Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[Fred J Walsh]

Fassbender's cross-exam about the jeans (again, from Day 1 of the trial) is mainly an effort on the part of defense counsel to confirm that Fassbender was the first to bring up the idea that the stain in the garage Brendan was allegedly trying to clean could have been "blood." Also, defense wants to highlight that no blood was found on the jeans, which as Fassbender point out, obviously had been laundered in the months since Oct 31, 2005.

However, most interestingly, no attempt is made to contest that the jeans had bleach stains, nor to contest that Brendan had allegedly cited them as bleach stains that derived from his alleged attempt to clean Avery's garage floor.

 

[LemonMousse]

Where is the evidence that paint thinner/bleach was utilised to clean up blood? That there was any blood to clean up? As a forensic expert said in the doc, it is close to impossible for two amateurs to clean up that well. Even people who knew what to do would struggle.

Some patch of paint thinner (in a garage!) and bleach shows....what? We had a case in the UK not that long ago where a killer spent all night cleaning after his murder of a little girl and, in spite of using bleach, they still found blood and DNA.

And Fassbender? The same Fassbender that was captured on tape putting words and ideas into Brendan's head?

Wonder how that went down?

"So after you and Steve murdered Theresa in the garage, did you clean up? Did you? Be honest now, we just want to help you. So did you?"

"Yes"

"What did you use?"

"Water?"

"That's a lie. What did you use?"

"Floor cleaner?"

"We know that's not true. Was it bleach?"

"Yes".

Later, back at the trailer,

"Here's my jeans I was wearing"

"What are these spots?"

"Bleach from when I was cleaning the garage with Steve after raping and murdering Theresa".

Uh huh. Very convincing. Not.

 

[stephsb]

Bleach would be used to clean up a crime scene. They needed a way to explain that there was no blood or evidence or anything found. What' the best way to clean up blood? Bleach. I don't know the context of Barb giving her statement, but either she inadvertently gave them an opportunity they couldn't pass up (by saying Steven had bleach, not realizing it was important or relevant or what it would make them think) or they began talking to her the same way they did w. Steven- "what did Steven say to you that night, anything strange, what did his clothes look like, were there stains on his pants, What did he say about those stains, did he say they were from Steven's, were they cleaning at Steven's etc, etc" At this point, who knows if they had even done tests of the floor, maybe they planned on planting bleach, I really have no idea. But buying large amounts of bleach, accompanied w. other circumstantial evidence, have been enough to arrest a suspect for first degree murder.

Brendan initially introduced the stabbing in the stomach, in the first interview at the school. At that point, he tells him that Steven told him, and he's more descriptive than he is in any of the other interviews I've read (I'm half way through the last one). He tries consistently to stick to the stomach line, even after they use leading questions to get him to stay chest, he screws up and says stomach, and they quickly get him to correct "I mean chest"

Regarding the jury being impartial, the jury deliberated for over 21 hours, the jury who is claiming three people refused to budge and didn't consider evidence left after 4 hours. They have no idea what evidence was considered, as they missed 17 hours of the deliberation. Often, when the jurors go back to deliberate, they initially poll differently than what the verdict ends up being. 21 hours is an EXTREMELY long time to sit and not consider evidence, and the jurors were considering some evidence, as they came out numerous times and asked for evidence to be re-read or clarified, or for certain things to consider. Legal experts and attorneys are split on what a long jury deliberation means, but there are quite a few who believe they favor an acquittal. Most agree they at least signal an extensive consideration of the trial. 21 hours is on the long side (11 hours longer than Casey Anthony, and 5 hours longer than Zimmermann, both who got acquittals and had cases that were extremely high profile)If the jurors are unwilling to even consider the evidence and the jury cannot come to a consensus, they can express that to the judge, who will usually try and make them go back, but if they still cannot reach a consensus, they will declare a mistrial. All it takes is one person to hold out in a criminal case to get a not guilty verdict or a mistrial. Until more evidence is given, I believe that jury was impartial and considered the evidence. If one of them comes out and says otherwise, I will certainly reconsider that thought.

