Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by CarmelEyesD, Dec 19, 2015.
I have done one
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.
When I read through it especially the first one, and keeping in mind his learning/comprehension disabilities, I notice that when they asked a question and said "No, Yes or No" he usually answered no. When they asked a question and said "Yes or No" he would answer Yes.
Keeping in mind that he may have a form of autism but definitely a low mental capacity, it is very easy for him to be led to say things and try to guess answers that would be appeasing to those in authority. (This is my opinion from experience with Mentally handicap individuals)
Please note I do not have an opinion if they are guilty or innocent but I will say from what I have read in the media from that time and this documentary, I have doubts on both side. Also I do not believe Brendan had a fair trial.
SA used his sister's name when calling Theresa because SA was selling the car for his sister...the car belonged to SA's sister.
I am also curious about the restraints, but as far as I can tell, there was never any mention of the restraints again. They were not introduced at trial, and no one mentioned them. The party swearing out the complaint saying that he/she "was informed" by someone that SA bought restraints a few weeks prior. This would be hearsay, and not admissible evidence and unreliable.
Ok everyone. I am about 3/4 of the way through the interview ont 3/1/2006 and I have to say, I'm not feeling like they are feeding him details as what to say. He has offered details up to this point , just by them merely saying they already know and ensuring him it's ok to say. They aren't suggesting and feeding him details. It doesn't feel like bullying or coercion to me, and it doesn't feel like he is making things up just to satisfy them.
The excerpts I saw in the documentary , I am going to guess are from much later in this interview. But so far, I am not getting the vibe that they are pushing him towards a given narrative. Also, there is mention that they already knew about blood in the garage - possibly due to Barb Janda telling them about Brendan saying he was helping clean the garage -- possibly noting that it was blood. They clearly state that HE had said he thought it was blood. So, did he tell his mother that ?
Also, we know from Tadych's coworker that one of the boys had blood on his pants and that was mixed in with his laundry.
I keep waiting for the moment I will feel outraged, based on what I have seen in the documentary. Haven't gotten there yet, because right now, I am believing what he is saying. Which supports my thoughts that I couldn't get past the fact that brendan had bleach on his pants and what his mother was told when questioning him.
Starting to feel more and more manipulated by that documentary , as we possibly were shown brendan after many hours of interviewing as opposed to the first hour where he is pretty responsive and there is very little urging to get him to explain further.
I would just ask that you actually watch the video of the 2nd interview on 2/27/06. He seems more comfortable than I imagine he was based on his lack of answers in the first interview. I feel really bad for this kid, but i'm 3/4 the way through part 1 of his 3/1/2006 interview and I'm not sensing that he is lying or guessing. Definitely watch.
In the documentary, I was certain he was being coerced, but now I'm wondering if maybe there was a point where they weren't getting to what they wanted and that's when the coercion began. Meaning they had a narrative they were gunning for, but that just wasn't truth. So they became more aggressive and took advantage of him to get it.
I think you have to watch these videos in order to get a feel for what I am talking about. So far, I'm not sensing coercion as brendan is giving details that still match what his mother said -- he was helping steven clean the garage. So, I feel as if I am hearing a good amount of truth so far.
One thing that got noted in this current video is that brendan notes the reason that Steve is angry is that she wouldn't list a certain car that he had or something of that nature. Never remember that being noted before. I'll admit it doesn't seem like a great motive to kill someone, but if brendan is truthful and this is the first point he sees the body, then steven might not give the "Real" reaoson, but rather one that he thinks is more appropriate for this kid. Just speculation.
Also, the reason I am still believing this, has to do with Kayla telling a counselor at her school that brendan was upset about having helped someone move a dead body. I know that she recanted etc etc. But am I the only one that kind of believes that she was likely telling the truth ? Brendan admits early on in the 1st and 2nd interview that he indeed was having trouble sleeping and had been thinking about what he witnessed.
Gonna keep watching, but at the moment, I find this still convincing evidence. It doesn't feel coerced to the level of the video I saw in the documentary. we'll see how I feel when I get there.
The links are in this thread, canadianwhitedove has posted links to all of them on post 276.
I get the feeling we are all placing too much weight on how brendan said she was killed and where. So far in the early interviews the consistent factor is she is already dead in the car with a stab wound to the stomach. No mention of gunshot, so in that case you'd be right in theorizing she was shot in head elsewhere. He notes there is blood on the ground just droplets, that would seem to be from Steve since he observes his hand is cut. But they have not moved the body from the vehicle just yet. Will see how this progresses.
I feel documentary did a disservice by not showing the progression of these interviews. I don't feel as if he is as slow at the moment as I did from the video in the documentary. My mind may change.
Ok i'm on the 3/1/2006 interview and Brendan mentions that he was on his bike and went to steve's to pick up mail. heard screaming. They did NOT feed that to him, he brought it up. Next he says that he went back to his house and put the bike in the garage there. He says "Brian" was working on his car. who is brian ? anyone know ? He asks brian if he needs help with his car, and he says no, but that he'd let him know if he did.
Brian should be able to verify that interaction. right ? Which would support what brendan is saying up to that point. He says brian didn't hear the screaming because the radio was on in the garage, and he didn't tell brian that he heard screams.
