There are just so many gaps he fills, just bc he prob thinks he gets watch wrestlemania if he fills them.

Has anyone corroborated the "blue shirt" Brendan said Teresa was wearing? Did anyone else see her before she arrived?

quote:

---

Has anyone corroborated the "blue shirt" Brendan said Teresa was wearing? Did anyone else see her before she arrived?

---

I believe the bus driver and previous clients said she was wearing a white shirt and jeans

quote:

---

I believe the bus driver and previous clients said she was wearing a white shirt and jeans

---

imagine if he would have guessed white.....there are so many of these type of instances that werent covered in the documentary. So im not buying all this BS about it being so one sided regarding EVIDENCE.

Now the defense participated in the program, so obviously there was more content outside of the court from the defense perspective.

Image if the prosecution participated, and everyone got to hear about them talking honestly and frankly about the planting of evidence and how to counter etc. There is no way in hell coverage of behind the scenes talks between cops, witnesses and prosecution would do anything but make this all much much worse for Kratz, law enforcement, and the judicial system.

The on the record crap is so damning agaisnt them all, when they KNEW they were being video taped. Imagine the off the record stuff!

The letter that the filmmakers wrote to Kratz asking him to participate was actually admitted to evidence.

Also Brendan said she was wearing a knee length coat and slacks. Everyone else said white shirt and jeans.

quote:

---

Here is Colborn calling in the plates.

Listen closely to the background right after the dispatcher says "Teresa Halbach" at 58s. I started it at 50s.

It was much clearer to me when I turned it up and put my headphones on than with my computer speakers.

What do you think the person in the background is saying?

---

What did you hear? It was really muffled. I could hear another voice, but I'm not sure what they said.

I have really good headphones, and it sounds sharper on those than my computer speakers. I don't want to post on here, because I want everyone to be able to draw their own conclusions of what they hear.

I tweeted out what I believe is said and Avery's new lawyer liked my tweet.

I'm sure someone will get their hands on the original and have some audio experts have a listen. I'm thinking the audio has probably been degraded a bit from the recording of the recording being recorded and played on youtube.

quote:

---

I have really good headphones, and it sounds sharper on those than my computer speakers. I don't want to post on here, because I want everyone to be able to draw their own conclusions of what they hear.

I tweeted out what I believe is said and Avery's new lawyer liked my tweet.

I'm sure someone will get their hands on the original and have some audio experts have a listen. I'm thinking the audio has probably been degraded a bit from the recording of the recording being recorded and played on youtube.

---

Twitter handle?

Does anyone really believe Brendans version of events?

I do think Brendan knew Steve killed her and saw the body. I do think he helped Steve clean up the murder scene. At his trial Brendan testifies that he helped Steve clean a stain in the garage with bleach, gasoline, and paint thinner. This was the same night as the bonfire. He testified that the burned up all the rags they used to clean the stains with. He also testified that when he got home that night he washed his jeans in the laundry. His jeans only. He testified he didn't know why he did that.

Also in his police interviews, without being prompted about it, he told investigators that Steve took 2 phone calls from Jodi that night. Phone records showed that Jodi called twice, once at 5pm. Not sure how brendan would know jodi called steve at 5pm if he wasn't with him.

But I definitely don't believe it went down the way Brendan was coerced into "admitting." I think his first statement to police was probably the most "accurate." Then they used their police tricks to try to get brendan to corroborate his admission and that's when he started making up all the crazy ****.

Transcripts of brendans trial are online. You can read them and they are pretty interesting. You definitely can see what was left out of the documentary.

Also from the trial transcripts, it is brendan who tells police that Steve lifted the hood of Theresas rav4 to look at the engine (not clear why) and as a result of this claim by brendan, they recheck the car under the hood and find steves DNA. They didn't think to check under the hood until Brendan offered that info.

