Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[Itsmevkb]

A few things,

First, I get that Avery was calling about selling Barb's car but that still doesn't makes sense to me as to why he gave her name. If you called would you tell them YOUR name was B Janda? Wouldn't you say oh, I'm Steven but I need pictures of a car for my sister Barb? Or, just give your name since what difference does it make who the car belongs to? Not to mention, who gives an initial? It seems to me like he said "B Janda" because he clearly couldn't say Barb because that is not a male name and he didn't want to give them his name.

Second, tons of people who get interviewed by the police are read their miranda rights and either don't fully understand them or just decide it's in their best interest to go ahead and talk to the police and most times without an attorney. Are we suggesting that it shouldn't be enough to inform people of their rights but instead also give them some sort of test to make sure they completely understand? Let's face it, what that would really mean is everyone gets an attorney every time they are questioned and then we'd have to get into everyone needing a really good attorney as that can really make a difference as well.

Third, I agree that there are problems with the interviews and major problems with Brendan's confession, but at the same time some of the things being pointed out are traditional police tactics and it's not like they are happening for the first time with Brendan. Telling a suspect that if they confess they will get a deal (even though the police don't have the authority to make deals) is nothing new. Heck, telling suspects you have DNA linking them to the crime even when they don't happens. In reading some of the overall reaction to the interviews (not as much here as elsewhere online) makes me wonder if people think police should sit down with suspects and just ask "what happened" and never ask any other questions for fear of being accused of asking leading questions.

Fourth, I agree with the post that said that in the same way Brendan is highly suggestible to what the police what him to say, he was also probably as suggestible to doing what his uncle wanted him to do and say or not say. I have no doubt Brendan was afraid of first not complying with what Steven wanted him to do and then afraid to say anything for fear of what Steven might do if he found out. The idea that even a really bright 16 year-old would stand up to his uncle or any other related/trusted adult in a very frightening situation just seems outside the norm to me.

Perhaps Brendan's 2254 petition will be at least partially successful and he'll get a new trial or some other relief. I think that might be the best scenario here as I think his case is a much bigger issue than Steven's. Even if you 100% don't believe anything Brendan says that doesn't make Steven innocent.

 

[stephsb]

I think Avery is guilty, is there was at least evidence of his guilt, and I don't think he got should get a new trial, as his was fair.

Brendan is a 16 year old child with low intelligence (around 70. If you don't understand your rights that is a problem. It doesn't mean that you deserve an attorney, but it is something that invesigators should be aware of because if it's clear he didn't understand his Miranda rights, or the charges against him, that's something that is attorney would later question, or should have questioned. Hence why the ask him about 4 times "didn't you see this happening, you being arrested? You knew that right"

I'm not suggesting him getting a deal was not traditional practice, police can lie about all sorts of things, as you pointed out. I was using that as an example of how 3/1 was different from the first two. By this point, they didn't think Brendan was innocent, they were talking deal and planning to use him to testify against Steven. As I said earlier, the problem isn't necessarily the line of questioning its a combination of Brendan's intellectual disabilities, age, and feeding him the information they wanted. Rather than be cautious, they just use it to their advantage. I'm not suggesting this is wrong on the LE side, but once this gets to a court, it's useless, and police are taught and communicate with prosecutors on how to get confessions that will provide information useful in court. Asking leading questions isn't wrong, but it isn't good practice for getting the truth, especially in people like Brendan. What needs to be guarded against is feeding him the information you want, which they do on countless occasions. Once you've suggested the information is true, you lose your chance for him to give you new information. That confession is littered with examples of Brendan just parroting back info that they had just given him.

I am hoping Brendan gets a new trial as well, with that confession, and the subsequent ones w.o his attorney present are also thrown out. His trial has nothing to do with Avery's, his confession was NOT used in Avery's trial, which once again, shows just how useful the prosecutor thought it was. They'd prefer to drop charges rather than use that against Steven.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fred J Walsh]

So far I've been granted access to transcripts of Day 1 through 4 of the Dassey trial.

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4

If/when I obtain further transcripts, I will edit this post.

As I understand it, the trial took nine days:

April 16 - Dassey, now 17, goes on trial.
April 20 - Prosecutors play Dassey's videotaped confession for the jury.
April 23 - Dassey testifies in his own defense, saying he lied when he gave the statement but doesn't know why. Avery does not testify at Dassey's trial.
April 25 - After 4-½ hours of deliberation, the jury, which was selected in Dane County, convicts Dassey of being party to first-degree intentional homicide, mutilation of a corpse and second-degree sexual assault.

