You either believe Brendan when he says Steven abused him or you don't.
-
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
You either believe Brendan when he says Steven abused him or you don't.
I thought this was a good thread on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur.../what_do_the_locals_think_of_the_documentary/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur.../what_do_the_locals_think_of_the_documentary/
Oh, I just noticed it came from a telephone call transcript.
Thought it originated from a Reddit rumour.
The documentary wants you to question everything Brendan says. Even what he says to his mother when he thinks no one else is listening. They did a terrible job of convincing me to disbelieve what he said to his mother. And for whatever reason, they left out the stuff about him being frightened of Steven and the abuse. Would certainly make it more plausible that Brendan would do whatever Steven ordered him to do.
He was just stating how ridiculous it is to even consider Teresa's roommate a suspect based on all the evidence. None of us know exactly what happened but to claim it was her roommate or ex-bf is absurd. They would have to be magicians to pull off that perfect murder/frame job without a single witness.
I honestly believe Brendan's first story, which was not shown in the doc, probably because it made too much sense, and it casts a ton of suspicion on Avery.
Brendan said Steven told him that he tied Teresa up, stabbed her, and put her in the back of her SUV. He then drove the SUV to where it was later found. There,he takes her body out of her SUV and drives her back to his house with a sled so he can burn the evidence. Brendan also said that Steven told him he cut his finger while tying up Teresa.
RustyNails
Member
Point is you could make Brendan confess that he was born on Mars and he is the supreme galactic overlord and he would agree to it.
Kid has an IQ of below normal. He is more worried about missing out on Wrestlemania than being aware of what is going on at the county office where he was shackled up. Seriously will you buy anything he says?
BronsonLee
Member
WrestleMania 2005 was AWESOME though
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Physical evidence not presented in documentary according to article (after removing unwarranted commentary or insinuations):
- On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number.
- Ballistic forensics matched the bullet with Halbach’s DNA to Avery’s gun.
- Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons.
- Teresa's camera and palm pilot were found in Avery's burn barrel.
The article also goes on to talk about Dassey's interview with Michael O'Kelly as being severely more incriminating that it was presented as. Basically they act as if this was the first interview Dassey gave and that the cops never talked to him prior to this point. If the cops tainted Dassey with their tactics during the original interviews, you can't look to a later interview when a non-cop interviews him as proof that what the cops pressured him to say was true.
And you can see in the transcript how much O'Kelley is pressuring him with the same 'don't lie, be honest, I can't help you if you don't admit to it' lines right at the very beginning. So I'm not sure why the author found this compelling, I thought it would be some original police interview where Dassey confessed proactively.
is Brendan's "first story" the 2nd paragraph here?
how is there not blood/DNA evidence all over the back of the SUV in this scenario?
From that article they say:
But this interview with his own lawyer's investigator took place in May, AFTER Brendan had already been peppered by cops in other interviews and forced to confess.
Right at the start of the interview O'Kelly tells Brendan that he failed a polygraph and is "98% certain he's lying" so Brendan already knows what O'Kelly wants him to say.
They get into the interview and before he confesses to anything he's being led by O'Kelly:
So he has to confess but MOK knows "everything he needs to know". He's telling Brendan he won't' take any other answer except him confessing again.
BronsonLee
Member
O Kelly is the weirdest fucker in the whole joint. Why on earth did he do that interview? Why did he do that crying thing with the ribbon?
Point is you can't make Brendan provide info that even the cops didn't know until he said it.
Woody Invincible
Banned
What infuriates me the most, is that the juries let these guys down way more than law enforcement ever could. Do these dunderheads understand what 'beyond a reasonable doubt' means?
Yes.
He could've laid her on top of a blanket or something to make it easier to pull her out later. Her hair is what left the blood marks in the SUV. So, presumably she was already dead and/or bloody before being placed in the SUV
Brawndo Addict
Banned
What information was there that Dassey revealed to O'Kelley that the cops later learned to be true through corresponding corroboration of physical evidence?
backflip10019
Member
I also am having trouble completely buying into the idea that Brandon's confession was 100% untrue. The story that he created (or rather created with the help of the cops) was very specific and disgusting, and included things that the cops did not ask for specifically.
