Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[MaxManning]

Brendan already knew what to say in the police station interview because he remembered what to say after they coerced him in the first interview.jmo

I read transcript of first interview and watched the video of the 2nd interview, respectfully I am telling you I didn't hear/read any of the stuff he is mentioning in this 3/1/2006 interview in either of those preceding interviews. Please point me to where those things were suggested/fed to him, I didn't hear them.

The documentary told me that, but I am not seeing it. I am open to there maybe being untaped interviews ? is that the case ?

I think if you haven't actually watched the videos and read the transcripts you should do so. My opinion of them is changing.

 

[MaxManning]

Ok I have reached the point in the video where I believe real coercion is occurring. roughly 12:57 pm in this video : [video=youtube;hTrYTWlCUEE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrYTWlCUEE[/video]


It seems to be about creating the timeline and brendan is really starting to seem as if he is clamming up as I think he notices the change of tone in their voices as now he as admitted to rape and they are going to go through it yet again to get the timeline to match what they want.

We know from the bus driver that the timeline they are suggesting at this point is unreasonable and likely impossible. So it's at this point that I can say for sure that there is fabrication going on. But I also notice a distinct difference in Brendan's demeanor, as if he senses now he must say things he likely knows are untrue to keep them on his side.

ugh.

Unfortunately, I didn't get that feeling until now, and he has already admitted to raping this poor girl.

I didn't think before I started watching these videos that I would arrive at this conclusion, but I am going to say that I believe it's possible that brendan was a part of the rape and murder of teresa. Not 100% convinced, but I'd say i'm now about 95% there. Regardless of what happens from here with these videos, I don't feel as if they were feeding him anything based on what I've seen. If there are more to these videos, I'm open to evaluating that. Also, if someone has some expertise on the whole false confession topic, I'm open to hearing that as I admit ignorance on that as well as how much of a factor his lower intelligence is. My problem with that, is that I do sense he understands that rape is bad, murder is bad, and that's the whole reason he suggests he didn't say anything is that he would be punished.

So, I get the argument, but not certain I buy it. But open to hearing opinions on that as well.

 

[nathansmart]

I am so busy right now and won't be able to watch these videos (forgive me!). just one question though - you're saying he brought up the restraints and that you believe what he said about what happened in the bedroom?

how the heck could they clean up that room of all her DNA??

 

[dexter75]

WHERE did they rape her??

 

[chaleigh26]

Hi Max, to me it looks like you thought that they probably did it from the start, it looks like it's our minds that you're trying to change.Jmo

 

[MaxManning]

I am so busy right now and won't be able to watch these videos (forgive me!). just one question though - you're saying he brought up the restraints and that you believe what he said about what happened in the bedroom?

how the heck could they clean up that room of all her DNA??

I am going to watch the rest of them and listen to what others say before I decide. But there is a part of me that questions whether he just came over after the murder or if he was involved and truly raped and murdered.

The whole killing her in the bedroom, I just find unlikely. Want to watch and go over a few parts again.

I haven't ever believed that she was killed in the bedroom, or the garage. But I do believe it's possible that the body was transferred in the garage to possibly a golf cart or something. He says it was one of those things you use to work under a car, can't think of the name right now.

But the "they got to my head part" is pretty convincing too. I need to go over all this again, after hearing a bit more about coercion from some people on here.

 

[MaxManning]

Hi Max, to me it looks like you thought that they probably did it from the start, it looks like it's our minds that you're trying to change.Jmo

Not really. I am struggling again Watching brendan with his mother now and him saying "They got to my head" is convincing as well. I think if you haven't watched the videos fully, please do that, and I think you'll see what I mean about the whole process.

I admit, I am conflicted at the moment. I am honestly struggling with how he came up with all this stuff. I had thought via the documentary that he was fed all these kinds of things and repeated them. watch the videos, I don't see evidence of that.

However, I do agree that I.Q. and him wanting to give them what they wanted, might have been a factor. How big, I don't know.

 

[dexter75]

Honestly, and this is just me. I don't believe anything LE has " documented" in regards to Brendan and what he may or may not have said in any interview that wasn't recorded. I have lost all trust in that particular department/county.

I read transcript of first interview and watched the video of the 2nd interview, respectfully I am telling you I didn't hear/read any of the stuff he is mentioning in this 3/1/2006 interview in either of those preceding interviews. Please point me to where those things were suggested/fed to him, I didn't hear them.

