r/MakingaMurderer

INTRO: Evidence has ALWAYS credibly and consistently demonstrated that Steven Avery didn't even have the opportunity to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the 1985 attack on Penny Beernsten

 

• On YouTube and (less frequently) on Reddit, certain users have kept alive the niche theory that Steven Avery could still be guilty of the 1985 assault on Penny Beernsten, though such theories often avoid the specifics of HOW Steven could still be guilty given the overwhelming exculpatory evidence of his innocence. As we know, the most well known proponent of this niche vague theory is former Manitowoc County Chief Deputy Gene Kusche, who famously questioned the validity of the 2003 DNA test that exonerated Steven, and later speculated even if the DNA implicating Allen was legitimate, Steven could still be guilty by having operated as Gregory Allen's accomplice in the 1985 assault.

 

• But Penny (the living victim) consistently described being attacked by a lone male, and despite what Kusche hoped people would believe, there's no credible reason to doubt the validity of the 2003 DNA result that implicated Gregory Allen as that lone male. In fact, Gregory Allen's name turning up made perfect sense. From the beginning, Penny's description of a lone violent beach attacker wearing a black leather jacket didn't sound like Steven Avery, it sounded like Gregory Allen ... a violent offender previously charged with attempting an attack on that same beach, an offender who had other run ins with police while prowling in a black leather jacket.

 

• Further, even before DNA identified Allen as Penny's sole beach attacker, the weight of the evidence already credibly demonstrated Steven didn't even have the opportunity to be at the Two Rivers beach crime scene in 1985 at the time of the assault. Thus, any remaining theories that Steven could have acted as Penny's sole attacker, or Allen's accomplice, are not reasonable inferences from the record. They are post fact rationalizations designed to rebrand an intentional wrongful conviction of an innocent man as an accidentally legitimate conviction of a still guilty man.

 

The 1985 Beach Accomplice Theory

 

• As we saw in MaM, after DNA evidence implicated Gregory Allen and exonerated Steven Avery in 2003, former Manitowoc County official Gene Kusche disputed that the DNA result implicating Allen proved Avery was innocent of the 1985 assault. When pressed, Kusche didn't question the 2003 DNA result matched Allen, but did question where the DNA came from, explaining his opinion that "DNA evidence [had] been fabricated before." The implication, I guess, was that Steven could still be guilty of the 1985 assault if the 2003 DNA test exonerating him had been fabricated.

 

• But if Steven were actually guilty of the 1985 crime, why would the state (or anyone) fabricate DNA results that frees a guilty man and exposes the county to maximum liability for (checks notes) zero obvious gain? That makes no sense without some major adjustment to provide a coherent explanation of the state's motives. Even Kusche seemed to understand that. After Steven was charged with Teresa Halbach's murder in 2005 (based in part on DNA evidence) Kusche abandoned the idea that DNA was fabricated in 2003, and began arguing even if said DNA match to Allen was legit, it didn't prove Steven was innocent. As Griesbach recounts, Kusche's revised theory was that "Avery and Allen could have both assaulted Penny on the beach that day" (TIK 239).

 

• Of course, this new theory openly disregards Penny's consistent account of a single beach attacker, and IMO it's not credible to suggest Penny was unaware or forgot a second man was assaulting her alongside Allen. Thus, if we accept the 2003 DNA result implicating Allen as the sole attacker was legitimate, but still assume Allan had an accomplice, we must conclude this accomplice was nearby during the attack but unseen by Penny, possibly acting as a lookout. That's the only version of this niche theory that doesn't disregard the living victim's memory, or require us to engage with flatly illogical or self defeating arguments about DNA being fabricated to falsely exonerate a guilty man.

 

Question: Could Gregory Allen have been aided by a nearby but UNSEEN accomplice?

 

• Short answer: nothing in the record supports that conclusion. After the July 29, 1985 attack, Penny Beernsten told MTSO officer Dvorak that during an afternoon jog along the shore of a Two Rivers beach she noticed a lone male "standing in the shadow of a poplar tree" wearing "a black leather jacket," something thought Penny thought was strange because of the heat. A bit later, the man in the black leather jacket began chasing after Penny, and grabbed / dragged her west into the treeline where he assaulted her. The attack began shortly before 4:00 PM, lasted roughly 15 minutes, and during the attack Penny periodically called out for help and pled for mercy, to no avail.