 

[Ava Adore]

A few things,

First, I get that Avery was calling about selling Barb's car but that still doesn't makes sense to me as to why he gave her name. If you called would you tell them YOUR name was B Janda? Wouldn't you say oh, I'm Steven but I need pictures of a car for my sister Barb? Or, just give your name since what difference does it make who the car belongs to? Not to mention, who gives an initial? It seems to me like he said "B Janda" because he clearly couldn't say Barb because that is not a male name and he didn't want to give them his name.

Second, tons of people who get interviewed by the police are read their miranda rights and either don't fully understand them or just decide it's in their best interest to go ahead and talk to the police and most times without an attorney. Are we suggesting that it shouldn't be enough to inform people of their rights but instead also give them some sort of test to make sure they completely understand? Let's face it, what that would really mean is everyone gets an attorney every time they are questioned and then we'd have to get into everyone needing a really good attorney as that can really make a difference as well.

Third, I agree that there are problems with the interviews and major problems with Brendan's confession, but at the same time some of the things being pointed out are traditional police tactics and it's not like they are happening for the first time with Brendan. Telling a suspect that if they confess they will get a deal (even though the police don't have the authority to make deals) is nothing new. Heck, telling suspects you have DNA linking them to the crime even when they don't happens. In reading some of the overall reaction to the interviews (not as much here as elsewhere online) makes me wonder if people think police should sit down with suspects and just ask "what happened" and never ask any other questions for fear of being accused of asking leading questions.

Fourth, I agree with the post that said that in the same way Brendan is highly suggestible to what the police what him to say, he was also probably as suggestible to doing what his uncle wanted him to do and say or not say. I have no doubt Brendan was afraid of first not complying with what Steven wanted him to do and then afraid to say anything for fear of what Steven might do if he found out. The idea that even a really bright 16 year-old would stand up to his uncle or any other related/trusted adult in a very frightening situation just seems outside the norm to me.

Perhaps Brendan's 2254 petition will be at least partially successful and he'll get a new trial or some other relief. I think that might be the best scenario here as I think his case is a much bigger issue than Steven's. Even if you 100% don't believe anything Brendan says that doesn't make Steven innocent.

I am not suggesting coddling suspects, but I don't believe in coercing and leading on suspects who have obvious developmental delays, especially those who are teenagers. Brendan's own attorney pretty much set him up. That is wrong and against the law.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Ava Adore]

Avery appeal docs :
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery documents 1-22.pdf
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

Dassey probable cause doc :
http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/courtdocs/complaint-02Mar2006.pdf

Dassey interview/confession transcripts :

http://docdro.id/2KmgtSR - 2/27/2006 at his school
http://docdro.id/80khPqQ - 2/27/2006 later at the police dept.
here are the later interviews - which I believe we saw mostly in the documentary :
March 1, 2006: http://docdro.id/nNl5HMA
March 1, 2006: http://docdro.id/ZSo3Oc1
May 13, 2006: http://docdro.id/rRe12qJ

Youtube videos of those interviews :
https://www.youtube.com/user/imAbNorMalsometime/videos

Transcripts to the Making a Murderer documentary :
http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewforum.php?f=524

Article about the avery case with some information like WHO let the ladies who found the halbach suv into the junkyard -- Earl!
http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/ (some other things in there like earl quoted as saying when he was 14 or 15 years old Steve Avery wanted him to have sex with his wife while he was in prison.)

These are mostly links from others on this thread, I cannot take credit for finding them, but am thankful that they did!

[emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106]

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[stephsb]

Agree AvaAdore- his developmental delays are so blatantly obvious, or should have been. When giving statements, he has to ask how to spell "detective" "rack" and "garbage" among others.

And agree that his attorney selling him out is just despicable. And he is in private practice in Appleton currently. Laughable that people now actually PAY for this hack to defend them. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ava Adore]

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

I'm loving your input, thank you!

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Ava Adore]

From my research as a writer, I could not find anything that would say that gasoline or Paint thinner would destroy DNA. The ingredients/chemicals would not get rid of it but could slow down the process of identifying the DNA as it would have to be extracted. Now I could be wrong but that the info I found researching for a book I am writing.

I did find this site's thread it talks about what destroys dna and has an expert answering questions. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-destroys-dna.45471/

I also found this document helpful in my research, for DNA information start at page 32 http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/Phys_Evid_Manual_OR.pdf

This one talks about what evidence fire can and can not destroy http://www.northjersey.com/story-ar...rder-scenes-can-t-destroy-all-clues-1.1225824

Here is another link I have from my research as a writer http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/things-writers-should-know-about-dna/

I hope this helps, I will see if I can find some more information after Christmas.

