Likely Coburn needed some confirmation before he acted on something
, probably moving the car.
-
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
The Steven Avery Defence would say that he was looking at the car, presumably not on the Avery property.
Prosecution would say that he was made aware of the licence plate (the person had been reported missing) but didn't know or remember why, so called it in to get the story.
I've always been mixed about this, but am starting to believe he was wanting to know more about a licence plate he was told to be on the lookout for. The reason I think this is that when he calls in, the information he presents are 1: The license plate, and 2: the make and year of the car.
Focusing in on point 2, I don't believe you look at a vehicle and know it's a "99' Toyota". I think you look at the vehicle, and call it a "Rav-4" or a "Toyota". The fact that he knew the year made me believe he was not looking at the car, and was looking at a description of a car.
The only reason he would know the year of the car (if it wasn't given to him) is if he 1: really knows cars and can tell the difference between a 98 rav-4 and a 99 rav-4, or 2: was looking at the ownership, but then he would have seen it was Theresa's car, so no point in calling it in.
Nappuccino
Member
The strangest thing about the colbern call isn't the call, but his reaction on stand.
For the call to be weird, we would need to know that colbern didn't know her license plate number at all.
For the call to be weird, we would need to know that colbern didn't know her license plate number at all.
He was clearly flustered. He hears the call and then immediately gets details wrong on what was just played in court.
yeah. he and Lenk have what appear to be obvious tells when under cross examination.
whitemex88
Member
He's slow. He didn't understand what was really going on. The part where he tells his mother "I'm stupid" is where I teared up for the kid. He pushed into this confession
Dot Matrix
Member
Was there a reason the defense for Brendan didn't show the part of the confession when he tells his mum that he didn't do it and they got in his head?
I wondered that too. Seems like an essential insight, and the omission was arbitrary.
Nappuccino
Member
Best i can figure 1) the defense didn't watch the whole thing and didn't see the value in anything post-confession or 2) [and frankly more likely] the defense predicted the counter-argument that Brandon wouldn't have confessed and was trying not to, but the interrogation was succesful so he spilled the beans. I'm still not sure why the defense wouldn't at least try to argue there way out of that story--they'd have some kind of foothold.
There's also no reason given for why Brendan changed the narrative from "the police fed me my entire story" to "lulz I got it all from a book." when he was on the witness stand.
Messypandas
Member
Kiss the Girls was a pretty good film. Was it the defenses idea he state that as the origin? I can understand trying but no-one was going to believe he had read that shit.
Have you even watched the documentary? The police basically did feed him the story.
No, I didnt watch it. I just imagined the fact that Brendan changed his story on the witness stand to "The info I told the police came from a book I read."
If he was going to lie about his story coming from the book, he should have made it more believable and said he saw it in a movie. The defense wanted to paint him as too stupid to have done any of this, yet they end with telling the jury he read a book. Good plan.
Messypandas
Member
Thats not what he's saying. He's saying in the trial Brendan testified that the origin of his statement came from a book, not the police feeding him the details in his interrogation. The documentary in this context is irrelevant.
Well, it's because the police fed him information AND he made stuff up (taking inspiration from the book). One does not negate the other.
For example, when they ask him about "what happened to the head?" he just starts listing things until he hits on what they want. But they keep all of the other stuff in the narrative anyway.
He could have watched the movie and then tried to read the book. He most likely got most of the details from the movie.
So his intelligence is so low that he can be easily manipulated, but smart enough to have read a book and remembered enough of the details of it to weave it into his own accounting of what happened to the police? It's not hard to see why a jury and then the appellate courts didn't buy that. I still believe he (not Steven) deserves another trial though, and I hope he gets it.
If that were the case, he'd have said that. He didn't say that. He said it came from a book.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
The police fed him the outline of the story and he filled in details, and they added in details he missed like her being shot in the head. He didn't change his story, no-one was saying that the police gave him a detailed story, let's face it the cops would have come up with something more plausible.