After that his mother comes home at 4:30/5:00 and she asks if anybody got the mail and he said he did. So that should be verifiable by barb. right ?
Then he says that steven comes over to the house to ask him for help in his garage.
Now, this is making more sense to me. I see how the police got to the narrative of brendan knowing more, it wasn't pushing this narrative, it just progressed to this. At this point they question why steven would come to the house, and if it was possible that steven knew he had heard the screams. They didn't feed the screams part to Brendan.
Would Theresa's DNA not be on the handcuffs and leg irons, if they were used by Steven to restrain her?
I am having a hard time remembering the confession they got from Dassey - was it even true? I'm talking about the garage and the rape and all of that. What was his final confession that they went with?
I guess I'm just trying to figure out if the confession they even got from him was consistent enough with the evidence they used in the trial. I mean in that PR stunt they talked about the rape and all of that but did they even mention Dassey doing that in the trial?
Ugh.. ok, starting to believe that brendans whole account is truth. Sorry, hurts to even believe this.
They didn't offer up the handcuffs and feed that to him, that came out of his mouth. I know that it was likely reported they existed back in november, but for him to put together this story the way I am hearing it. I'm buying it. Sorry, so far they haven't been feeding him anything, just following his story and asking him to clarify when something doesn't make sense.
Yes, if he just said he heard screams and steven comes over, that would lead you to question if steven thought he saw/heard something.
so that leads to brendan then saying, ok, there was a piece of mail for steve in the mailbox -- again, they didn't suggest that!
So then he says he knocked on the door and when he gets in there, he sees teresa in the bedroom through the open door.
watch the videos in order - https://www.youtube.com/user/imAbNorMalsometime/videos
also read the transcript from the first interview we don't have a video of. Transcripts for all are here :
High School Interview: http://docdro.id/2KmgtSR
February 27th, Two Rivers PD: http://docdro.id/80khPqQ
March 1, 2006: http://docdro.id/nNl5HMA
March 1, 2006: http://docdro.id/ZSo3Oc1
May 13, 2006: http://docdro.id/rRe12qJ
But I encourage you to watch them, so you can get an idea of the progression and brendans demeanor.
I'm working thru the transcripts and will probably be done later tonight
Any sort of leading questions are something you want to be wary of, especially since Brendan is someone with a lower IQ, not to mention a minor. In a situation where they are sensing they might be in trouble, they may to start looking for ways to get out of it, one by telling you what they think you want to here. You don't want to be asking questions that he could answer with Yes or No. One question I saw specifically that was concerning was when asking if he saw any clothes- yes, and then following up with was their blood on the shirt, with the other agent repeating something like help yourself out tell us the truth we already know the answer. Brenden finally responds with a little bit. At this point, however they have given him the impression they know there is blood on the shirt, and he wants to help himself, so he tells them what he thinks they already know. A better question would be "what did the shirt look like" so he is the one to mention the blood, not LE. Again, not all leading questions are bad, but it's always better to let the person being interviewed do the talking, so they give you something you can work with and corroborate.
I don't know which transcript the officer makes the comment about her being shot in after getting exasperated with Brenden not giving them the answer they wanted, and that was a huge loss, as they lost a great opportunity to corroborate a cause of death. He clearly had no idea how she died and was just trying to tell them what they wanted to here. That was shown clearly in the documentary.
The problem with Brendan's confessions were not so much the line of questioning, but the age and mental disabilities. An adult with a normal IQ should have been able to realize the gravity of the situation they are in and ask for an attorney, or that anything they said would be used against them. A minor with a low IQ doesn't, so interrogations with them need to be done carefully so as to insure you are getting correct information. False confessions help no one
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, I just noticed something really suspicious about these videos in 2 places and maybe more, I'd have to check.
Watch this video [video=youtube;7t_1rOjtxpA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t_1rOjtxpA[/video]
and go to the time stamp time of 11:45:17 -- it then jumps all the way to 11:45:26 after they ask the question "did you screw her ?"
Then again at 11:45:39 it jumps to 11:46:00 after he asks - "did he watch ?"
Then again.... shortly after that.
ugh :/ Wonder if anyone has noticed this, I would sure hope so. What is said during those pauses is important. If you just watch and don't look at that timestamp, you won't even notice it.
Does anyone know if they purposefully would edit these just because it was dead time ? If not, very suspicious.
A huge gap from 11:46:42 , all the way to 12:24:18
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 hear what you are saying and I am trying to take that into account. Anyone else watching the videos, let me know what you think. Also, I think it's important to watch the video because how the interviewers talk is important as well. The videos I saw in the documentary came across as bullying. To this point, I haven't seen anything like that. From the documentary I got the impression that the defense felt that brendan was being fed things he repeated. I'm not seeing/hearing that.
Maybe someone with expertise on the leading questions topic can point out the parts that are troubling and why. But so far as someone ignorant of finer details of coercion I'm not personally seeing how they are coercing him, but they are just following the path that he is taking them on. If something doesn't make sense, they ask. I have to say, i'd likely ask the same questions in hearing some of what he says.
But am open to hearing other people's opinions on specific parts, I am definitely saying that I am no expert on the subject. ignorant possibly