naked eye).  

Again, vehicles are a poor source of prints.  There were a total of 8 prints lifted from that six year old car.  

 

[doowain]

Entirely possible, but it's a pretty big leap for me to believe that he was careful enough to remove EVERY single fingerprint (that are obviously unseen by the naked eye) but not careful enough to remove half a dozen areas with his blood on them (obviously seen by the naked eye).  

Again, vehicles are a poor source of prints.  There were a total of 8 prints lifted from that six year old car.

Says who?

 

[parrot]

Says who?

Fingerprint people.  

 

[cockroach]

Kathleen Zellner on Twitter: "We've confirmed that it was replaced with the wrong-sized battery for the RAV4—the same size battery that is used in Crown Victorias" - Police cars are traditionally and almost ALWAYS Crown Victorias.

 

[doowain]

Says who?

Fingerprint people. 

Link?

Bad source because the surfaces are hard to pull from? Or because the large number of prints makes it hard to distinguish unique prints?

Was the steering wheel (or anywhere else inside the car) tested for Steven's sweat DNA?