Thank you for sharing this thorough research with us.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Ava Adore]

So, Max, you said in one confession, Brendan said they murdered her in the woods. That just confuses and angers me more.

I mean, I think most of us believe at this point that there was no murder in the garage and there is definitely no evidence (DNA, blood, ANYTHING) in the bedroom.

So, if Avery did do it and it did happen in the woods, why did Brendan even come up with the story of stabbing her in the bedroom? That confession contradicts many of Brendan's other statements. And Avery was convicted on the whole garage murder?

This is all very shady on LE part. You can't plant evidence and change around a story to get your conviction. They still haven't proved who murdered Teresa, by way of evidence. Whether you believe Avery did it or not, he shouldn't have been convicted as nothing was actually proven.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[Ava Adore]

Agree AvaAdore- his developmental delays are so blatantly obvious, or should have been. When giving statements, he has to ask how to spell "detective" "rack" and "garbage" among others.

And agree that his attorney selling him out is just despicable. And he is in private practice in Appleton currently. Laughable that people now actually PAY for this hack to defend them. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, and doesn't know what a yard is for a unit of measuring.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[stephsb]

They told Brendan that they knew he went to the bedroom, that they knew he was there when Teresa died, and Steven was there earlier, and they tell him Steven did more than stab Teresa (this is where Brendan says he choked, cut her hair, slit her throat, and punched her before the detectives finally just tell him she was shot in the head) He gave the stabbed in the stomach info consistent w. His earlier testimony, but that wasn't what they wanted.

It moves to the garage when they suggest "something happened in the garage" and follow up with "she was shot in the garage" and "shell casings were found in the garage" that was all fed to him, he didn't come up with it on his own.

Since Brendon's confession wasn't used at Avery's trial, it's validity won't affect Avery's appeals, but it should help Brendon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stephsb]

Also, after just scanning the opening from the trial transcript, I am not impressed with the prosecutor- it's littered with Ums and pauses, which are distracting, it's cluttered and all over the place, and he isn't doing a great job portraying confidence in what he's presenting, just pointing it out. Compare it to Bugliosi's opening statements, which Manson's attorney was actually interrupting and objecting to, and he doesn't stutter once- he knows what he's going to say, he knows the case inside and out. Not saying everyone should be Vincent Bugliosi, because that's a high bar, but the transcript is actually frustrating to read it appears so unorganized and unprepared. It also appears he's putting Avery on trial (rarely is he mentioning Dassey) and that is also unusual. Should be all about Dassey and his culpability, you want to make sure the jury starts with the impression of the Defendant's guilt.

Also would like to add that the opening statements state that a semi-automatic .22 rifle was used, inconsistent w. Dassey's 3/1 statement: they ask "the rifle, was it a single-shot (which reveals that it was a rifle, and suggests it was a single shot) and Dassey answers yes. They then go "it was a single shot, not a semi-automatic?" Which would suggest it was the semi-automatic, and he sticks to the original statement. So it's clear he did not see a gun used or use it himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LemonMousse]

I found the last 2 videos in particular to be what I would deem borderline abusive.

But I still am not seeing the huge flaws in the 2/27 and even the beginning of the 3/1 interviews. I do see the leading you suggest in several areas and would definitely appreciate your opinion on what you found as coercive.

My uneducated impression of the first interview at the school on 2/27 was that Brendan was very cautious and unsure if he should say anything. In hindsight, that might arguably have been his best option!

But, my impression was that the investigators were trying to create a relationship and that could only be done by creating conversations, as in most cases he wasn't even answering. About midway through, you start to notice that brendan is getting comfortable. He is starting to believe that he can trust these guys and say things and not get in trouble. For sure, his fear was that something he said about what he knew might get him in trouble. Is that fair to say ?

Imagine for a moment that this was a case was involving someone who it was completely clear they were innocent, but they had information that you needed. I would think that you need to create that relationship whereby the person feels comfortable talking. That might include using words and making comments that are to the level of the content. Such that the person feels comfortable that they can talk about such things in a casual way. Does that make sense ?


Rather than speed ahead to how I see it proceeding from there, I'd like to hear what you (stephsb or anyone else) think about what I've just said. I am open to being completely wrong on this, but I felt as if much of that first interview was all about that. I didn't feel at that point as if he wanted to even give them what they wanted, but rather was feeling out whether he could trust them. I'd imagine having police asking him questions was quite intimidating. You also have to think about the fact that his uncle had gone to prison for 18 years for something he didn't do. These were the guys that did that.