 

• Suddenly, the man in the black leather jacket knocked Penny to the ground and quickly took off west into the trees out of sight. A dazed and fearful Penny began crawling the opposite direction, east towards the beach. She didn't notice anyone until she saw a young couple walking north in her direction, but closer to the shore. The couple (later identified in police reports) saw Penny, heard her cries for help, and offered her a towel while they waited for her husband, police or an ambulance to arrive (which they quickly did).

 

• Per available records, Penny never mentioned a second man being involved in the attack, nor did she mention a second unidentified man keeping a lookout during the attack, or walking away from the scene after the attack. Further, no evidence was ever presented at Steven's 1985 trial (or at any point since) suggesting Allen was aided by a lookout accomplice that day. But again, for the sake of argument, I hope everyone understands, even if we entertain this "unseen lookout accomplice" theory, the record STILL overwhelmingly points away from Gregory Allen's unseen accomplice being Steven Avery.

 

Steven didn't have the opportunity to be the sole attacker of Penny OR Gregory Allen's nearby unseen accomplice

 

• In "The Innocent Killer," Griesbach correctly notes Steven wasn't as good a match for Penny's description as MTSO liked to pretend. Police knew Steven was too young, too short, and had the wrong eye color. Further, police knew Steven had straight hair and dirty hands on the night of his arrest, while Penny's attacker had curly/straggly hair and clean hands. Griesbach even admits he suspected Kusche's composite drawing and the resulting identification process was "a total scam" or "fraud" designed to manipulate Penny to falsely incriminate Steven. After all, even back in 1985 police has reason to know Avery was credibly accounted for at the time of the attack on Penny, and was nowhere near the scene of the crime.

 

• As Steven's former counsel noted in MaM, if the 16 witnesses and receipt record alibiing Steven were to be believed (and they were remarkably consistent) then Steven could not have attacked Penny in Two Rivers around 4 PM, because he had no discernible opportunity be at the crime scene at the time of the attack. Multiple witnesses consistently placed Steven at the ASY between 3:30 - 4 PM, and evidence credibly suggested after he left the ASY he drove northwest to Green Bay (not southeast to Two Rivers) where he was spotted by independent witnesses buying paint with his wife and five kids (corroborated by store provided receipt).

 

• In 1985, the state got around this "problem" by hiding evidence of Allen's profile / history, claiming Steven's family and friends lied about when he left the ASY, and then staging a recreation to prove Steven had time (post attack) to drive from the Two Rivers crime scene to the Green Bay Shopko (where he was seen with his family). But to make the timeline fit, police sped directly from the beach to the Shopko ... without accounting for a stop at Steven's house in Maribel to pick up his wife after the crime ... meaning in order for Steven to be guilty, Lori and the kids had to have been with Steven in Two Rivers while he assaulted Penny.

 

Even before DNA identified Allen, the record "virtually proved" Steven didn't have the opportunity to be at the Two Rivers beach crime scene.

 

• The idea that Steven's wife, family, family friends, and independent witnesses all told consistent lies to alibi Steven requires increasingly absurd concessions - You must accept everyone lied about Steven packing his wife, three young kids, and newborn twin boys into a vehicle and leaving the ASY an hour or more before they actually did, and then instead of quickly taking Lori and the kids home, you must assume Steven drove them all to Two Rivers ... only to abandon his wife and 5 kids with the vehicle while he stalked and assaulted Penny by 4:00 PM ... after which he returned and raced Lori and the kids to Green Bay to buy paint and be seen by witnesses around 5:00 PM.

 

• Not to mention, despite Steven being unable to speak with anyone for a week after his warrant-less arrest, what he said to police (in isolation) somehow perfectly matched what his wife and everyone else said to police. What Steven and Lori said perfectly matched what Steven's family, friends, and even what employees at the Shopko clerk said. What Steven, Lori and the Shopko clerk said was corroborated by a store provided receipt record. According to Griesbach, such evidence of consistently compounding uncoordinated corroboration of Steven's alibi "virtually proved he didn't commit the assault" (TIK 134)

 

• Manitowoc County police had to reason to know that evidence credibly suggested Gregory Allen was the guilty party, but also that evidence credibly suggested Steven Avery was physically incapable of being involved in the attack at the time and location Penny described. Steven's 1985 wrongful conviction was NOT a case of mistaken identity. It was a case of corrupt police and prosecutors ignoring evidence that Allen was a far more viable suspect, while dismissing Steven's credibly corroborated alibi as fabricated so the focus could remain on him. As a result, the man police had reason to know was guilty (the actual rapist) continued prowling and assaulting innocent women for a decade more ... and even had an additional run-in with police while wearing a black leather jacket.