I agree that Avery probably never stood a chance, but I don't believe any perps attempted to frame him, unless solid evidence shows that. I do believe Manitowoc PD wanted to frame him to ensure the conviction was solid, but even w. that, that doesn't eliminate other evidence against Avery. The jury was presented the evidence of Manitowoc PD and didn't give it higher weight than all the other pieces of evidence. I also have a hard time calling Avery a poor guy, this was someone who had committed acts of burglary, who set the family cat on fire (compared to Brendan, who says he can't look when a gun is fired because of the time his Mom had to shoot one of their cats) and assaulted a female cousin w. a firearm, the last two which signal future violent behavior. I feel beyond sorry for all the time Avery served for a crime in which he was absolutely innocent, but that doesn't make him a great guy. It also doesn't make framing him okay, but at this point, much of my sympathy goes to Dassey, who was set up by investigators AND his attorney.

 

[stephsb]

So there was no cross on Fassbender by the defense contesting the bleached jeans, or did I misunderstand that post?

Also, LemonMousse you are pretty close to accurate on how Brendan gave info about the bleach..they mention the cleaning of the garage directly, and pretty much later lead him to the bleach. I believe he came up w. the paint thinner on his own, however, and I feel like their was also a mention of gasoline (???) My fiancé is reading that transcript (it's in the 3/1 confession) right now but if I can find the direct quotes later. Like we've agreed, virtually nothing Brendan says can be taken as credible because there are so many inconsistencies in his testimony.

 

[stephsb]

So there was no cross on Fassbender by the defense contesting the bleached jeans, or did I misunderstand that post?

Also, LemonMousse you are pretty close to accurate on how Brendan gave info about the bleach..they mention the cleaning of the garage directly, and pretty much later lead him to the bleach. I believe he came up w. the paint thinner on his own, however, and I feel like their was also a mention of gasoline (???) My fiancé is reading that transcript (it's in the 3/1 confession) right now but if I can find the direct quotes later. Like we've agreed, virtually nothing Brendan says can be taken as credible because there are so many inconsistencies in his testimony.

Edit: Nevermind, I re-read the post and I see what they didn't contest. Ugh, feel like there was much more that could have been done with that cross.

 

[dexter75]

THIS has had me boiling from the beginning!:tantrum:
The " prosecutor ' had no clue, imo WHAT he was doing because he did NOT know his case!
I mean, really, how can you know a case inside and out when your "key" witness is being fed evidence that MAY or may NOT match up with other evidence. MAY or may NOT have been at the POTENTIAL crime scene ( wherever the hell THAT may be, garage? bedroom? woods? I guess where ever we can " find " the most evidence, sure, that sounds good )
The " prosecutor " fumbled his way through this entire ordeal, winging it as it came. And got away with it. To me, that is sad and a huge injustice. To Teresa and her family as well.
Just watching him say " everyone under 15, leave the room. we will tell you the horrible events of how this woman died. " Only to find out later the story has been changed how many times?
Shame on him. Shame on whoever killed Teresa, and the system that failed her.
Just my humble opinion of course

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

 

[Fred J Walsh]

So there was no cross on Fassbender by the defense contesting the bleached jeans, or did I misunderstand that post?

FWIW the cross exam made no attempt to challenge the direct testimony's suggestions that the stains on the jeans were from bleach, and were allegedly derived from an effort to clean the garage floor on Oct 31, 2005.

 

[dexter75]

:happydance:
Thank you for this ENTIRE response/essay
And for choosing THIS topic/documentary to binge on.
I no longer feel so nuts.
Thank you.

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!

 

[dexter75]

Where is the evidence that paint thinner/bleach was utilised to clean up blood? That there was any blood to clean up? As a forensic expert said in the doc, it is close to impossible for two amateurs to clean up that well. Even people who knew what to do would struggle.

Some patch of paint thinner (in a garage!) and bleach shows....what? We had a case in the UK not that long ago where a killer spent all night cleaning after his murder of a little girl and, in spite of using bleach, they still found blood and DNA.

And Fassbender? The same Fassbender that was captured on tape putting words and ideas into Brendan's head?

Wonder how that went down?

"So after you and Steve murdered Theresa in the garage, did you clean up? Did you? Be honest now, we just want to help you. So did you?"

