I clicked it. It's the 2/27/06 one at Two Rivers Police Dept. Not sure why this wouldn't be public information or easily available through a FOIA request.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Making A Murderer - Netflix 10-part documentary series - S1 now streaming on Netflix
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
I clicked it. It's the 2/27/06 one at Two Rivers Police Dept. Not sure why this wouldn't be public information or easily available through a FOIA request.
Yeah, it's available to the public - it just probably wasn't widely available on the web.
It's a statement from Brendan saying Steven committed the murder in the van by stabbing her in the torso and then carried her on a sled to the fire pit where Brendan saw parts of her body being burnt.
Not sure why they're posting this. Conflicts with Brendan's later testimony?
It's a statement from Brendan saying Steven committed the murder in the van by stabbing her in the torso and then carried her on a sled to the fire pit where Brendan saw parts of her body being burnt.
Not sure why they're posting this. Conflicts with Brendan's later testimony?
ZQQLANDER
Member
Where does this particular interview fall (time line wise) in relation to the other interviews Brendan did?
It seems like all of brendan's testimonies conflicted with each other honestly.
RustyNails
Member
So eerily similar to Jay's bouncing testimony during Adnan's trial. Pretty crazy.
HalfBakedProphet
Member
If anything, Brendan's defense should have had a 3rd party conduct one more interview with completely insane questions just to show how he'd agree with anything given you push him enough
"So you got home from school. Did you take the flying saucer or ask Superman for a ride?"
-"I don't know".
"Now Brendan, it's really important you're honest with us. We can't help you if you're not honest. You've already admitted to killing Napoleon from the flying saucer. We know you had access to it. And you've confirmed you're DB Cooper. You asked Superman for a ride after jumping from the plane. You have a close, personal relationship with him. So how did you get home that day?"
-"Superman, I guess"
"You guess? We need you to be be definitive. You rode on Superman's back from school that day?"
-"Yes"
"And you are in fact from the planet Pluto?"
-"Yes"
"So you got home from school. Did you take the flying saucer or ask Superman for a ride?"
-"I don't know".
"Now Brendan, it's really important you're honest with us. We can't help you if you're not honest. You've already admitted to killing Napoleon from the flying saucer. We know you had access to it. And you've confirmed you're DB Cooper. You asked Superman for a ride after jumping from the plane. You have a close, personal relationship with him. So how did you get home that day?"
-"Superman, I guess"
"You guess? We need you to be be definitive. You rode on Superman's back from school that day?"
-"Yes"
"And you are in fact from the planet Pluto?"
-"Yes"
Wow, the documentary didn't mention anything about that interview. That lines up pretty well with some unanswered questions. Brendan says Steven tied her up and put her into the back of her vehicle, stabbed her, and drove her over to where her car was later found. He even mentioned Steven covering up the car with branches and shit. He mentions the cut on Stevens finger happened while trying to tie her up. Then he drove her dead body to the firepit with a sled.
This makes a whole lot more sense than the bullshit confession they showed in the documentary. This is actually plausible.
Now I'm leaning towards Steven being guilty (even though the investigation was a shit-show) and Brendan getting royally screwed by his later fictional "confession".
Yeah Brendan's case is just depressing. At the beginning he very clearly doesn't understand the situation he's in, and the things he ends up admitting, not only conflict with other accounts he ends up giving, but you can hear it in his voice that none of it is true and hear how the cops are pushing him to make shit up.
Not only that, but by multiple people it's pointed out that he may have some sort of learning/intellectual disability, and yet that judge makes the call that Brendan understood completely what he was saying. No he fucking didn't!
And not even only that but there wasn't any fucking evidence to back up Brendan's account of the murder. With as graphic as it was, there should have been blood or hair somewhere.
Damn, I got more and more heated the more I typed.
It's completely mind-boggling. How could anybody watch those interviews and not see how he was coerced into admitting guilt, that he had no perception of what he was admitting. The one interview had a guy sitting with him telling him what to draw! I mean WTF!? It's like playing a video of someone getting raped, and while they scream in protest you stand in court you go "See, she clearly wanted it."
Always-honest
Banned
Wut? Is that a real thing?
Steven Avery attorney Dean Strang discusses case this past Sunday. Informative interview.
http://www.wkow.com/story/30834876/...ry-case-on-capitol-city-sunday#at_pco=cfd-1.0
http://www.wkow.com/story/30834876/...ry-case-on-capitol-city-sunday#at_pco=cfd-1.0
HalfBakedProphet
Member
pretty sure it did mention interviews done in late February, but didn't focus on them.
given how the other interviews went, I can't imagine the Feb. instances were any difference from those done in March and May i.e. the cops feeding information to Brendan and coercing him into repeating it. By February, all of that information (the cut, location of the car, the branches, the fire pit) were known by police
If anything, another interview with another set of information with a different timeline gives less credence to any of the interviews done with Brendan
StreetsAhead
Member
Binge watched this over 2.5 days. Just incredibly frustrating, and in the case of Brendan, Barb, and Steven's parents, tragic viewing. I've my doubts about whether Steven is innocent of this crime, like many, but I think there was enough potential for doubt to not convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. And beyond that, the improper involvement of County police and them being the ones to find key evidence and the calling in of license plates 2 days early is very suspicious. That Sheriff interview where he said it would have been easier to kill Steven than frame him is also bizarre and in many ways, frightening.