 

TLDR: Evidence consistently and credibly suggests Steven Avery DID NOT have the opportunity to be on the Two Rivers beach by 4 PM on July 29, 1985, whether as the sole attacker of Penny or as Gregory Allen's unseen "lookout" accomplice.

 

• Gregory Allen being implicated by DNA evidence as the lone male black leather jacket wearing man who violently attacked Penny on the beach in 1985 wasn't some suspicious result that didn't match up with known facts. Allen being guilty made perfect sense. He was a known violent offender operating on an escalating basis in the Two Rivers area, a man who was supposed to be (but was not) under police watch when Penny was assaulted on the beach. A man who had already tried to attack a woman on that same beach, and later contacted the victim by phone. A man who had multiple other encounters with police while prowling, including while prowling in a black leather jacket.

 

• As for Steven, at the time of the July 29, 1985 Two Rivers beach assault on Penny, he was consistently accounted for at the ASY (Larrabee / Mishicot area). Evidence credibly suggested Steven was still on the ASY as the Two Rivers stalking and attack on Penny began, and further suggested when Steven did leave the ASY, he, Lori and their five kids went northwest to the Shopko in Green Bay, rather than heading southeast to the beach in Two Rivers. Police and prosecutors had overwhelming reason to know both that Gregory Allen was guilty, and that Steven Avery didn't even have the opportunity to be on that Two Rivers beach that day in 1985.

 

• The idea that Steven's family and independent witnesses all told consistent lies to alibi Steven requires absurd concessions: Did Steven drag Lori and their five young kids to the scene only to leave them alone during the assault, and return to quickly drive to Green Bay to buy paint before going back home to Maribel, all without Lori ever admitting Steven was unaccounted for at or near the scene of the crime at the time of the assault? After Steven's arrest, did he and everyone else just magically deliver surprisingly consistent but totally false statements supporting his false alibi without Steven making a single phone? Naw. Even Griesbach can admit the most parsimonious explanation for such levels of uncoordinated consistency across multiple actors / records is that they were all telling the truth. Steven was innocent of the 1985 crime for which he was charged, and his wife and family knew it.

 

• This means even before DNA inculpated Allen in 2003, evidence consistently and credibly showed Steven Avery was not a viable suspect for the 1985 beach attack on Penny and should never have been considered as such by Kocourek and Vogel. Unlike Gregory Allen, Steven Avery had no history of attempted attacks on that beach, was not being watched by police due to escalating violence in the area, and was credibly accounted for at the time of the attack on Penny. Because of that lack of opportunity, Steven was never a viable suspect for the 1985 crime, and him being recast as Gregory Allen's unseen accomplice remains an absurd idea, as that recasting doesn't erase Steven's complete lack of opportunity to be at the crime scene with Allen.

 

• But again, this is only a logical argument in response to the illogical suggestion that Steven could still be guilty of the 1985 crime as the sole attacker, or as Allen's accomplice. As far as I know, there's no reason to doubt the validity of the 2003 DNA test implicating Allen as the sole attacker, and there's no evidence MTSO hid or misreported witness statements in 1985 to conceal a second unidentified man was near the crime scene shortly after the attack, and no evidence police failed to investigate potential communications between Allen and a nearby lookout accomplice. But logically speaking, if there was such evidence linking Allen to a nearby but unseen accomplice, the record already convincingly demonstrates that person was not Steven Avery.

I will start of saying that I originally thought that Avery was innocent when the doc originally came out but it was intentional in its narrative into guiding me to that outcome, as the years have went past and the more you read and knowledge you get from the case I did a 180 and I am now convinced of his guilt, got me thinking has anyone thought that originally he was guilty and now changed their minds to being innocent and on what basis did were you convinced of his innocence, this is a page I have not visited much over the years but one thing I have noticed is that the ones that believe he is innocent are extremely passionate about his innocence and everything is corrupted and jump down peoples throats instantly who don’t agree with them, are you constantly monitoring this page to respond as that is not healthy, either way, no matter what side of the fence you sit on it’s a fascinating case that does bring quite a good debate and nothing like I have seen before