Although that is the one area of Brendan's testimony that rang false to me, I doubt he really knew where the details came from until the defense went through anything he had read or watched and then told him that is where he should say they came from.
Yes. You are making it sound more complicated than it is. Have you ever worked with children? They let their imagination fill in the blanks when they want to give the right answer but have no idea what it is.
If you don't believe that's the case with Brendan, then fine - agree to disagree. But it's absolutely not unreasonable.
Not necessarily, if he saw the film he knew it came from the book and thus, in his mind, everything in the movie was from the book.
Just a theory.
What is not a theory is the fact that the police did feed him the confession.
I just can't get over the fact that there has not been a single shred of DNA evidence of her that was found in the trailer's bedroom or garage. How could the jury just ignore this? If she was raped and had her throat slashed and stomach stabbed there wouldn't there be so much blood and hairs everywhere. I would think the defense would focus more on this, but there was surprisingly little about it.
Nappuccino
Member
Brendan clearly has problems analyzing and understanding questions / circumstances. The footage of the interviews and phone calls and, hell, anytime the poor kid talks should be evidence enough. If they asked him where he got the ideas (not "why did you lie to the police officers") he's going to tell them where his general knowledge of the subject came from: this book.
If Brendan were smarter, he'd understand the bigger picture reason for the question, and would have been able to articulate that he made up the events because he thought the police just wanted an answer, that it didn't matter what the answer was because Brendan didn't actually commit the act.
Finished it last night. Brendan's cross-examination is one of the most heart-breaking things I've ever seen. He genuinely just doesn't understand how he was manipulated. Also, the prosecution can go to hell for saying "innocent people don't confess" in their closing statements.
Killing_Joke
Member
If Brandon was smart, maybe they could have went for the "cops tricked me" defense. But it's a pretty hard battle to begin with. How can you convince the jury he was tricked by the cops? They were just using textbook tactics to get a confession out of a slow teen. Unfortunately i don't think he has enough intellect to explain how he was tricked. But then again if he did, he wouldn't be in this position to begin with.
Why they went with a book defense who the fuck knows, the movie would have been a better defense since kids copy shit from tv all the time. But this isn't Brandon's fault, the defense dropped the ball. Which isn't a surprise since he got fucked around from the start.
What is really bizarre (or maybe it wasn't in the show) is why the mother wasn't a witness? She is the only alibi he had and she knows the phone conversations she had with him. Also the fact the cops lied about being contacted when he was brought in.
Why they went with a book defense who the fuck knows, the movie would have been a better defense since kids copy shit from tv all the time. But this isn't Brandon's fault, the defense dropped the ball. Which isn't a surprise since he got fucked around from the start.
What is really bizarre (or maybe it wasn't in the show) is why the mother wasn't a witness? She is the only alibi he had and she knows the phone conversations she had with him. Also the fact the cops lied about being contacted when he was brought in.
That's what I thought. I literally said out loud "What about Barb?!", and then they went straight to closing arguments. Very odd.
Vampire On Titus
Member
To clarify on the point of the gun:
Reddit User said:
Interestingly enough either Steven's brother or his brother in law Scott Taydach (apologies can't remember which) also had a.22 caliber rifle and sold it not long after Halbach's murder.
FlashbladeGAF
Member
The judge.
They wouldn't even let Steven's family testify that he was with them during the first rape trial.
And considering everything the Judge denied the SA's defense (looking into other suspects, etc..) It's not hard to imagine that he would deny Brendan's defense anything that would go against the DA's narrative.