I also have a very hard time believing that he did not understand what he was doing when he was being interrogated. If a 5 year old child can understand the idea of "the truth", I think someone of sub-par intelligence (and an IQ of 70) can understand that same idea.
Yeah, that was weird as shit. I think he said something like that was the ribbon on the church Theresa went to or something? I think he just broke down on the stand because he knew he fucked up and used the ribbon as a way to story to hide it.
The jury saw and heard so much more than you and me got to see. The trials lasted weeks. We saw it presented in an hour.
Jerm411
Member
....if you believe the cops didn't already know.
I thought all of the blood marks in the SUV were Steve's?
It seems unlikely to me that a guy who doesn't seem to be the brightest individual could stash a bloody body in an SUV and leave zero DNA evidence.
And yet when they initially voted, 7 thought he was innocent. I'd like to know what made those 7 change their minds.
Count me in the camp that is not so much convinced that (singular/plural spoiler)
innocent but if pretty convinced that the prosecution's evidence was not all above board.
Either way, I found the entire documentary compelling and disheartening.
I see the main point of the documentary that law enforcement will sometimes break ethics to achieve a win. I think they made a great case for that concept.
these guys are
Either way, I found the entire documentary compelling and disheartening.
I see the main point of the documentary that law enforcement will sometimes break ethics to achieve a win. I think they made a great case for that concept.
RustyNails
Member
Bingo
Orthogonal
Member
It sounds great on paper to be judged by a jury of your peers, until you realize the average joe is not obligated to be impartial and is a layman trying to interpret a complicated legal proceeding.
I have been involved in a few jury selections and seen the mental caliber of the average joe being selected. I wouldnt trust them to judge a dog show much less a criminal trial.
Except ballistic fingerprinting is bullshit too.
We have a lawyer for the defense claiming that to be the case. We don't have an official polling of the jury. If there is one, it wasnt presented. It's also not unusual for jurors to be swayed during deliberations.
Yeah I agree, while I don't know if they're guilty or innocent, I don't think the evidence presented should have warranted a conviction. They may be guilty and the cops nudged along information and evidence to try and help get them convicted.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Anyone living in America is culturally exposed to a great deal of violent and disturbing material. For example, Dassey specifically mentioned at his trial that he got details from a book (it was also a movie) called "Kiss the Girls" which is about serial killers.
backflip10019
Member
Sure, but then you have to ask yourself the question, if a guy with this kind of intelligence can't understand the concept of an interrogation and the truth, then do you really think he can read and understand a James Patterson novel? It doesn't really add up to me.
Infernostew
Member
This is ridiculous. Do you realize how much blood there would be if he cut her throat. Enough blood to easily bleed through a blanket. This even taking into account blood splatter, hair, skin (left from wrists and ankles from the rope and shackles), semen, and other DNA left in his room. There is no way he would be able to clean up everything. It's impossible.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I'm not saying everything there is true/infallible, I'm just listing the physical evidence the article claims was omitted (minus the author's commentary). Although I get your point that 'came from his gun' is misleadingly absolute, whereas ballistics testing lets people judge for themselves how scientific/accurate they consider that. I will edit it.
Seemed forced to me.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
It was also a movie which he could have seen on TV (or any one of the numerous crime shows, true crime docs, and otherwise violent content shown everyday).
Kiss the Girls Film Trailer
Miles Quaritch
Member
One of those special blankets that stops from going everywhere?
We're talking about her throat being slit. The blood from that would be insane and easily soak through a blanket. Unless you're suggesting he laid down plastic sheeting everywhere too.
Exactly. We're to believe that he can't think properly, but that he's also capable of not only reading the novel, but also using the plot of that novel to describe what happened to the victim in an attempt to have the cops questioning him let him return to class. Pretty diabolical for a dum-dum. I believe his story of Steven forcing him to help kill and destroy evidence, but I also despise the interrogation techniques used to get him to admit it all. The most convincing testimony he gave was in the calls to his mother that he didn't know were being recorded.