Edit, thanks to those that contributed on the question asked and to the lunatic who has taken over the asylum as per, asked a simple question on what would it take to have an open mind and change your way of thinking and runs with it once again, you know who you are

Bad Faith on Steroids: Calling someone racist for an opinion they never made

 

• How did we get here? In two previous posts (See here and also here) I laid out how Griesbach, Kratz, and Brenda have consistently misrepresents DCI S/A Pevytoe's testimony about the tire wire bone evidence to suggest bones couldn't have been planted in the burn pit. In truth, Pevytoe very clearly testified he could not rule out planting, and couldn't even say if in situ burning or post cremation planting was the more or less likely option. I correctly pointed out (contrary to the state's claims) the tire wire evidence is diagnostically useless. It proves nothing about a primary burn site.

 

• I also pointed out state defenders continue to accept the state's distortion of Pevytoe's testimony, and call anyone who points it out "insane." They also claim it's insane to request credible testimony or evidence demonstrating the state's position on Steven's burn pit. Rather than respond with facts, reason, or logic, state defenders resort to pathologizing users for noticing the state's distortions and lies. Painting legitimate criticism of the state's case as conspiracy is their favorite bad faith move. But as I recently learned, it's not their only move lol

 

• After I pointed out this years long pattern of state officials and defenders distorting Pevytoe's testimony on the tire wire evidence, I saw a new bad faith tactic from state defenders. Instead of addressing my argument about them accepting the state's distortions and calling anyone who doesn't accept them insane, state defenders doubled down. They first clarified I was apparently insane because I believed in a "frame job." Except nowhere did my posts mention a frame job. I simply cited facts: concealed evidence of off-property human cremation - no photo proof of bones in Steven's burn pit - no proof Steven's burn pit was primary burn site - Pevytoe refusing to rule out planting followed by the state distorting his testimony to suggest he said something he didn't. That's not a conspiracy theory. That's a summary of the trial record. But instead of coping, state defenders ... well ... they don't start acting sane.

 

• Per this troubling comment, a state defender recently called me "racist for thinking OJ is guilty, but Steve isn't." Yeah ... Except I have NEVER expressed an opinion about OJ Simpson's guilt or innocence. I honestly don't know enough about that case to say. I know about the "if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit" line. I also remember watching an episode of Oprah with my mom (back in the day) where she recounted how frustrated she was that OJ got off. I also remember some black members of her audience being very happy OJ was not convicted. I have not researched the OJ Simpson case myself, however, and NEVER have rendered an opinion on his guilt here or elsewhere. So when a state defender called me racist for an opinion I never expressed, they didn't just prove my point about bad faith, they proved they will literally invent positions and hurl racial accusations rather than discuss Pevytoe's testimony.

 

• So to be clear - state defenders invented that position on OJ Simpson for me and called me racist for it, not because they are acting in good faith, but because they cannot defend the state's lies and distortions in this case about the bones and burn pit, and can't stand that there are still users remaining who know enough to point these lies and distortions out. So they pivoted to an entirely different case, fabricated an opinion I don't hold, and used that fabrication to call me racist. That's beyond fucked up, especially because every single time they respond with deflection instead of evidence, every time they use unreasonable attacks instead of reasonable arguments, they are proving my original point correct.

 

Telling the truth about the state's distortions is not insane, but accusing someone of being racist for something they never said is very insane

 

• State defenders don't like what I said not because it's wrong, but because they cannot refute a single fact I presented about Pevytoe's testimony and how Griesbach, Kratz and Brenda have been distorting it for years, including to a national audience. So instead, they (1) call me insane for noticing the state's distortions, (2) accuse me of believing in a "frame job" I never mentioned to deflect from credible case criticisms, and (3) call me racist based on a fabricated opinion about a different case that I never expressed. That is a complete collapse of intellectual honesty. SO yeah, state defenders have gone to incredible lengths to prove my point for me. They apparently can't help themselves.

 

• In Summary, bad faith is when state defenders refuse to engage with the actual record, accept the state's lies, call those who point them out insane, and then invent conclusions that were never made, and call users racist for things they never said. Again, state defenders who act this way forfeit any right to judge anyone else's sanity when their own argument requires accepting lies about testimony, calling those who won't accept lies insane, and calling people racist for something they never said. The record is clear. The state distorted Pevytoe's words. State defenders can't defend that distortion, so instead they attack, invent, deny, even to the point of accusing people of being racist for something they never said.** Fucked up.