The documentary told me that, but I am not seeing it. I am open to there maybe being untaped interviews ? is that the case ?

I think if you haven't actually watched the videos and read the transcripts you should do so. My opinion of them is changing.

 

[stephsb]

I took criminal law and procedure both when working on my paralegal degree and in law school. I did legal interviewing and investigation when getting my paralegal degree. One of the criminal law classes was taken at a WI univ. and focused on WI case law and procedure specifically, (my paralegal degree and bachelors were done in WI) the other taken at a law school in IL. That doesn't make me an expert, and I still have 2 years left before I graduate law school, but I have a pretty good understanding of how an interview should be done, and what a prosecutor would want to receive to get a conviction.

The agents are already feeding him info on the second page of the first interview at his school, when they say they believe Teresa was burned in the fire. They ask what he burned in the fire, and when he doesn't give them the info they need, they ask Did you see a body? This a leading question, and suggests they already know their was a body in the fire.

Also, a good 10 pages are them giving him things to suggest he add to the statement. Once he adds what they suggested he add and signs it, it's legally binding and cannot only be used in court but used against him specifically, which they mention nowhere. I would assume someone who cannot spell detective probably doesn't understand the 5th Amendment or Miranda v Arizona, and his right against self-incrimination. He had no idea that what he said could and would be used against him, and that is concerning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[al66pine]

.... But what some of us are at least entertaining, is the idea that even if police are corrupt and maybe planted evidence to fill in holes in their narrative, Avery could still be guilty. The two are not mutually exclusive. The crime doesn't have to happen the way dassey stated via coercion or police believe in order for Avery to be guilty. ...

MM- thanks for your posts & analysis on this thread.

^ bbm & snipped for focus. Agreeing w you there on an important point.

 

[MaxManning]

Hi Max, to me it looks like you thought that they probably did it from the start, it looks like it's our minds that you're trying to change.Jmo

Let me know after you have watched those videos if you don't wonder the same things that I am wondering. It's hard for most people to understand why he might say all this without it somehow having some basis in truth.

I have opened myself up to investigating and watching the raw footage, so I could make my own conclusion about this case. I challenge you to do the same, and then question whether you at any point doubt what you thought you knew. I have, plain and simple.

I have said from the start that I believed that there was more to this, since the mother was the one who talked about the bleach and cleaning steven's garage. that factors into this as well.

If someone knows and can point out where all this comes from in the videos, let me know. But don't tell me I am trying to convince you, when you haven't even taken the step of watching the raw footage.

I say that respectfully, not trying to argue. But use your opinion based on the raw footage you have seen, not an impression based on my reaction to what I have seen and you have not. jmo

 

[stephsb]

His IQ plays a huge fact in his confession, as well as his age. juveniles and those with mental disabilities are some of the groups most likely to give false confessions (that per the Innocence Project) they are far easier to be manipulated, that is why you need to especially careful that you aren't feeding them information so you can be certain they are giving you the truth and not telling you what they think you want to hear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr Who]

Not on any kind of bandwagon. The Brendan Dassey coffession is unarguably fabricated. The evidence blatantly disproves it. You are feeding bias with fabrication.

Still skeptical? Check your timeline.

 

[dexter75]

THANK YOU!!!
TO ME, IT'S SO OBVIOUS!!!!
How can ANYONE trust these OFFICERS???
ANY of them?? :maddening:

Brendan already knew what to say in the police station interview because he remembered what to say after they coerced him in the first interview.jmo

 

[MaxManning]

The agents are already feeding him info on the second page of the first interview at his school, when they say they believe Teresa was burned in the fire. They ask what he burned in the fire, and when he doesn't give them the info they need, they ask Did you see a body? This a leading question, and suggests they already know their was a body in the fire.

Also, a good 10 pages are them giving him things to suggest he add to the statement. Once he adds what they suggested he add and signs it, it's legally binding and cannot only be used in court but used against him specifically, which they mention nowhere. I would assume someone who cannot spell detective probably doesn't understand the 5th Amendment or Miranda v Arizona, and his right against self-incrimination. He had no idea that what he said could and would be used against him, and that is concerning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks for replying, as I said, I am interested in anyone with experience with all this.