So, in a case where the police weren't corrupt/biased -- which I will fully agree was the case here -- what would be the right way to approach that situation. I kind of feel how they approached the first half of the interview on 2/27 was effective. By the 2nd interview on 2/27, dare I say that brendan even seem relieved ? That's kind of what I was sensing.


Ok, i'll hang up and listen to your answer

I think you're being a little bit too fair to the police and a little bit too unfair to Brendan, tbh.

He (Brendan) is clearly learning disabled with an intellectual age far below that of his chronological age. He clearly had no idea of the seriousness of the situation he was in...as evidenced by his heartbreaking assumption he could be back at school in time to hand in a project that afternoon.

Police officers are trained to build rapport and one way of doing this is to suggest that everything will be OK if you just tell us the truth...we're here to help you, etc. We know you're a good kid really and this is all bad Uncle Steven. If we don't accept your answer as "the truth" we'll just say that we think you're lying and keep asking and asking and asking until you tell us what we want to hear. Once that happens, we'll call you a good boy and be your friend.

This is a tough thing for an intelligent, functioning adult.....but for a vulnerable 16 year old who just wants to go home? He stood no chance in that room. None.

We know that Theresa was not murdered in the place that Brendan said she was. We know this. Her throat was not cut on that mattress.

Therefore, we have an untrue "confession" - and this should always, always give everybody pause, although it rarely seems to.

If you are going to confess to a crime, why do it with a lie? If you confess it's either because the evidence is so compelling against you that you have no choice or your conscience is bothering you. (Clearly, the former is more common). Why would it make sense to confess to be involved in a rape and murder, but lie about how and where it happened? This makes no sense whatsoever.

None of Brendan's confession originated with him. He volunteered nothing. He simply agreed with the scenario the police laid out for him. "You heard screams when you approached the trailer, didn't you? Didn't you? Didn't you?"....etc. Why did he do this? Because this big little boy just wanted to go home and he thought he could once he told a "truth" that the police officers were willing to accept.

Regarding the bleached jeans....well, we know the garage floor wasn't bleached. And if it was cleaned at all then it was done in such a way that it left Steven Avery's DNA in place, but cleaned up Brendan's and Theresa's....which is patently ridiculous.

So, whatever the reason for splashes on Brendan's jeans, it was not from bleaching the garage floor. So it cannot point to his guilt regarding cleaning up the garage after the murder since this never happened.

Assuming the the conversation between him and his mother actually happened as reported, and has not been lost in translation or anything, then who knows the explanation? Perhaps his mother (like many) got particularly cross about damaged & ruined clothing so he did what may teenage boys did and fibbed. "It was Uncle Steve's fault...I was helping him clean in the garage". Maybe such an event happened in the past and he reached for that explanation to get him out of an uncomfortable conversation with his Mum. Who knows?

The handcuffs and leg irons were, I believe, found in Steven's bedroom, not in the burn barrel. Millions and millions of adults have such sex toys tucked away. Unless they could be specifically linked to Theresa or the murder then I consider this a complete dead end. The fact of them being there is not suspicious on it's own.

And, I don't understand the issue of B Janda and Steven apparently making Theresa uncomfortable in the past. She must have recognised the address so if this was a problem why leave a cheery message making an appointment and then show up there on her own? Did Steven know he'd behaved so badly and made her so uncomfortable that the only way to get her there was to give a false (or misleading) name even though the address was the same? Makes no sense to me.

Sorry for the essay. Me and him indoors binged this on Christmas Eve!

 

[stephsb]

I've been posting essays all day too, I'm on break from school, home visiting family and I'm Jewish so I never have much to do on Christmas Day besides relax around my house, in this case reading Dassey's police interviews lol

I agree completely, and have been trying to emphasize it since this topic was brought up yesterday, the problems w. the confession were not as much about police tactics, but police tactics that are used to try and get an adult w. an average IQ to give them the info they want before they realize they are in a situation that they would need an attorney- should NOT be used, or should be used w. extreme caution, in groups of people that are particularly vulnerable to giving false confessions, such as the mentally disabled and minors, of which Brendan was both. That doesn't mean you can't ask leading questions, or lie, or make them think you are their friend, but you need to be cautious of who you are speaking w. and know the signs of a false confession. If you are introducing something to them, and they are giving you information you know is false, even as you try to lead them away from it, you should know you are going down a very dangerous road as far as the admissibility of the confession in court, and whether or not it's true.