 

• As I've said before, someone who acts like this has no interest in good faith discussion. Consider the double standard: if any of us had called a state defender racist based on an opinion they never expressed about an entirely different case, they would never let it go, and rightly so. But when they do it to us, we're expected to pretend it's a legitimate argument. It's not. It's an ad hominem attack, and a particularly indefensible one. Frankly, at this point, I'm starting to question whether any state defenders left have the ability (or even the interest) to respond in good faith to credible criticisms without resorting to cheap smears and logical fallacies. Let's see lol

 

• For any state defender willing to get back on the good faith train - please explain why you accept Kratz, Griesbach, and Brenda's repeated distortion of Pevytoe's testimony, when Pevytoe himself said he could not rule out planting, could not say whether burning or planting was more likely, and that the tire wire evidence therefore proves nothing about Steven's burn pit being the primary burn site. If the state actually had credible evidence, why do its most prominent defenders need to consistently misrepresent what their own expert said?

 

• I understand the dilemma they face. I really do. If they admit the bones could have been planted, it opens the door to asking where they may have been planted from, and that question points directly to human cremation evidence on County land and inside police controlled barrels with broken chains of custody. I get it. But that's not excuse to attack users by calling them racist for something they never said. So, tell me, can ANY state defender address ANY of my points about Pevytoe (and the state's ongoing distortion of his testimony) honestly, or has your positions become indefensible without distortion and name calling? I think it's very obvious it has. But please, I would appreciate state defenders trying to prove me wrong on this point, rather than proving me right over and over.

I’ve only been deep diving into this case for the last few years and have come to my own conclusion. I watched both the Netflix & DailyWire documentary. Read files that are public etc etc.

But I actually would like to hear what is the dominant theory here on Reddit? Is this more of a “Steven Avery Is Innocent” or “Steven Avery Is Guilty” community, or is down the middle? I’d love for anyone reading this to share their thoughts.

During the last five minutes of that interview, Brendan tells the police that after he and Blaine went in the house, he was the only one that stood by the window and watched Steven and Teresa interact. Blaine was watching TV. So after that police made it clear that him and Steven would be the only ones that would know what happened there.

This is my first time listening to Brendan‘s interviews in their entirety and not just clips of them. I’m tired of just getting clips of what people want you to hear.

INTRO: Why do state defenders consider it "borderline insane" to request "actual forensic proof that Teresa Halbach's remains were cremated in Steven Avery's burn pit with tires rather than the fabrications the state currently relies upon to advance that claim?"

 

Clear Evidence of Bad Faith

 

• During Steven's trial, the state failed to present conclusive evidence that Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site of Teresa's body, or even provide photo proof that her bones were actually in the burn pit. Further, witnesses who testified to seeing a burn pit fire at trial admitted under cross examination their initial statements either neglected to mention or specifically denied a fire. In one case, a witness confirmed the shift from "I didn't see a fire" to "I did see a fire" was motivated by police pressure. After deliberations, Steven Avery was acquitted of mutilating Teresa's body in his burn pit (but convicted of her murder).

 

• As we know, ever since the state failed to present proof of a primary burn site / failed to gain the mutilation conviction for Steven, state officials and defenders (like Kreepy Kratz, Grifting Griesbach, and BS Brenda) have all separately implied that the "bone in tire wire" evidence proves Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site, because said evidence proved she had to have been burned in Steven's pit with tires. However, DCI S/A Pevytoe very clearly testified he could not rule out burn pit bone planting, or even say which scenario (planting or in situ burning) was more or less likely. That means the tire wire bone evidence is diagnostically useless. In other words, if bones were found mixed among tire wire, that would support neither side more than the other, because such evidence could be explained by in situ burning or post cremation planting.

 

• Thus, it's a clear and desperate misrepresentation of what Pevytoe said for anyone to imply the bone in tire wire "evidence" proves Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site. State defenders know this, or should. But instead of addressing repeated misrepresentations by the state, defenders block and call others insane for pointing these misrepresentations out or asking for credible unmanipulated evidence or testimony. Attack the messenger. Never engage with an argument showing the state's failures, lies, or misrepresentations. Instead, conflate legitimate case critiques with unreasonable conspiratorial paranoia.