If steve avery is innocent, he is the unluckiest man I have ever heard of. He just happens to invite his nephew over to clean stains with bleach and ride around picking up tires and furniture to make a big bonfire the same night someone kills a girl that was last heard from headed to his house, and someone else somehow manages to burn her body to ashes and dump those remains a few feet from his house in with the ashes of his bonfire.

It's a travesty that brendan is still in jail for crimes that there is zero evidence he committed (except the BS confession). If he had stuck with his original story and not been bullied by police to cop to some fantasy rape/murder scenario he might have done 5 years max or even walked assuming he testified against Steve.

quote:

---

Here is Colborn calling in the plates.

Listen closely to the background right after the dispatcher says "Teresa Halbach" at 58s. I started it at 50s.

It was much clearer to me when I turned it up and put my headphones on than with my computer speakers.

What do you think the person in the background is saying?

---

Hard to say. Sounded like "it's right here" to me.

quote:

---

But I definitely don't believe it went down the way Brendan was coerced into "admitting." I think his first statement to police was probably the most "accurate."

---

He was definitely and clearly led by police in his first statement. He was saying nothing and he was constantly badgered by Fassbender and Weigert saying they knew he was lying. They also suggested that he saw body parts and that he helped Avery. He was quite clearly coerced into everything he said. No intelligent person that actually reads that transcript can believe he wasn't led into saying what he said.

http://convolutedbrian.com.s3.amazonaws.com/dassey/27Feb2006/MishicotHSTranscript.pdf

quote:

---

Also from the trial transcripts, it is brendan who tells police that Steve lifted the hood of Theresas rav4 to look at the engine (not clear why) and as a result of this claim by brendan, they recheck the car under the hood and find steves DNA. They didn't think to check under the hood until Brendan offered that info.

---

And I know this is what Kratz wants you to believe, but there are big problems with it.

1. Police knew the hood was opened because the battery terminal was disconnected
2. They used the key planted in Avery's bedroom to start the car, so they obviously popped the hood to find the battery disconnected
3. Dassey was coerced into telling them about the hood. And he was so dumb, they had to really lead him on what to say.

FASSBENDER: OK, what else did he do, he did somethin' else, you need to tell us what he did, after that car is parked there. It's extremely important. (pause) Before you guys leave that car.
DASSEY: The he left the gun in the car. [Oops, they knew that didn't happen, so try again]
FASSBENDER: That's not what I'm thinkin' about. He did something to that car. He took the plates and he, I believe he did something else in that car. (pause).
DASSEY: I don't know.
FASSBENDER: OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to the car?
DASSEY: Yeah.
FASSBENDER: What was that? (pause)
WIEGERT: What did he do, Brendan?
WIEGERT: It's OK, what did he do?
FASSBENDER: What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did? (pause)
DASSEY: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.

Dassey didn't just volunteer that Avery went under the hood. He just agreed with the cops's statement.

It was clearly the police that told Brendan about the hood, not the other way around, no matter what that slimeball Kratz wants you to think.

quote:

---

I do think he helped Steve clean up the murder scene. At his trial Brendan testifies that he helped Steve clean a stain in the garage with bleach, gasoline, and paint thinner. This was the same night as the bonfire. He testified that the burned up all the rags they used to clean the stains with.

---

There was deer blood and Avery's DNA all over the garage. There is no way they cleaned it, got every shred of Teresa's DNA out, but left lots of obvious blood stains from deer all over the place. Go look at the pics of that garage, it was clearly not cleaned at all. It certainly wasn't a Dexter murder chamber.

The cleaning aspect is just more coerced police testimony that isn't true.

Not sure how the cleaning part is even up for debate. Brendan testified about it at trial, on direct examination by his defense attorney, no less. Did he decide that he made everything else up except that part?

Brendans mom corroborated the jeans being washed and bleach stains. The bleach stained jeans were offered as evidence.

Brendan described the specific area that was cleaned and the forensics expert that ran the luminol test found a large spot in the same area that reacted with the luminol (bleach reacts with luminol).