But he also had other calls with his mother where he said he was innocent too? I don't think you can trust anything he said at all.
I rolled my eyes when he said that. I'm supposed to believe Brendan read a book? On his own time no less, it certainly wasn't part of the school curriculum. I believe they said in the doc that he reads at the 4th grade level.
Jerm411
Member
I always thought the idea of her throat being slit and then being choked to death beyond absurd...
backflip10019
Member
True, but he also specifically cited the book, not the movie, which is very questionable.
Then why cite the book if he didn't read it? Knowing his intelligence, it's much more believable that he saw the movie and he clearly didn't read the book, so why lie about it?
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I don't find it plausible that Brendan could have read the book either given his verbal IQ of 68. I do find it extremely plausible that he could have seen the movie on TV (particularly because certain details of his story were present in the film and not the book, cutting of the women's hair occurs only in the film). Or any one of the numerous violent crime shows or films.
He "cited" the book in the following context (from what I recall). The prosecution asked him where he could get such horrible details. Dassey said "I dunno, books and stuff". The prosecutor asks "What books?" and he says "Umm, I think, uh, Kiss the Girls". I don't find it hard to believe that "and stuff" refers to television. Frankly, the idea that Dassey or any 16 year old has never had exposure to any violent content is crazy. Him including violent details does not make his statements trustworthy, particularly given the counterweight of police interference.
He "cited" the book in the following context (from what I recall). The prosecution asked him where he could get such horrible details. Dassey said "I dunno, books and stuff". The prosecutor asks "What books?" and he says "Umm, I think, uh, Kiss the Girls". I don't find it hard to believe that "and stuff" refers to television. Frankly, the idea that Dassey or any 16 year old has never had exposure to any violent content is crazy. Him including violent details does not make his statements trustworthy, particularly given the counterweight of police interference.
Who said he slit her throat? Brendan didn't say that in the first or second interview, which is what I was specifically talking about. I don't believe his story from the 3rd interview because that's the one where the police are basically forcing him to tell the story they want to hear, also the only interview shown in the doc.
The tone of his calls to his mom turned later on. As if someone informed the two of them that their calls were being recorded.
To be fair, Patterson writes at a 4th grade level.
He did specify a book but just because he reads at a 4th grade level doesn't mean he is completely incapable of it. James Patterson isn't exactly rocket science.
When I was in middle school/high school every student was required to have a book during "study hour" and if you didn't have any h/w to do than you had to read or you got written up.
How do you know they were later on? There's one point in the doc where the mother thinks Avery is guilty and says something like "I hope you burn in hell for what you did to my son", which could indicate it was said after the "molesting" phone call. But at the end of the doc, with both behind bars she believes them to be innocent.
I think this is a case, like Serial, where it's entirely possible (even likely) that the guy in question did do it, but the point they're trying to make (well, Serial at least, I think "Making A Murderer" is much more into the innocent conspiracy angle) but rather that these people should not have been convicted due to errors and deliberate manipulations by the system.
Future PhaZe
Member
they certainly do if an officer is being charged
RustyNails
Member
I think Kiss the Girls story was something he cooked up to get out of the tangled web he unknowingly created for himself because he didn't know what he was doing. It is a lameshot hail mary by someone with poor IQ to dig their way out of a mess and unsurprisingly it backfired. Because there was no way forward by blaming the county people since he said the words himself. That's why you plead the fifth and dont take a stand. Like someone posted here, are there seriously no social workers in Wisconsin?
Modest Mauser
Member
It's James Patterson not Dostoyevsky.
And I doubt he can't comprehend the concept of an interrogation, he's just a dim kid who's very shy and easily manipulated.
Finished the series this weekend.
Regardless of what happened, I feel there was definitely not enough evidence to rule out reasonable doubt as to who was responsible.
I feel the worst for Brendan. His confession was clearly coerced, and should've been thrown out entirely. The fact that they held the press conference right after his confession meant neither Steven or Brendan were capable of receiving a fair and unbiased trial, regardless of whether or not Brendan's confession was able to be used in Stevens case.