I recently watched 'The Central Park Five' (about the five boys who were wrongfully charged and convicted of a sexual assault in the early 90s in NYC) so I guess you could say I'm on a real-life crime watching spree. I'm gonna dip my toes into Serial now, too, since I've heard lots of (mostly, good) things about it.
I recently watched 'The Central Park Five' (about the five boys who were wrongfully charged and convicted of a sexual assault in the early 90s in NYC) so I guess you could say I'm on a real-life crime watching spree. I'm gonna dip my toes into Serial now, too, since I've heard lots of (mostly, good) things about it.
RustyNails
Member
"You have to be honest with us Brendan. We can't help you if you're not being honest with us. Did you kill JFK?
"Yeah"
"Don't lie to us Brendan. Do you want your mother to know you've been lying?"
"No"
"Then tell us. Who killed JFK?"
"Steven"
"Why did Steven kill JFK Brendan?"
"I dunno"
HalfBakedProphet
Member
#questions4brendan brought to you by the Manitowoc County police department
"Was Steven running an Al Qaeda terrorist cell from his garage?"
"How did Steven cause the extinction of the dinosaurs? Be honest with us"
"When the lizard people from the 5th dimension helped you move the body, how many were there?"
There were 3 separate interviews on Feb 27th, and some on March 1st. The press conference was on March 1st.
The documentary does mention this interview. It's on the calendar in episode 3, and I think they may have showed clips from it as well.
So, the transcript was from the first of 3 interviews done that day? The investigators weren't happy with that completely plausible series of events, so they kept going? Jesus.
That part of the "confession" where they're trying to get Brendan to say that Teresa was shot in the head was so fucking insane!
(Paraphrasing here)
"What else happened Brendan?"
"There's something you aren't telling us Brendan."
"Something with the head."
Brendan starts naming random shit, Steven punched her, we cut her hair, he slammed her head down.
"No, it was something else Brendan. It was something you point, and it makes a loud bang sound."
Brendan gets this look on his face like, "what the fuck do you want to hear?"
"You shot her, didn't you?
Brendan: "um, yeah."
Strang is extremely professional. He and Buting really did the best possible job under those circumstances.
As best I can tell it's from that first day (well, the 27th is really the second day as he was interviewed 4 months prior). The documentary lists this as being maybe the 2nd interview that day, so it's hard to even know what information was public knowledge at that point and what they said in previous interview.
I'm guessing the location of the jeep was something Brendan might have known, either by seeing the police on the scene or hearing it reported in the media before.
And yeah, that part of that interview was insane. That was one of the most disheartening interview tactics I've ever heard, and I thought that stuff wasn't practiced anymore (even in 2006)
"You're not telling the truth, Brendan. How would your mother feel if we told her you were LYING to us, Brendan. Now draw a picture of Steven holding a gun and a swastika sign."
ZQQLANDER
Member
So Brendan wasn't arrested until March 1st so the interview posted on twitter was one of if not the earliest interview. I'm not sure why anonymous thinks this is crucial to proving Steven's innocence, if anything it makes him seem more guilty (and Brendan more innocent).
How the hell was Steven found not guilty of mutilating a corpse, but Brendan was found guilty...smh.
Yeah I mean, I'm still not okay with that if that's what happened though. They put him squarely in their crosshairs and looked nowhere else. If they're planting evidence to 'help it along', that's not justice, nor is it good policing. If he did it, they should do their job right and prove it. If they fucked up, or did fuck up and he gets out because they're fucking assholes, then it's on them that they didn't put him away the right way. And if he didn't do it, well that's obviously even more disgusting. There's no good scenario where it's okay what they did.
tauroxd
Member
Like most of you, seeing this made me rage and be sad... But this and the Jink that made think of something:
First, I'm not from USA and I'm not that much into law, but I had a doubt, can a judge go against a verdict from the jury? Like the judge doesn't think that person is guilty or not guilty, can he do something? Can the judge deny the verdict?
First, I'm not from USA and I'm not that much into law, but I had a doubt, can a judge go against a verdict from the jury? Like the judge doesn't think that person is guilty or not guilty, can he do something? Can the judge deny the verdict?