No one is claiming they scrubbed the entire garage so not sure why deer blood and Steves DNA being in there has anything to do with it.

It's pretty clear that on October 31, Brendan cleaned something with bleach.

Not sure how any intelligent person can read the trial transcripts and look at the evidence and think that he didn't.

Two kinds of bleach:

Chlorine Bleach and Oxygen Bleach

Chlorine Bleach is the kind that stains clothes and reacts with luminol. It is what most people use. While chlorine destroys most of the DNA in blood stains, hemoglobin is not affected by it and DNA can still be recovered from the hemoglobin. But they couldn't recover her DNA from the areas.

Brendan said in his direct examination at trial:

• Q: What did that, uh -- you said it -- something to clean up. What did the -- what was the something? Do you know? What did it look like?
• A: Looked like some fluid from a car.
• Q: So what did you do to clean up? Or how did you clean up the the mess on the floor?
• A: We used gas, paint thinner and bleach

I'm guessing that even though he is really, really dumb, he knows the difference between oil and blood.

The police then testified that they used phenolphthalein, which did not detect any hemoglobin in the cleaned areas. Would gasoline or paint thinner destroy hemoglobin?

That police testimony was on day 2 of Brendan's trial. Specifically, John Ertl is the one that did that testing of the garage. Transcript of Day 2 (almost 300 pages) https://www.dropbox.com/s/s4jyyith9lwpstx/dassey_4_17_07.pdf?dl=0

I still put 0% confidence in anything Brendan said in his interrogations. I will agree with you that because he said it on the stand, it is much more likely to be true.

Very good point

quote:

---

And if he cleaned something with bleach, if he'd even SWEPT that garage, it would have stuck out like a sore thumb. I've not seen any pictures of the garage that showed a cleaned spot.

I still can't get over that Kachinsky letter to the prosecutor. If you think a plea bargain is in your client's best interest because the judge denied his attempt to get confession 1 thrown out, then you make sure that you get something in return for that plea bargain. You negotiate to get a reduced sentence for flipping on Steven. Len put in writing that he knew that the prosecution wasn't offering anything, but go ahead and interview him tomorrow without his attorney or his mom. If you need help, talk to my investigator who bullied a story out of him. He sent a 16 year old in to be interrogated without a lawyer or a plea deal! That guy should be disbarred.

---

And now he is a judge

That is scary.... A judge

Where is Kachinsky a judge?

quote:

---

Where is Kachinsky a judge?

---

And how is he still even barred after this?

I'm guessing the state of Wisconsin has a different set of rules for their attorneys and judges than the rest of the country.

Just finished the series. Will try to hit on a couple of things *hopefully* not mentioned here already --

I think at the end what struck me the most about this documentary is just how screwed over someone could be by court proceedings (pretrial motions and hearings, etc). The Steven Avery trail really had the cards stacked against them before the real trial even began.

Also evidence that was allowed in the trail that was highly questionable --

• Bobby Dassey's testimony that did not align with previously given statements
• DNA Lab Tech's results on the garage bullet. I work with DNA/RNA all the time that I submit for sequencing. In my experience, it is not as easy to contaminate samples as she states just from "talking". How that evidence is allowed is beyond me and seems to be a key piece of evidence
• EDTA testing. I would personally really like to know what kind of controls were used for that testing and if they tested detectible limits of their assay and how that compares to the actual concentration of EDTA expected in the blood samples. Also the ability to say the three other vials that were not tested could not have contained EDTA

It blows my mind that this evidence was allowed at all and could not be debated after the fact in terms of appeals/mistrials/allowance of new trails.

Of course the other part of the documentary that really gets me is the whole Brendan Dassey situation and how he was not given another trail when it was very clear Kachinsky and his investigator were against him and his wishes. If that isn't enough, what really is?

In the end this is a hard truth about valuing convictions over justice, and we as a society live with it.