It doesn't take legal or police training to recognize that Brendan is giving them the answers he thinks they want to hear so he can leave. He basically says as much, and why wouldn't he think that would work- he was doing the same thing he did at school, guess until he gets the answer- why wouldn't that work in front DOJ investigators too? He has NO idea the gravity of the situation he is in, that is obvious.

The statement of the bleached jeans was in the criminal complaint, and in WI, if it was in the criminal complaint (which is used to show probable cause) they can't just be making it up, they have to have documentation or evidence to back their claims up...I'm assuming the statement was made by Barb during some sort of police interview. Obviously, that doesn't mean he helped Avery clean the garage after a murder, but it's certainly possible. They did have the jeans (given to them by Dassey) does anyone know if they were used as evidence at trial?

My thoughts are there were stains on the jeans, and Barb believed them to be bleached after cleaning Steven's garage. I'm not convinced Brendan actually helped, but I don't believe it impossible. It's impossible to tell if it was in the garage or not because police introduced that to him, so he could be giving them what they want to hear, but he does offer in his first statements some rambling confusing account of Steven needing help cleaning up a leak in the garage- could they have used bleach to clean it up?

I don't believe Dassey helped Avery kill and rape Teresa, and I'm not sure he even helped w. the disposal or saw a body, but I am confident he saw Avery at some point that day. He is able to provide what Steven was wearing w. no prompting, and keep that consistent, while he can't identify or keep consistent what Teresa was wearing or what color- so he either didn't see her or she was naked when he saw her (which cops conveniently lead him to say) Numerous times he repeated Steven wore red shorts and a white top, and red shorts wouldn't be the usual answer in WI in October. I tend to think it's true, it's one of the only thing he's consistent on. As far as what his involvement was, I don't believe it was much.

The handcuffs and leg irons are in my opinion useless because he didn't see them. When police ask him to describe what the handcuffs and leg irons (their words, not his) look like he says regular. They then ask for the color and he responds silver. That doesn't give me much confidence he saw them, more like he's describing what he thinks handcuffs look like.

 

[stephsb]

Forgot to add about the bleached jeans- Even though a statement by Barb to police could be used for a criminal complaint doesn't mean it'd be admissible in court. I feel that I read somewhere that Barb's statement was not used at trial because it was hearsay, can anyone confirm that (maybe it was about different statement, or I just thought I read it) There's about as many exceptions to the hearsay rules as there are actual rules, but I can see this being inadmissible as hearsay- Barb can't testify about something Brendan told her, only the declarant of the statement (Brendan) can. Like I said, hearsay rule have countless exceptions, but I don't think this one qualifies as an exception, at least not one of the more obvious ones. Was the bleached jean statement allowed in?

 

[LemonMousse]

I've been posting essays all day too, I'm on break from school, home visiting family and I'm Jewish so I never have much to do on Christmas Day besides relax around my house, in this case reading Dassey's police interviews lol

I agree completely, and have been trying to emphasize it since this topic was brought up yesterday, the problems w. the confession were not as much about police tactics, but police tactics that are used to try and get an adult w. an average IQ to give them the info they want before they realize they are in a situation that they would need an attorney- should NOT be used, or should be used w. extreme caution, in groups of people that are particularly vulnerable to giving false confessions, such as the mentally disabled and minors, of which Brendan was both. That doesn't mean you can't ask leading questions, or lie, or make them think you are their friend, but you need to be cautious of who you are speaking w. and know the signs of a false confession. If you are introducing something to them, and they are giving you information you know is false, even as you try to lead them away from it, you should know you are going down a very dangerous road as far as the admissibility of the confession in court, and whether or not it's true.

It doesn't take legal or police training to recognize that Brendan is giving them the answers he thinks they want to hear so he can leave. He basically says as much, and why wouldn't he think that would work- he was doing the same thing he did at school, guess until he gets the answer- why wouldn't that work in front DOJ investigators too? He has NO idea the gravity of the situation he is in, that is obvious.

The statement of the bleached jeans was in the criminal complaint, and in WI, if it was in the criminal complaint (which is used to show probable cause) they can't just be making it up, they have to have documentation or evidence to back their claims up...I'm assuming the statement was made by Barb during some sort of police interview. Obviously, that doesn't mean he helped Avery clean the garage after a murder, but it's certainly possible. They did have the jeans (given to them by Dassey) does anyone know if they were used as evidence at trial?

My thoughts are there were stains on the jeans, and Barb believed them to be bleached after cleaning Steven's garage. I'm not convinced Brendan actually helped, but I don't believe it impossible. It's impossible to tell if it was in the garage or not because police introduced that to him, so he could be giving them what they want to hear, but he does offer in his first statements some rambling confusing account of Steven needing help cleaning up a leak in the garage- could they have used bleach to clean it up?