"Yes"

"What did you use?"

"Water?"

"That's a lie. What did you use?"

"Floor cleaner?"

"We know that's not true. Was it bleach?"

"Yes".

Later, back at the trailer,

"Here's my jeans I was wearing"

"What are these spots?"

"Bleach from when I was cleaning the garage with Steve after raping and murdering Theresa".

Uh huh. Very convincing. Not.

:yeahthat:

 

[angelainwi]

From earlier in this thread:

"First, there are two kinds of bleaches that are found in homes. The most common one is Chlorine bleach while Oxygen bleach is becoming trendy. Chlorine bleaches are the most commonly found because it is cheaper thus purchased in larger quantities while Oxygen bleach is more expensive. While both are used to remove stains, Chlorine bleach leaves hemoglobin behind which will be shown present when Luminol or Phenophthalein is used to detect evidence of blood in a crime scene. Now Oxygen Bleach (hydrogen peroxide) will remove all traces of Hemoglobin and make it almost impossible to detect any blood traces unless splatter was missed. Now here's the catch/ big difference between the two. Chlorine bleaches will remove dye from fabrics (leaving white blotches) while Oxygen bleach in 99% of the time will not remove any dye from fabric but many times there is still the original stain but faded depending on fabric types. So it would seem that the bleach stains that Brendan is said to have on his pants after saying he helped Steven clean the garage last night could not be caused by bleach that would get rid of blood. Second it would be very expensive to use hydrogen peroxide type (oxygen) bleaches to clean large amounts of blood."

 

[dexter75]

Possibly, I know some are set up to have you create a password. Not required though. I thought her brother said in court he guessed and figured it out. And some vm had been deleted per the cingular wireless guy/girl? Sorry I'm a bit fuzzy and exhausted. EXCITING and BUSY Christmas!
I just feel and evidence shows imo that SOMEONE other than Steve and Brendan did this. WHO??
And while were at it, or who knows, maybe I'm all by myself here. What do you all think about that key? Think it was there all along?

Whoever killed Teresa, had her phone. They could have deleted the voicemails right from her phone. right ?

 

[dexter75]

THANK YOU! Because Steve didn't do it. I'm not PRO Steve Avery. Never met the man. It just sickens me to think that the REAL killer is FREE and two people are locked away because of $$. When you apply common sense and think about that lawsuit, look at the evidence, it is sad. SA is NOT a poor boy by any means. He's fugged up a lot in his life and is kinda creepy. He didn't kill that girl. My theory is, whoever did most likely made a pass at her while she was there, and was rejected. ( WHO else was there when she was there taking photos in that time frame?)This resulted in RAGE, and then murder. The rest, we can probably sleuth out together.

Here's the tricky part about the blood angle. I don't see a scenario where SA is leaving blood in various places from a finger cut, but a victim is not leaving any from at least two bullets wounds in the head. If someone was able to remove that blood from the garage, why wouldn't they think to remove... The pile of bones in the fire pit, the blood in the rav4, or the burn barrel left overs. My point is that it doesn't add up.

 

[MaxManning]

Where is the evidence that paint thinner/bleach was utilised to clean up blood? That there was any blood to clean up? As a forensic expert said in the doc, it is close to impossible for two amateurs to clean up that well. Even people who knew what to do would struggle.

Some patch of paint thinner (in a garage!) and bleach shows....what? We had a case in the UK not that long ago where a killer spent all night cleaning after his murder of a little girl and, in spite of using bleach, they still found blood and DNA.

And Fassbender? The same Fassbender that was captured on tape putting words and ideas into Brendan's head?

Wonder how that went down?

"So after you and Steve murdered Theresa in the garage, did you clean up? Did you? Be honest now, we just want to help you. So did you?"

"Yes"

"What did you use?"

"Water?"

"That's a lie. What did you use?"

"Floor cleaner?"

"We know that's not true. Was it bleach?"

"Yes".

Later, back at the trailer,

"Here's my jeans I was wearing"

"What are these spots?"

"Bleach from when I was cleaning the garage with Steve after raping and murdering Theresa".