Vincent Grayson
Member
evilromero
Member
Watching the full Brendan interrogation is interesting
http://youtu.be/7t_1rOjtxpA
I dunno how they get into some rape murder in the trailer that he's involved in but initially he talks about
1) the RAV4 being in the garage with her body in the back
2) Steven threatened him to help him get rid of the body
3) that Steven was pissed off at Teresa about some auto trader business
4) that Steven stabbed her in the stomach and she was tied up
There's more to it but this confession at least sounds plausible and makes more sense given the evidence. Though the cops putting Brendan away based on this initial confession is really awful.
http://youtu.be/7t_1rOjtxpA
I dunno how they get into some rape murder in the trailer that he's involved in but initially he talks about
1) the RAV4 being in the garage with her body in the back
2) Steven threatened him to help him get rid of the body
3) that Steven was pissed off at Teresa about some auto trader business
4) that Steven stabbed her in the stomach and she was tied up
There's more to it but this confession at least sounds plausible and makes more sense given the evidence. Though the cops putting Brendan away based on this initial confession is really awful.
It's all in the transcript from one of Brendan's first interviews.
I couldn't help but feel like this story was too good (or bad) to be completely true. The director/producers intentionally left important info out to paint Avery in the most positive light possible. It made for a great story, but it wasn't the full story. I think Avery probably did it, but Brendan got royally shafted by the investigators, the prosecutor, his "defense lawyer", and the jury. I also think the MPD planted the bullet and the key just to secure a conviction.
StreetsAhead
Member
When Krantz calls Teresa a 'little girl' (I think) at the start of Steven's trial I just wanted to throw my phone at the wall.
Such a cynical, manipulative, and shameless tactic.
Such a cynical, manipulative, and shameless tactic.
Dr. Feel Good
Banned
What's the deal with Anonymous when is that shit getting released?
That was such a disgusting intentional "unintentional" attempt to tug at the courtrooms heartstrings. It made me sick.
I took it as a slimy way to get the courtroom to feel disgusted with Stephen for "killing a little girl"
Well, it's 6:30am and I don't know if I'll be able to sleep after that finale. Wow.
HalfBakedProphet
Member
Nope. Brendan initially said Steven was working on a "Monte" (Carlo) in the garage. The cops berate him, then it magically turns into the RAV4 several minutes later in the interview.
And that's by design because the cops feed him what they want to hear. It's the interviewers fitting the pieces into place of a puzzle they've already created. As soon as Brendan goes off the narritive they're pushing it turns into "YOU NEED TO BE HONEST WITH US", "WE KNOW THAT ISN'T TRUE" followed by Brendan's story changing. Example, at 18:20-
Detective-"What about the fire?
Brendan-"Do you mean if it was started or something? No it wasn't"
Detective-"OK, we're not going to go any further in this because we need to get the truth out now. We know the fire was going. We know that he had already had his altercation with Teresa"
These cops aren't looking for clues or trying to figure out the truth. They just needed Brendan to regurgitate their answers to "prove" their theory.
These interviews are fabricated trash.
ArchedThunder
Banned
Not to mention the complete lack of blood in his trailer. The entire Brendan story is false.
Shocking new confession may rip the case wide open:
https://mobile.twitter.com/szyjake/status/680521962284802048
https://mobile.twitter.com/szyjake/status/680521962284802048
How can someone be so dumb as Brendan and put on trial? His mom tells him he's going to go to jail and he just says "...yeah?", the kid can't think for himself, literally. I wonder if there's a way to get what really happened out of him. Or maybe he was telling the truth and simply was too dumb to understand the consequences of his confessions, but then where the hell did all the blood go? And what's the deal with the picture of the victim that he drew? He was pretty specific about how she was tied up in the picture, to such a degree that it wouldn't be what I would expect someone to draw out of the blue (rope on arms, chains on legs)
HalfBakedProphet
Member
yup. No blood in the garage either, despite the detectives pushing Brendan to admit he helped clean up blood near the RAV4 in the garage.
The Brendan interviews are junk and only reflect badly on the police. Pretending the filmmakers are showing some huge bias in favor of Steven or Brendan by leaving parts of them out is LOLworthy.
sums it up quite well, actually
Well I think he said the monte was in the garage with the "Suzuki" which he refers to being teresea's jeep.
I'm not saying I believe any of this, though watching it that part seems at least plausible given the evidence. The trailer stuff is not plausible considering there was no evidence of her in there.
HalfBakedProphet
Member
I would say it's telling that the prosecutor ran with the most shocking and horrific version of events rather than the one which fit best with the evidence. This was a smear campaign
One day after that interview, the DA was on TV pedalling the murder/rape story version in the most dramatic way possible.
I totally agree with this.
You're not crazy, I also thought he sounded exactly like Bob Odenkirk.
Similar threads
- Locked