I don't believe Dassey helped Avery kill and rape Teresa, and I'm not sure he even helped w. the disposal or saw a body, but I am confident he saw Avery at some point that day. He is able to provide what Steven was wearing w. no prompting, and keep that consistent, while he can't identify or keep consistent what Teresa was wearing or what color- so he either didn't see her or she was naked when he saw her (which cops conveniently lead him to say) Numerous times he repeated Steven wore red shorts and a white top, and red shorts wouldn't be the usual answer in WI in October. I tend to think it's true, it's one of the only thing he's consistent on. As far as what his involvement was, I don't believe it was much.

The handcuffs and leg irons are in my opinion useless because he didn't see them. When police ask him to describe what the handcuffs and leg irons (their words, not his) look like he says regular. They then ask for the color and he responds silver. That doesn't give me much confidence he saw them, more like he's describing what he thinks handcuffs look like.

But the issue with the bleach on the jeans is that it's being used to point to his possible involvement in cleaning the garage floor with bleach that day.

This did not happen. Not only was bleach not used, the garage floor was not cleaned that day at all, by anyone.

Therefore, if Brendan had bleach spots on his jeans that weren't there earlier that day, there must be some explanation OTHER than that he'd been in the garage with Steven mopping the floor with bleach a little earlier.

How does bleach link with any part of the crime? It doesn't. There's no evidence that bleach was used anywhere that the police searched. So, actually, bleach spots on jeans is as irrelevant as squid ink on the jeans, or pink glittery glue.

Could it be that Brendan remembered the cleaning but just got the place wrong? Odd thing to have forgotten an hour or so after it had happened. This would also imply that Steven killed Theresa somewhere else entirely...not hinted at in either the State's case or Brendan's "confession".

Maybe he did see Steven earlier...they lived next door to each other, after all. And regarding what Steven was wearing, well, (not to sound judgemental) are we sure he was the kind of guy to have fresh clothes on every day? Most single blokes I know will get as much wear as they can out of their clothes...saves on the washing.

Handcuffs and leg irons.....apparently Barb also had a set, bought at the same time as Steven bought his (strange family trip, that!)...and such things are not easy to keep hidden when you have nosy teenagers in the house. So, possibly Brendan was well aware of such things - enough to not have much difficulty imagining Theresa restrained by them.

Personally, I am 99.99% certain that Brendan had nothing whatsoever to do with Theresa's murder, and had no knowledge of whether or not Steven was involved.

Steven, I am less certain of. I think he is, on balance, more likely to be innocent than guilty - some evidence is impossible to explain on the State's case - but that he should never, ever have been convicted is without question, IMO.

 

[stephsb]

I understand what they are trying to do w. the bleach, but using the bleach to clean the garage came from their mouths, not Brendan's, and Barb. Steven brought up bleach, and using bleach, but he also says in the same breath it took them 5 min to clean the garage, so obviously they didn't clean a bloody crime scene. I agree that if the bleach was there (which it appears it was, or something that looked like it) but don't think it came from cleaning the garage, at least not that day. Maybe they were cleaning something else, or maybe he was giving an earlier incident as an excuse (police suggest cleaning the garage, he thinks of a time he actually did) but either way the pants look incriminating, but can be somewhat explained.

He could have been giving what he had seen Steven wear on an earlier day, but he couldn't tell them what shirt he was wearing, so that seems doubtful (doesn't seem very observant). It's one of the few consistencies that he gives on his own which is why I felt it worth noting.

I don't think Brendan saw the leg irons or handcuffs, because he never uses the word leg irons, police do, and he can't give an accurate description of them. It seems more like he is describing what he thinks would be used- like he had HEARD about his mother or Steven's handcuffs/leg irons and was imagining them. I don't think he ever saw her in leg cuffs, as he says "her legs were spread a little bit" when asked if they were closed or spread on the bed. I think your legs would be more than "spread a little bit" if they were in leg cuffs on bed posts, but Brendan might not know that, so he just picked neither answer and responded between both of them- a good indication he never saw her legs in cuffs.

I am nearly certain Brendan is innocent and has no first hand knowledge of the actual murder. I am not consistent Steven didn't tell him something, or he didn't hear and suspect things from other family members. There are things in his first interviews, before all the info is fed from the police, some things that he remains consistent on, and that stabbing in the stomach he tried to stick w., even as police repeatedly tried to get him away from it. It's clear he didn't see her stomach w. a stab wound (he was asked what her stomach looked like and he responded w. like it had been stabbed, and then pushed to clarify says "it was bleeding" well, duh.)