Uh huh. Very convincing. Not.

You have to realize that regardless of how this here sounds to you, you can't take it out of context of HOW the investigator knew about the bleach.

He didnt' just plant that word in his mind. Barb Janda TOLD POLICE that she asked brendan about the bleach stains on his pants that night and he said that he was helping steven clean the garage floor.


So are you saying that Barb Janda is lying ? or that Brendan lied to his mom about that ? -- I get where you are coming from, but this whole bleach and cleaning steve's garage thing, didn't come from police.

I'm still going through transcripts of the interviews with some knowledge of what that false confession doc said, and I am open to the idea that possibly SOME of what brendan is possibly true and some is false. I know some seem to think nothing he said was truth. I kind of think at the moment that it could be somewhere in the middle.

There are things in his interviews that could be verified, but we see no evidence of that , but then again we don't have trial transcripts do we ? So that is also part of my dilemna.

Do we know that the bleach wasn't mentioned in the trial ? Nope. What we know is that it wasn't mentioned in the documentary, which is clearly slanted towards the defense. why doesn't that seem to make sense to anyone ?

But I keep hearing say the same thing about the bleach, when it wasn't even something that was discovered in that interrogation, but something that Barb Janda said, before she even knew it's significance. And I am supposed to assume that she is lying ? And I am supposed to assume that Brendan was coerced into saying anything about bleach ?

Sorry, I can't accept that until I see some kind of explanation from Steve or someone about why Barb Janda witnessed the pants and was told about cleaning the garage floor.

Explain to me why you don't trust that Barb was telling the truth. - forget about brendan for a moment.

 

[MaxManning]

Maybe a good question for everyone.

Do you think EVERYTHING that brendan said in the interview was horseshit ?

Do you think that the parts that don't include anything related to the body/murder/rape are true ?

Do you think that think that possibly some of the incriminating evidence about steven it is true ?

Because just as with this case in many other areas, I don't think it's binary -- everything is false or everything is true.

I agree he is impressionable based on understanding more about fale confessions.


But the reality of why he is in the room is because of Kayla. So maybe we need to see the kayla interview ? Kayla said that he was crying and said that he helped move a body. I get she recanted, but does that mean she's obviously telling the truth ? Really ? Should I just accept that ? do you just accept that ?

Maybe the Kayla interview was coercive as well. Lets evaluate and determine if we believe that first.


I am not trying to prove anyone guilty or innocent at the moment, I am just trying to understand as much as I can. When I think something is swaying my opinion I note that, but given that I haven't even seen a trial trasnscript or the actual interviews of all these people -- how can I be sure what exactly was said and how reliable it is.

Can we all at least agree that if we haven't seen 80% of the evidence in this case that we might be missing some very important details ?

The police weren't focusing on all these other guys as suspects, and we see the details in the Avery appeal and suddenly we have more reason to doubt. Just the same, maybe somewhere in that 80% of the evidence there is something that either clarifies something, raises new questions, or confirms what we believe.

 

[MaxManning]

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:

where did you get these ? if you can say of course. Thanks so much, this is just amazing to have.

If you can get the avery docs, that would be even more amazing.

Thanks again!

 

[MaxManning]

Max, in regards to the "80%" comment - that was a quote from Kratz and I am hard-pressed to believe anything that guy says.

Lets pick a percent you feel comfortable with. You realize this trial was many more hours than that documentary, which was not all about the trial. So how exactly do you think we heard even 50% of what the jury heard/saw ?

I'm kind of wondering how you are so confident the statement is false. I don't like kratz either, but the statement doesn't sound very far off.

But I dont' want to argue about whether that statement is exactly correct, I'm ok with leaving it at we certainly are missing alot of details that jurors have hear.

I again point to the barb janda statement that we didn't hear in the documentary at all, yet is one of the most important statements imo, since now no one seems to believe it , yet she had no reason to lie. I see it as truth for that reason. But maybe if we see the barb janda interview, we change our mind?

Put me in the category of wanting to read the actual transcripts as opposed to argue about the % we have/haven't seen yet.