Is it a leading question if everyone knew already that was the case ? You have to remember that this is 5 months after the burned remains were found and reported. That wasn't a secret. So saying that they believe is actually deceptive in that it's fact.

Or maybe you are saying that suggesting she was burned in THAT fire and that he personally saw it?

I am re-reading the first transcript with what you have said in mind. I do think someone else noted that as well.

I remember that he was talking about all kinds of items he saw at first and then at some point he goes to toes I believe.

 

[dexter75]

KEY WORD: EVIDENCE!
EXACTLY
I don't understand WHY THAT concept is so HARD to understand?:banghead::banghead:

Not on any kind of bandwagon. The Brendan Dassey coffession is unarguably fabricated. The evidence blatantly disproves it. You are feeding bias with fabrication.

 

[MaxManning]

Here's the thing I am now struggling with. If he was capable of being coerced into admitting to rape/murder, is it so crazy to believe that he could also have been coerced into actually doing it?

I feel so badly for this kid. Watching the last hour or so of the 3/1/2006 confession is heartbreaking. He's listening to music and crying. He doesn't strike me as someone who could do such a thing, because of how heavily it's impacting him. There's no rage or anything of that nature.

But , he seems so impressionable, that I am not even sure that if things happened as he described that maybe he did get forced/persuaded into doing something he'd never have done otherwise.

I am truly conflicted.

 

[Dr Who]

KEY WORD: EVIDENCE!
EXACTLY
I don't understand WHY THAT concept is so HARD to understand?:banghead::banghead:

Evidence, as well as timeline. From what Im seeing, his first interrogation was 4 months after Mr.Avery was charged with Ms. Halbachs murder. Undoubtedly he was being fed ideas from media, and likely even family(possibly his brother, and step-dad?) for months before his confession. The documentary points out that the only detail that he couldn't have known was that Ms.Halbach was shot in the head. Then we get to witness him receiving that information for the first time from the officers that interrogated him. Of which he immediately admits to in order to please the interrogating officers.

 

[MaxManning]

Not on any kind of bandwagon. The Brendan Dassey coffession is unarguably fabricated. The evidence blatantly disproves it. You are feeding bias with fabrication.

Still skeptical? Check your timeline.

Well, that's part of the issue. I don't trust the prosecution's timeline. I don't even know for sure if Avery did it.

Chuck, Earl, Scott Tadych... all out there as potentially involved.

But have you watched these interviews in full ? I have, and you say there is no evidence, but there is.

Barb Janda said she saw bleach on his pants, asked him about it, and he said he was helping steve clean the garage floor that night. -- that's called evidence.

Kayla mentioned that Brendan had been crying, which he admits in the interviews. She mentions body parts. She recants at trial, but aren't recants kind of suspicious as well ? that's called evidence.

Tadych was noted by coworker that there was blood on one of his son's pants and got mixed in with his laundry. - that's evidence

All evidence not from police, but from his own family members. right ?

That's not fabrication.

What I ask from you, is to not jump on the other bandwagon and close your eyes to evidence that doesn't align with your viewpoint. I am doing that, and I encourage you to do the same and be objective.


Physical evidence. You are correct, nothing ties brandon to those bones or any murder. I get that. But if you think that no one has ever been convicted without phsyical evidence or no one has ever been guilty with a complete lack of physical evidence found - you'd better do some research and realize that's not at all the case.

You saying "Dassey confession is unarguably fabricated" means zero to me, and it should mean zero to someone with an open mind. Come back with some reasons as to why the confession is fabricated -- like what I am openly asking for when I say I am ignorant in regards to coercion tactics.

Again, not looking to argue here, I am open to it all. But what you said, means zero to me. It's nothing that I can even evaluate except that it's your opinion.

I say this all respectfully, not looking to argue, so lets not.

 

[dexter75]

THIS.
:loveyou:

I think any time you are taking the word of Brendan Dassey and using it to find evidence months/years after the fact you have a pretty compelling reason to believe that it might be planted. They lead that kid to say anything they wanted and then followed up with "magical" findings after he said what he was coerced into saying. Not saying Avery or Dassey are innocent - that might not be the case at all - but I am suggesting that anything Brendan Dassey says should be thrown out imo based on how those interviews were conducted and how often he contradicts the evidence and himself during multiple interviews. The information was not gathered in an ethical manner and the source is not a reliable source (multiple conflicting confessions of the incident that contradict evidence and previous interviews).