In the terms of "did he do it", I tend to follow Occam's razor and believe he did. I would like to think that Bobby Dassey/Scott T might be the real killers and were cleaver enough to frame Steven, along with the cops. But that is a lot of assumptions I'm not comfortable with. However if I was a juror in Steven's trail, I would like to think I would have voted not guilty since the timeline of the murder is not clear (especially with the Bobby/Scott testimony), murder scene is not clear (garage evidence is weak), and murder weapon as well as motive are never really mentioned, at least in the documentary. The .22 rifle and apparent obsession with Teresa mentioned in this thread are conveniently left out. Still, most evidence seems circumstantial while the harder evidence (DNA, etc.) is clouded with doubt. The whole thing doesn't push me "beyond a reasonable doubt", at least while sitting on my couch.

The one thing that doesn't make sense to me that I don't think has been discussed is the bone fragments found in the Jonda (spelling) burn barrel. Where those ever officially connected to Teresa? If so, I think that opens a whole new area of speculation.

quote:

---

• Bobby Dassey's testimony that did not align with previously given statements

---

I don't think that was allowed into Avery's evidence. Dassey did not testify because he would have been the worst witness ever. So Kratz read it publicly so he could get it into the mind of the jury without allowing the defense to cross examine it.

• 
  

  quote:

  ---

  EDTA testing. I would personally really like to know what kind of controls were used for that testing and if they tested detectible limits of their assay and how that compares to the actual concentration of EDTA expected in the blood samples. Also the ability to say the three other vials that were not tested could not have contained EDTA

  ---

The fact that that has only been allowed in one trial over the objections of the defense should tell you enough about it.

quote:

---

Of course the other part of the documentary that really gets me is the whole Brendan Dassey situation and how he was not given another trail when it was very clear Kachinsky and his investigator were against him and his wishes. If that isn't enough, what really is?

---

It should be noted that Kachinsky was removed from the public defender's list because of his terrible defense of Brendan, yet they allowed all of Brendan's confessions while Kachinsky was his attorney into evidence. I don't know how they can justify that. The cops literally pulled Brendan out of special education classes and then interrogated him without a parent or an attorney. Those cops should be in jail.

quote:

---

The .22 rifle

---

The bullet found could not be traced to that gun only. It could only be found that that bullet was fired from a gun like that. No guns could be eliminated from that. They don't have a solid read on exactly how the murder went down and since there was no evidence that could tie the bullet to that gun and only that gun, it was pretty weak evidence.

quote:

---

apparent obsession with Teresa mentioned in this thread are conveniently left out.

---

Hiring her to shoot cars for ads really indicative of an obsession. The man owns a junkyard and probably sold lots of cars or parts on things like autotrader. Calling her twice when she is 30 minutes late for an appointment doesn't show obsession. She apparently wasn't worried about going to the Avery Junkyard on the day of her murder as she willingly chose to do so, even after he talked to Avery twice. Also, Avery had her cell number and had called her before, but instead of calling her directly, he still called the main office to schedule her. If he was planning to kill her, why not call her directly rather than let a third party know you wanted her to come to your place?

quote:

---

The one thing that doesn't make sense to me that I don't think has been discussed is the bone fragments found in the Jonda (spelling) burn barrel. Where those ever officially connected to Teresa? If so, I think that opens a whole new area of speculation.

---

I believe they were. The pelvis bones found in the quarry are thought to be hers, but are not conclusive. They have the same amount of burning as the bones in the Janda barrel and the Avery burn pit. The Janda barrel bones were from all over her body, so it wasn't just an arm or leg cut up and thrown in.

dp

http://m.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/

Anyone read all these rebuttals on each episode? I just got this from a friend via Facebook and have not had a chance to read. So far the only thing people claim to be "missing" is stuff regurgitated from Kratz.

quote:

---

Didn't realize we had this many detectives on texags .... only took 10 hrs of watching Netflix on the couch. ****er is guilty. Boy had something to do with it.

---

How can you not be sure Adnan and Jay weren't involved?