 

• These are textbook bad faith rhetorical tricks the state and its defenders love to exploit. But anyone honest would have to admit refusing to accept misrepresentations of Pevytoe's testimony, and instead asking for credible evidence to support a central but unproven aspect of the state's narrative (that Teresa Halbach's remains were cremated in Steven Avery's burn pit) is not insane or even borderline insane. It's the most basic function of someone searching for the truth in case where the state is actively avoiding it. Suggesting otherwise is what indicates intellectual bankruptcy, and intellectually bankrupt minds don't have any credible currency to evaluate anyone else's intellect or sanity.

 

• And if pointing out the lack of blood, deviations from protocol, and misrepresentations of Pevytoe's testimony is enough to get someone called "borderline insane," then what are we even doing here? IMO the message coming from state defenders has always been clear: They don't want to discuss or examine the bone evidence in good faith because they don't want anyone to question the narrative of the murder or cremation. If you do, you will be attacked and pathologized. Just a tip: trying to re-frame legitimate inquiry or criticism as a symptom of delusion is not a subtle red herring. All it does is show the goal isn't good faith debate, it's preventing people from looking too closely at the record, because especially in this case, the state's own record makes the system appear rotten to the core.

 

Let's list some insane things the state and its defenders apparently have no problem with re the handling of the burn pit and bone evidence:

 

• Evidence of off property human cremation and bone distribution with a barrel on Manitowoc County land, concealed by mislabeling County land as Avery land.

• Buried photos and HRD alert of human evidence on County land compared against the no HRD alert or photo proof of human evidence on Avery land.

• A broken and fabricated chain of custody for barrels and bones, including mislabeling ownership of property yielding bones, lies about the date of bone collection, and omissions re when bone evidence containers were opened and resealed.

• Evidence of Teresa's cremated bones and clothing (and the smell of fuel) magically appearing in previously searched barrels (that were being secretly mishandled by police) around the same time a pile of Teresa's cremated bones and clothing magically appeared on the surface level of Steven's burn pit.

• Witnesses who originally mentioned no burn pit fire or explicitly denied seeing a burn pit fire being pressured to change their statement to include a burn pit fire only after Teresa's burnt bones were reportedly found in Steven's burn pit.

• The Manitowoc Coroner being threatened and intimidated from doing her job in the Avery case (and facing continued intimidation to the point she resigned) and the Calumet ME never actually examining Steven's burn pit, or clarifying why he declared Teresa dead without the DNA ID the state apparently required.

• And of course, the state failing to produce credible evidence that Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site, and as a result, misrepresenting and outright lying about their own expert's testimony re the tire wire to cover for their failure.

 

• And apparently, NONE OF THAT is a problem, but asking for credible undistorted evidence that Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site? That is "borderline insane"? Oh, and requesting a credible explanation for the lack of the victim's blood at the murder scene (that doesn't suffer from similar testimonial distortions) is also crazy? Okay wait ... repeatedly fabricating evidentiary support for a murder case is fine, but demanding credible evidentiary support is insane? Nah. Sorry guys, but this kind of insane double standard only makes sense if your goal is not truth or justice, but defending the state's shit investigation and obvious lies about the bones at any cost.

 

• The only reason to shut down legitimate criticisms of this case with lazy ad hominem attacks, instead of engaging with the actual facts, is to avoid discussing what the record actually shows. A good faith debate would require admitting, for example, the state's primary burn site claim rests on distortion, not proof. But apparently, that's asking too much for some. Possibly because once you accept the state's burn pit claim rests on distortion, not proof, that admission opens a much worse question: why was cremation evidence found on police controlled land and magically appearing in police controlled barrels that were being mishandled just before a pile of bones were found on the surface level of Steven's burn pit? It's much easier to lie and keep the focus on Steven, than admit it's possible police secretly moved Teresa's bones using a mishandled barrel.

 

• In the end, if the state couldn't prove Steven's burn pit was the primary burn site, and had to lie to make it seem like they did, then asking for credible, undistorted proof that they never provided isn't insane, it's the logical response to their failure to provide they evidence they claimed to have. If demanding credible undistorted proof re unproven case claims is "insane," but lying about witness testimony to fabricate proof for your claims is just good lawyering, then I guess words and logic don't mean anything, and state defenders are just making up reality as they go based on their own needs. IMO you forfeit the right to judge anyone else's sanity if your argument accepts the state using lies for proof, and then labels those asking for credible proof as crazy.