A Rebuttal To The Theory Steven Avery Did It
Earlier, I asked for people to make a rebuttal to the theory Steven Avery did it and I got a few replies on Reddit and as promised, I will be posting some of them on my blog to show both sides of the story.
The problem with this theory is the profile and psychology behind Steven Avery. Killers fall into two main categories (which of course are broken down further but these are the two main differences) of organized and disorganized. This theory has SA organized one moment, and disorganized the next and switches his profile several times.
SA is a man with an IQ in the 70’s, highly disorganized as seen in his home and workplace, and has never shown any of the planning and awareness of an organized killer.
This theory has him cleaning the gun and placing it back into it’s original place, cleaning up blood, DNA and other forensic evidence, using plastic sheeting, removing his fingerprints, being in full control in a kidnapping and he is able to fully burn a human body knowing exactly how long and what type of fire he needs. This shows SA as organized and intelligent.
However at other times during this theory we have him bleeding all over her car and not worrying about it which shows he also wasn’t wearing gloves, he decides to place the body and car on his own property even after having her in another remote off-site location, he throws keys and a license plate in a random place instead of disposing of them properly, and he leaves her spare key on the bedroom floor of his trailer.
To make this theory fit, you have to change SA’s way of thinking and personality as well as his intelligence and skill level. It just isn’t plausible that at one moment he is cleaning a crime scene and the murder weapon, and the next he leaves a body in the backyard and leaves blood all over her vehicle.
And before the arguments of who knows why killers do the things they do, or that killers are dumb and make mistakes, I do agree with this. However profiling and criminal psychology are powerful tools in investigating and forensics, and this theory just doesn’t fit SA’s profile.
Also I didn’t see where this theory explained the spare key on the bedroom floor or the fact that her body could not have been burned in the fire-pit. Even if you believe it was, it doesn’t fit with much of the theme of an organized killer or a killer who would move her bones, as no killer would move the bones to a more obvious and persecuting location.
Tl;DR – Steven Avery can not be Dexter Morgan one minute, and a bumbling idiot the next.
Edit: I also want to add using his past crimes to build a profile to debunk this theory. In none of his other crimes he was convicted of (ignoring the rape for obvious reasons) he never tried to destroy or hide evidence, nor was he able to hide and food law enforcement. He never showed this sort of planning and intelligence that would be required for this theory to work. If SA did murder someone, it would be very sloppy and very obvious what he had done, and he would not be able to go for so long without slipping up and either admitting his guilt or saying something that led to his guilt.
There were a couple other follow up questions to his post and here is mine:
/u/The_Inspiring_Dad What if it was an accident? What if he didn’t mean to kill her? Let’s forget about what the prosecution said about raping her and cutting her throat and all that horse shit.
If it was an accident, he is now in panic mode and has the time to really make sure he cleaned the evidence because there wasn’t that much evidence to clean up (again, disregard what the prosecution is saying).
Yes, I agree, that key was bullshit and it was most likely planted. And this is why I say that he shouldn’t be in jail because of the reasonable doubt. The state screwed up and because of that, SA shouldn’t be sitting behind bars.
But even if SA gets out, we still don’t know who did it for sure and the case is still unsolved and TH’s family don’t have any answers (unless they are involved in some way).
An accidental death doesn’t explain the gunshot wounds however, unless we are saying he accidentally shot her in which case I still argue he would never have the capability of cleaning all the evidence from that up.
Also in accidental deaths the person normally tries to get the body as far away from them as possible. He could have dumped her in the woods or in a lake, but he chooses to clean the crime scene completely and then throws her body in a fire in her backyard?
I think that all theories presented try and fit a story to the evidence or testimony’s and this is where the problem is. Even the prosecution in closing argument’s stated that evidence could have been moved or planted and most people believe several things were, especially the key. Now you have people trying to fit a story or theory with evidence that has been changed. Because the evidence has been moved/altered/planted, a story of what happened is impossible to come up with that would be factual and is why you have theories that make no sense and have SA personalty changing so wildly from one event to the next.
The investigation was handled terribly. The evidence was handled terribly. The search and crime scene were handled terribly. Evidence was likely planted and manipulated. Eye witness testimonies are already unreliable, and have since changed several times.
Trying to fit a theory when so much of the evidence and crime scene were corrupted is just impossible I think, which is why he should have been found not guilty, as you just can’t make these pieces fit.
I think there are several good theories out there, even this one. The issue I seem to find is that this whole thing is a puzzle that was so damaged years ago, that to make theories fit now we have to force the pieces together to fit and in the end it just looks forced together instead of looking like a picture of what happened.
So there is one rebuttal to the theory Steven Avery did it.
More to follow!