BronsonLee
Member
Guys
Guys it's cool, EthanC's studied all the facts, we should listen to him
Guys it's cool, EthanC's studied all the facts, we should listen to him
Vampire On Titus
Member
It's actually pretty astounding; just how effectively Ken Kratz was able to poison much of the discussion surrounding this documentary. I cant count the number of articles I've read still running with misinformation like the "sweat DNA" that are just outright fabrications. Or the Steven Avery molested Brendan Dassey line which, of course, comes from another coerced confession. Which is a particularly insidious myth and bit of character assassination I would like to see routinely debunked. So please if you could check pages 90-94 of this transcript and cite it where you see this bogus claim being made on various forums and websites. It's one of many specious claims, later retracted, that Brendan made via coerced interrogation. This interrogation also took place directly after the infamous "blue ribbon" interrogation. Where he was made to draw pictures -- at the request of his own defense -- of a crime he claimed his innocence to. Pictures that were used to hang him at trial.
Having watched this documentary the same day it debuted and then immediately following all the emerging details on the MaM reddit and various other outlets... It's been extremely upsetting to see just how much media there is running with mis-truths and outright lies.
Were only a short few weeks out from the release of this doc. The narrative is still unfolding. But it's troubling to think there's people who may have only seen the Dr.Phil coverage, for instance, and are now running wild with ideas that are demonstrably false.
Having watched this documentary the same day it debuted and then immediately following all the emerging details on the MaM reddit and various other outlets... It's been extremely upsetting to see just how much media there is running with mis-truths and outright lies.
Were only a short few weeks out from the release of this doc. The narrative is still unfolding. But it's troubling to think there's people who may have only seen the Dr.Phil coverage, for instance, and are now running wild with ideas that are demonstrably false.
It's true. There were so many headlines with the words "DAMNING EVIDENCE LEFT OUT" and people just read the headline and bought into it. It's weird.
It is so painful reading those transcripts. The "yeah" and "no" from Brendan just goes on and on and on.
Messypandas
Member
Ken Kratz's voice is so horrible.
This. This right here. There is no way on god's green earth that those two would have been able to clean up every shred of DNA evidence from the trailer if this was the brutality that actually took place in there. Sorry, not gonna happen with those two. This alone proves Brendan's story is completely false.
iceatcs
Junior Member
Interesting. Curious why it let this out. Maybe timing or saving for next part (S2)
Vampire On Titus
Member
Honestly there was 200+ hours of trial footage and this documentary was filmed over the course of 10 years. Some facts necessarily had to hit the cutting room floor. It's already a whopping 10 hours as is.
I cant speak to why certain information made it over other info. But I can say that in my estimation the documentary presents the best arguments from the defense and the prosecution. It certainly characterizes the defense more favorably. But the arguments are there.
zeioIIDX
Member
On page 101, I found this below. Brendan surely can't be this naive.
FASSBENDER: What was your scree name?
BRENDAN: Fer, what?
FASSBENDER: MSN for ah chat rooms and stuff. Email type name.
WIGERT: Well, what was it?
FASSBENDER: It's all right.
BRENDAN:But I don't wanna say the first word.
FASSBENDER: Spell it.
BRENDAN: N I G E R
FASSBENDER: And the rest of it was what?
BRENDAN: for life
WIEGERT: OK. What does that mean?
BRENDAN: That, that I didn't have no problems with black people.
electroshockwave
Member
Re: the whole Brendan getting his confession from Kiss the Girls thing
He said himself that he was guessing in the interrogation like he did with his homework. The details that weren't fed to him by police like Teresa being shot in the head were him trying to give them the answers they wanted. Aside from shot in the head there was no physical evidence to support those details.
I haven't read Kiss the Girls and have no idea how much trouble Brendan would have with it but maybe he saw the movie and knew it was a book. Maybe he read or tried to read the book and took in enough to regurgitate the details of the murders in it.
He said himself that he was guessing in the interrogation like he did with his homework. The details that weren't fed to him by police like Teresa being shot in the head were him trying to give them the answers they wanted. Aside from shot in the head there was no physical evidence to support those details.
I haven't read Kiss the Girls and have no idea how much trouble Brendan would have with it but maybe he saw the movie and knew it was a book. Maybe he read or tried to read the book and took in enough to regurgitate the details of the murders in it.
Vampire On Titus
Member
Not sure what you mean. What do you make of this?