It's not hard to think up a scenario in which both were completely innocent of the murder. Regardless of whether you think the cops killed her themselves, it's possible that she was murdered, and her car/body were discovered by Colbourn (as evident by his recorded phone call regarding the license place). His "explanation" makes absolutely zero sense. If he had been informed of the plate # before calling in to dispatch, it makes no sense why he would be confirmed the license place. The only logical explanation is that he was calling in the plate number to confirm that it was indeed her car he was looking at. If that is the case, then he either found the car elsewhere, or found the car at Avery's residence during an illegal search. I personally think it's possible that he discovered her car and her body off-site and conspired with Lenk to move the car to Avery's property. It's placement on the property is suspect given it was right next to an access road and could've been placed there without any of the Avery's noticing.
Once the car was discovered (all to conveniently), the entire Avery compound was shut down by police for 8 days. No Avery's were allowed on the property, meaning the police had complete reign over it for that entire period of time. If Coulbourn/Lenk were conspiring together, it's at this point where they could've relocated the bones to Avery's fire pit, regardless of whether the original burn site was on the Avery property. They could've placed the blood DNA evidence in the car before or after relocating it. It's also when they planted the key (when they finally had an opportunity to do so).
Once they got Brendan's coerced confession, they once again had access to the Avery property to plant evidence consistent with Brendan's story (bullet/hood DNA). The fact that the 2 main officers who were deposed for Stevens lawsuit volunteered and had access to the Avery property is shady as fuck and never should've happened.
The fact is, there didn't need to be some colossal cover-up with participation from the state/Feds in order for this to be a conspiracy. As soon as the defense brought up the potential for manipulated evidence, both the state and the FBI would do everything they could to disprove that theory, even going so far as to approve a test with bullshit results (EBTA) to be admissible in court. It was in their best interest for a cover-up to be disproved, and an appeal of either case would jeopardize their position. All it takes is Colbourn and/or Lenk for all of the evidence to become suspect.
I feel the worst for Brendan. His confession was clearly coerced, and should've been thrown out entirely. The fact that they held the press conference right after his confession meant neither Steven or Brendan were capable of receiving a fair and unbiased trial, regardless of whether or not Brendan's confession was able to be used in Stevens case.
It's not hard to think up a scenario in which both were completely innocent of the murder. Regardless of whether you think the cops killed her themselves, it's possible that she was murdered, and her car/body were discovered by Colbourn (as evident by his recorded phone call regarding the license place). His "explanation" makes absolutely zero sense. If he had been informed of the plate # before calling in to dispatch, it makes no sense why he would be confirmed the license place. The only logical explanation is that he was calling in the plate number to confirm that it was indeed her car he was looking at. If that is the case, then he either found the car elsewhere, or found the car at Avery's residence during an illegal search. I personally think it's possible that he discovered her car and her body off-site and conspired with Lenk to move the car to Avery's property. It's placement on the property is suspect given it was right next to an access road and could've been placed there without any of the Avery's noticing.
Once the car was discovered (all to conveniently), the entire Avery compound was shut down by police for 8 days. No Avery's were allowed on the property, meaning the police had complete reign over it for that entire period of time. If Coulbourn/Lenk were conspiring together, it's at this point where they could've relocated the bones to Avery's fire pit, regardless of whether the original burn site was on the Avery property. They could've placed the blood DNA evidence in the car before or after relocating it. It's also when they planted the key (when they finally had an opportunity to do so).
Once they got Brendan's coerced confession, they once again had access to the Avery property to plant evidence consistent with Brendan's story (bullet/hood DNA). The fact that the 2 main officers who were deposed for Stevens lawsuit volunteered and had access to the Avery property is shady as fuck and never should've happened.
The fact is, there didn't need to be some colossal cover-up with participation from the state/Feds in order for this to be a conspiracy. As soon as the defense brought up the potential for manipulated evidence, both the state and the FBI would do everything they could to disprove that theory, even going so far as to approve a test with bullshit results (EBTA) to be admissible in court. It was in their best interest for a cover-up to be disproved, and an appeal of either case would jeopardize their position. All it takes is Colbourn and/or Lenk for all of the evidence to become suspect.
Similar threads
- Locked