I disagree w. many about Avery's conviction. If I was in the jury's shoes, I would like to believe I would say not guilty (which they initially did) but I wasn't there, haven't seen all the transcripts, and can't say for certain. If he was convicted using Brendan's confession, I would have a different view. But he wasn't. If the evidence of LE planting evidence was not found out until after the trial, and was never presented to the jury, that would warrant a new trial. But the jury was given the theory the evidence was tampered with, they knew Manitowoc County was getting involved where they shouldn't have, and still convicted. Steven had a competent defense team (far better than most get) and he had a jury that was willing to find him not guilty, as evidenced w. their initial jury polling. They were impartial. I have been asking locals what they think, and why the think Avery is guilty or not guilty, and while most feel he is guilty, a large number feel that he's innocent and one of his brothers did it. CA and EA both had prior sex convictions and owned the Salvage Yard, so they had motive and opportunity, two of the things the defense has to show if they want to point the finger at them during trial. They also have to show direct link to the crime. Ultimately, they had a list of alternate suspects, which the court denied as they couldn't show the three criteria required by WI law. This was also their argument on appeal, which have failed so far. I would like to know if the Defense ever explored the theory of CA or EA being involved, it seems like at least CA may not have had an alibi. I wonder how well this was investigated.
As I've said, while I am not certain I myself would have been able to convict him, an impartial jury did, and that matters. They saw the same facts (and more) then the Documentary showed, and found him guilty after weighing the evidence. Unless something can be proved to have been unfair at his trial, or new evidence is shown, I don't think he'll win his appeals (JMO) Dassey is a totally different story though. No question in my mind his confession should have been tossed and he deserves a new trial as a result. Without a confession, no way those charges would stick.

 

[LemonMousse]

I understand what they are trying to do w. the bleach, but using the bleach to clean the garage came from their mouths, not Brendan's, and Barb. Steven brought up bleach, and using bleach, but he also says in the same breath it took them 5 min to clean the garage, so obviously they didn't clean a bloody crime scene. I agree that if the bleach was there (which it appears it was, or something that looked like it) but don't think it came from cleaning the garage, at least not that day. Maybe they were cleaning something else, or maybe he was giving an earlier incident as an excuse (police suggest cleaning the garage, he thinks of a time he actually did) but either way the pants look incriminating, but can be somewhat explained.

He could have been giving what he had seen Steven wear on an earlier day, but he couldn't tell them what shirt he was wearing, so that seems doubtful (doesn't seem very observant). It's one of the few consistencies that he gives on his own which is why I felt it worth noting.

I don't think Brendan saw the leg irons or handcuffs, because he never uses the word leg irons, police do, and he can't give an accurate description of them. It seems more like he is describing what he thinks would be used- like he had HEARD about his mother or Steven's handcuffs/leg irons and was imagining them. I don't think he ever saw her in leg cuffs, as he says "her legs were spread a little bit" when asked if they were closed or spread on the bed. I think your legs would be more than "spread a little bit" if they were in leg cuffs on bed posts, but Brendan might not know that, so he just picked neither answer and responded between both of them- a good indication he never saw her legs in cuffs.

I am nearly certain Brendan is innocent and has no first hand knowledge of the actual murder. I am not consistent Steven didn't tell him something, or he didn't hear and suspect things from other family members. There are things in his first interviews, before all the info is fed from the police, some things that he remains consistent on, and that stabbing in the stomach he tried to stick w., even as police repeatedly tried to get him away from it. It's clear he didn't see her stomach w. a stab wound (he was asked what her stomach looked like and he responded w. like it had been stabbed, and then pushed to clarify says "it was bleeding" well, duh.)

I disagree w. many about Avery's conviction. If I was in the jury's shoes, I would like to believe I would say not guilty (which they initially did) but I wasn't there, haven't seen all the transcripts, and can't say for certain. If he was convicted using Brendan's confession, I would have a different view. But he wasn't. If the evidence of LE planting evidence was not found out until after the trial, and was never presented to the jury, that would warrant a new trial. But the jury was given the theory the evidence was tampered with, they knew Manitowoc County was getting involved where they shouldn't have, and still convicted. Steven had a competent defense team (far better than most get) and he had a jury that was willing to find him not guilty, as evidenced w. their initial jury polling. They were impartial. I have been asking locals what they think, and why the think Avery is guilty or not guilty, and while most feel he is guilty, a large number feel that he's innocent and one of his brothers did it. CA and EA both had prior sex convictions and owned the Salvage Yard, so they had motive and opportunity, two of the things the defense has to show if they want to point the finger at them during trial. They also have to show direct link to the crime. Ultimately, they had a list of alternate suspects, which the court denied as they couldn't show the three criteria required by WI law. This was also their argument on appeal, which have failed so far. I would like to know if the Defense ever explored the theory of CA or EA being involved, it seems like at least CA may not have had an alibi. I wonder how well this was investigated.
As I've said, while I am not certain I myself would have been able to convict him, an impartial jury did, and that matters. They saw the same facts (and more) then the Documentary showed, and found him guilty after weighing the evidence. Unless something can be proved to have been unfair at his trial, or new evidence is shown, I don't think he'll win his appeals (JMO) Dassey is a totally different story though. No question in my mind his confession should have been tossed and he deserves a new trial as a result. Without a confession, no way those charges would stick.