 

[MaxManning]

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

I hear you. But it's also troubling to me, because it could be true! The problem with the cognitively impaired is that they are trying to please you to some degree, and follow orders. But just because that is so, does that mean EVERYTHING he said was false ? And that he wasn't ever deceptive ? That's what I am struggling with at the moment.

Barb Janda's statement as I keep saying is the reason I struggle with his confession and in some ways believe that it's not all complete horseshit. Determining what is horseshit/coerced etc and what is real, is hard. I will agree that as the interview goes on and the story expands, the harder and harder a time I have with believing it's the truth.

But if I listen to how things evolved on 2/27, I ask myself how much do I think is lie/truth ? because I KNOW he didn't tell them about the bleach on his pants that his mother talked about and the cleaning of steve's floor. So was he deceptive ? was he holding back at that point ? If so, was he being coerced or holding back ?

Do we believe that brendan was crying ? having trouble sleeping ? if so, why ? maybe it truly was that he just missed his uncle. That's actually something I think is plausible. Could that be the reason he didn't want to say that he was helping steven clean up the garage ? Because he knew the implications on some level to steven ? Had steven threatened him about telling someone ?

You realize that all these things are somewhat plausible. But they don't change that brendan didn't tell investigators about this, so was he holding back ?

i admit. I don't know, and it's what keeps me from just saying - all that he said is meaningless.

 

[Ringfinger]

Are there any theories that cover the sweat DNA for SA being on the RAV4 hood latch that can fit with him being completely innocent?

 

[MaxManning]

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!

Alot here, and some of it is addressed in my other posts.

You said "well, we know the garage floor wasn't bleached." - exactly how do we know that ?

You said ". 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."

Well, why is that ridiculous if teresa's dna was in one area, that they cleaned, and steve's blood was in areas where they didn't clean ? If you think they had to clean the entire floor to clean up blood in one spot, then I'll say I disagree.

You say brendan, but if brendan wasn't bleeding, how would his blood be there ? not clear what you mean there.

You are bring up some things like the mattress, that I don't even believe are true. I think that's part of the confusing part for some talking to me. They assume that I believe everything the prosecution is saying. I don't. I have also pointed out areas of the defense that I suggest could have happened a certain way and made their assertions irrelevant.

There is a part of me that believes it's possible that teresa was indeed killed in that Rav4 or somewhere else then in the process of moving the body and going into the garage, maybe a certain amount of blood from stephen or maybe a knife dripped on the floor and that is what steven and brendan actually cleaned. Not a massive display of bloodspatter and a huge pool of blood. Maybe the body was in the garage for a few moments - if the exchange from the rav4 to something to move the body to the fire happened and some blood dripped there. I really don't know, but I can't just say I think Barb was lying or that brendan was just blowing smoke to his mom -- don't get me wrong, that could be true. It's plausible. But should I just accept that ? nope. make sense ?

Cuffs and leg irons -- again, I don't know that they have anything to do with all this. I think you are right, they were found in the house, but I have seen reports in media that said in burn barrel, however were likely incorrect. I agree with you on that I think that police knew they could be used to sway people, and they are dramatic in nature if presented to a jury. But lets not forget that Steve Avery did make an attempt to abduct someone before the rape case that he was convicted for back in 1985. So that coupled with something used to restrain someone is not "nothing". I can't say they were used, but I know that he used a gun in the past to try to control someone into getting into his car. So let's not get too far away from that unflattering fact and give him too much credit for not being capable of holding someone against their will - whether it's using handcuffs and restraints or not.

Let me ask you clearly here. the burning of the cat. The borderline abduction where he pulled a gun on a relative. -- do you think these are at all reason to at least consider he might have a side to him that is dangerous ?

I am not dismissing either of those situations. He served time for both of those, don't forget it. Yes, he served 18 years, but some of that time was from pulling that gun on someone. Doesn't mean he his guilty, but it does mean that he has done things that are disturbing in nature. Just like Earl, Chuck, and Tadych, we can't dismiss these things from our memory as relevant.