Aarglefarg
Member
He could be that naive. Lots of people are.
RedNumberFive
Banned
After wrapping up this show last night, and spending way too much time following up on what's happened since, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the ex-boyfriend was involved.
Part of this on the doc itself. Not just how slanted it seems toward Avery which naturally makes the conviction incomprehensible but also how it just leaves certain threads hanging. Things like how his finger prints are not in the car or how the garage was not only devoid of her blood but also had deer blood from before halloween, meaning it couldn't have been cleaned. They're such pivotal pieces of info that it comes off as really weird that it isn't brought up in the trial itself according to the doc. It leaves a gaping hole that people are desperate trying to fill to rationalize what seems like a conviction based on almost nothing.
Tatsumi Oga
Banned
Watched episode 5 and 6. It just keeps flabbergasting me, for lack of a better word.
Oh and last week someone here mentioned articles on the Internet claiming plenty of damming evidence had been found and everything and how this was basically repeating what the prosecution said... I stumbled upon one of those articles. Huffingtonpost had one, making it sound like he was guilty as charged.
How determined the prosecution is to lock this guy up for life is insane. Ridiculous how they searched his house without him knowing, they were in that house for hours and plenty of time to plant evidence.. and that's clearly what happened.
Then the fact that they didn't find any blood at all in the bedroom where it allegedly all happened, is very telling. Plus as the defense said.... why not just put the car in the crusher to completely get rid of the evidence if actually did it? Plus that you can see whenever someone testifies against Avery, you can just see they are lying. That female lab worker for example with the blond hair, you just see something is very off.
The episode ends where the defense says they have to prove that the police is in the wrong here and how do you actually prove such a thing? Or the tube with Avery's blood that was tampered with. Why is that not a bigger deal? It's just not right that the defense has to prove the police planted evidence when there are already so many signs that the guy didn't do it. That being said... I am very curious who did kill her though. Right now I am suspicious of that bald dude who was the leader of the search party. Or that woman who found the car and said God led her there. Ya right!
Then the fact that they didn't find any blood at all in the bedroom where it allegedly all happened, is very telling. Plus as the defense said.... why not just put the car in the crusher to completely get rid of the evidence if actually did it? Plus that you can see whenever someone testifies against Avery, you can just see they are lying. That female lab worker for example with the blond hair, you just see something is very off.
The episode ends where the defense says they have to prove that the police is in the wrong here and how do you actually prove such a thing? Or the tube with Avery's blood that was tampered with. Why is that not a bigger deal? It's just not right that the defense has to prove the police planted evidence when there are already so many signs that the guy didn't do it. That being said... I am very curious who did kill her though. Right now I am suspicious of that bald dude who was the leader of the search party. Or that woman who found the car and said God led her there. Ya right!
Oh and last week someone here mentioned articles on the Internet claiming plenty of damming evidence had been found and everything and how this was basically repeating what the prosecution said... I stumbled upon one of those articles. Huffingtonpost had one, making it sound like he was guilty as charged.
I only watched the first two episodes for now, so obviously I'm far from having a complete picture of the case, but Theresa's brother reaction was strange a couple of times in the second episode, if the episode "timeline" is actually consistent with the actual order of events. Just few days after the disappearance (less than 5) he seemed very calm and collected in interviews and almost "confident" in Theresa's death, talking about "grieving process" and "moving on" (maybe it's a language barrier thing, since english is not my first language, but it seems awfully soon to talk about grieving and moving on after so few days). In another interview though, when he and Theresa's ex boyfriend are asked if they were on the site, he kinds of...freaks out? He seems very nervous about the subject (admittedly even the ex boyfriend seemed upset)
Obviously I'm not pointing fingers or anything like that, it just felt strange, there's really not much to go on at this time. Sorry for playing detective lol
Obviously I'm not pointing fingers or anything like that, it just felt strange, there's really not much to go on at this time. Sorry for playing detective lol
Similar threads
- Locked