I really don't get it - maybe I'm being dense.

Bleach did not form part of the evidence against Steven or Brendan...so how can spots of it on jeans be even slightly incriminating?

If evidence had been found that the bedroom &/or garage had been thoroughly cleaned very recently with cleaning products and someone had unaccountable bleach spots on their clothes, that would be something. But this is not the case. I don't know why Brendan had what appeared to be bleach stains on his trousers - but I do know that it wasn't because he was cleaning up a crime scene with Steven...which is the only circumstance which would make the stains incriminating.

I don't believe Steven spoke to him about how Theresa was killed. No matter how consistently he (Brendan) stuck to some aspects, it's hardly relevant if those aspects are not actually true. His claim to seeing stomach wounds never changed to "Steve told me he stabbed her in the stomach". Brendan did try to tell the truth eventually - and it was clear that he knew nothing, saw nothing, heard nothing.

From what the juror who left for an emergency said, the jury was not entirely impartial. There were at least three who dispensed with presumption of innocence from the outset, proclaimed him guilty without considering the evidence and refused to budge.

In terms of other suspects.....I think it was mostly likely a member of the Avery clan. Several of the men - including Tadych - had form for violence against women.

Two sets of people were involved in framing Steven - the perp/s to deflect attention from themselves and the police who genuinely believed Steven was guilty and wanted to make absolutely sure he went down this time.

Poor guy never stood a chance.

 

[Fred J Walsh]

In the opening to Dassey's trial, the State promises to show the following

Brendan says that the garage floor was cleaned with paint thinner. You're going to hear from a man by the name of John Ertl, from the Crime Lab, who will talk about a three- or four-foot circle, just to the left and behind the riding tractor, uh, which is a big bleach stain. Uh, Mr. Ertl will talk about that bleach stain. You'll see that bleach and paint thinner are recovered.

Uh, but perhaps most importantly, Brendan, himself, hands over to Investigator Fassbender his jeans. He says, these were the pants I was wearing that night, and these pants are splashed with bleach from cleaning Steve's garage.

 

[Fred J Walsh]

Fassbender's testimony (under direct exam) about Brendan's bleach-stained jeans. From Day 1 of the Dassey trial. (To me this is the most stand-out "not shown in MaM" material from Day 1.)

Q. And, finally, Exhibit No. 54. Tell us what that is please?
A. It's a pair of blue jeans that, uh, Mr. Dassey, himself, um, located, or took me to in his residence, um, indicating that those are the pants that he wore that evening.
Q. On the photograph, uh, appears to depict some stains on them. Do you see that? And can you show us that on -- on the screen?
A. Yes. Um, white stains on the lower right-hand pocket area of the blue jeans, and also on the upper, uh, left-hand pocket area of the blue jeans there's some white staining.
Q. Some stains around the, uh, bottom portions or around the knees as well?
A. Yes. Spots and stains that are white.
Q. Now, we'll get into the statements of Mr. Dassey, uh, much more detail later this week, but did Mr. Dassey describe for you what those stains were?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He said they were bleach stains.
Q. Did he say how those bleach stains got on his jeans?
A. Yes.
Q. How?
A. He said that he got them on when he was helping clean up the garage floor in Steven Avery's garage, and that -- because they use -- utilized some bleach to clean that area.
Q. Now, the jeans, themselves, uh, has Mr. Wiegert provided you with, uh -- with those?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that exhibit number?
A. Exhibit 58.
Q. Tell us what Exhibit 58 is, please?
A. Exhibit 58 is the pair of jeans that, uh, Brendan Dassey, urn, took us to in his residence on February 27, 2006 and consented to us taking them.
Q. And do those jeans still appear, as you see them today here in the courtroom, to have bleach stains on them?
A. Yes, they do.