The auto trader thing. I think it just purely shows that he summoned her there and that it's possible that he was deceptive. Someone at auto trader supposedly said she was uncomfortable around him. Neither means he did anything. But again, I'm not making a huge deal out of them, but they are what they are. I think the fact that teresa felt uncomfortable is not nothing. People sometimes feel uncomfortable for good reason. But I think that those that want to just forget the detail exists, maybe aren't open to the idea that it could be a clue. I think it's something to keep in mind, but it's not in itself damning.

Suppose he made an advance on her, and she reacted in a way he didn't like? Does the rage from the borderline abduction surface again ? Violent people can react in violent ways at times. He says in letters to his wife from prison that he will kill her. What do you think of that ? do you think we should just dismiss it as even relevant ? Again.. doesn't mean he'd actually kill someone, but there's many people that would never say something like that. It's called a threat. Should it be dismissed as nothing in your mind ? or seen as a red flag in terms of him potentially being enraged to the point of saying/doing something irrational ?


Me personally, I'm not dismissing any of the negative things about Avery as being irrelevant. It wouldn't be the reason I'd say he's guilty, but it's relevant to the type of person he is and what he could potentially be capable of. Yes, I'm not viewing him as just an average guy. you ?

 

[Fred J Walsh]

Transcript of a phonecall from Brendan Dassey to his Mom, Barb Janda (05-13-06)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ubsv7f29l7j4e1b/dassey_mom_5_13_06.pdf?dl=0

Selections reprinted below:

M. What all happened, what are you talking about?
B. About what Me & Steven did that day,
M. What about it?
B. Well, Mike & Mark & Matt came up one day and took another interview with me and said because they think I was lying but so, they said if I come out with it, that I would have to go to jail for 90 years.
M. What?
B. Ya. But if I came out with it, I would probably get I dunno, about like, 20 or less. After the interview they told me if I wanted to say something to her family and said that I was sorry for what I did.
M. Then Steven did do it.
J. Ya
M. (crying) Why didn't you tell me about this?
B. Ya, but they came out with something that was untrue with me
M. What's that
B. They said that I sold crack.

.
.

M. I don't think so [that you sold crack].
B. No, I didn't, and they asked me if l smoked a cigarette, and I said I did once, but I didn't
like it. Then they said that Travis said that I was always talking about it over by him.

.
.

M. Why did you even go over there Brendan?
B. I dunno, I don't even know how I am gonna do it in court though.
M. What do you mean?
B. I ain't gonna face them.
M. Face who?
B. Steven
M. You know what Brendan
B. What
M. I am gonna tell you something. He did it, and you do what you gotta do. Okay.
B. What will happen if he gets pissed off.
M. What makes a difference, he ain't going no where now, is he?
B. No.

.
.

M. So did you talk to her family?
B. No
M. Huh
B. They just asked me if I wanted to say something to them, on the tape.
M. Did you?
B. Just that I was sorry for what I did.

.
.

M. Did he make you do this?
B. Ya.
M. Then why didn't you tell him that.
B. Tell him what?
M. That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.
B. Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.
M. What do you mean touching you?
B. He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.
M. Brendan I am your mother.
B. Ya.
M. Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?
B. What do you mean?
M. All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.
B. Ya.
M. Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.
B. Ya
M. Yes, and you would still be here with me.
B. Yes, Well you know I did it.
M. Huh
B. You know he always touched us and that.
M. I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.
B. Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.
M. What do you mean.
B. Well he would like fake pumping him
M. Goofing around
B. Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name Jessica's sister.
M. Teresa?
B. Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.
M. Really
B. Ya.
M. Oh, he makes me so sick

.
.

M. How many years are you gonna get?
B. I dunno
M. Well what did you just say to me
B. That they, Teresa's family might ask the judge to be lenient or whatever. They asked me if l wanted to be out to have a family later on.

.
.

M. What about when I got home at 5:00 you were here,
B. Ya
M. Ya. When did you go over there?
B. I went over there earlier and then came home before you did.
M. Why didn't you say something to me then?
B. I dunno, I was too scared.
M. You wouldn't have had to been scared because I would have called 911, and you wouldn't be going back over there. If you would have been here, maybe she would have been alive yet. So in those statements you did all that to her too?
B. Some of it.
M, Did he make you do it?
B. Ya. So whose all home?
M. Just me and Blaine...