That he called the women over 20 times the day she was murdered? That's line a pretty big case fact. I get that the point of this show was to try to display his innocence, but damn. They also left out how he treated to murder his wife several times and one over her not wanting to sign the Netflix contract. Line why would they leave stuff like this out?
shareHe didn't call her over 20 times - if I recall he called her two or three times with *69 before she arrived and then again without *69 at ~16:30. I'm taking this from memory, but my belief is that he had murdered her before ~16:30 and his initial plan were to make it seem like she never arrived.
But why cut it out? Well, because it's a heavily bias documentary and making it seem like he's been framed is more compelling that he's guilty as sin.
Initial plan to claim she never turned up to leaving almost every single conceivable trace of her being on the property.
Quite a change in plan.
SA has been accused of a lot of things, but being intelligent isn't one of them. He thought he had done a good clean-up job and almost got away with murder. He even wanted LE to go into his trailer without him. They wisely refused.
If only Earl hadn't let PS onto ASY, if only Bo. D. hadn't woken up and seen TH walking toward SA's trailer, if only SA had been able to crush the car unnoticed, if only his nephew could keep his mouth shut...he would have been free after lessons learned in prison (burn the body). Why would framers burn a body to ashes and bone fragments and destroy personal items?
He took the afternoon off work, he timed it for no one being around except a sleeping Bo. D. Then TH was late, SA was upset (speculation), phoned *67 thinking that wouldn't be traced. Later SA told someone that TH hadn't arrived, phoned TH without *67 at 4:35, maybe phoned AT about TH not arriving, but he couldn't stick to that hasty defense. I don't think murder was his original plan, he panicked and things got out of hand. He still almost fooled a jury, two filmmakers and a very bright lawyer or two.
If you were framing someone for a murder what would be the best method to ensure you had remains to plant but a miniscule percentage chance of leaving the original method of killing or your own DNA on the victim?
shareWhy would framers burn a body to ashes and bone fragments and destroy personal items?except the personal items weren't even close to being effectively destroyed, just a little extra crispy.
Okay my bad, it wasn't the day off but over the course of several days prior of him wanting her to take photos. But either way, they left out many things such as this psycho throwing a cat into a bonfire. Pretty *beep* up of Netflix.
shareDid you watch the thing, the cat thing was in it, it was in the very first episode.
""This Jan-uary, it's time to Michael down your Vincent's.""
They definitely mentioned the cat thing. They didn't dwell on it but I remember that part.
They said something about him being a dumb kid at the time which is ridiculous. Most of us were dumb kids in our past and I bet very few, if any, of us ever hurt an animal like he did.
MaM glossed over it as if it was some kind of accident letting SA tell the story. He was 20 years old and a parent, not a kid. It was his idea to douse the family cat in oil and throw it into the fire to watch it suffer. SA has the fascination with fire that many sick minds have. It was the other person involved who had a conscience and went to the police to turn himself in.
None of that makes him a murderer, just a POS scumbag.
Derrr they left it out so that Steven looked more innocent. The point of the documentary wasn't to impartially examine a case, it was to make one side look good and one look bad (which is done by having Steven's friends and family and supporters give sympathetic interviews and not one single interview from a police officer, lawyer, member of Teresa's family, or anyone who thought he was guilty.)
Did you think up until that that this was trying to present all the facts?
-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.
and not one single interview from a police officer, lawyer, member of Teresa's family, or anyone who thought he was guilty
It wasn't him who called her over 20 times. About threatening his wife, I guess every relationships have ups and downs.
shareBecause they were trying to paint a picture of him being innocent.
Lots of evidence against him was left out.
Just like lots of footage was included that made the police look shifty, times they couldn't hear or understand the question, times they couldn't recall and so on.
Its biased journalism.
Because otherwise it's as clear as day that he killed her.
share