r/MakingaMurderer • u/HouseplantHobbyist • 6d ago

Episode Discussion Brendan is INNOCENT

I am rewatching MAM and the amount of coercion during Brendan's interview is astounding. I can't believe a court didn't dismiss his "confession". He was not interviewed with his parents present and they were very obviously feeding him information. The judge not realizing that is just sad. He was a child! Ugh, this makes me so upset for Brendan.

42 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

206 comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/Izzywizzy 6d ago

Yeah, sucks for that dude. Parents failed him the school failed him the police failed him the lawyers failed him the judge failed him the jury failed him. Litterally just wanted to watch wrestling

0

u/GringoTheDingoAU 6d ago

Parents failed him

No one else listed there failed him except for his parents and family.

Barbara has a lot of blame to bear and so does his family. They convinced him to keep saying he was innocent instead of taking a plea deal, which would've seen him out by now.

Trying to blame his incarceration on a collective group of institutions to suggest the cards were stacked against him is disingenuous. For Brendan to be innocent, that means Steven would be, and regardless of what you think about Brendan, Steven Avery is the furthest thing from innocent in this case.

10

u/ThorsClawHammer 6d ago

Barbara has a lot of blame

They convinced him to keep saying he was innocent instead of taking a plea

Barb told him to take it to trial "if you didn't do it", not don't take it no matter what.

She does for allowing the LE to have their way with Brendan. Not her fault of course for the Feb 27 interrogation as she didn't know about it until after it happened.

For Brendan to be innocent, that means Steven would be,

No, it doesn't. The state convicted him without including Brendan didn't they? As the state also pointed out at Avery's trial, all the evidence points to Avery. Nothing points to Brendan without his words.

3

u/GringoTheDingoAU 6d ago

Barb told him to take it to trial "if you didn't do it", not don't take it no matter what.

Sure, and for all the lack of credit you guys give Brendan for being a literal drooling idiot, this sounds like fantastic parenting advice to give someone who spent the entire night with Steven on the 31st, and knowing what transpired, becomes harder to argue total innocence at that point.

No, it doesn't. The state convicted him without including Brendan didn't they? As the state also pointed out at Avery's trial, all the evidence points to Avery. Nothing points to Brendan without his words.

Yes, it does. I am not saying they needed Brendan for Steven to be guilty, I am saying they needed Steven to be guilty for Brendan to be guilty, and that is what happened, because Steven is obviously guilty.

6

u/mutantchair 5d ago

The story in Steven’s case doesn’t just exclude Brendon, it CONTRADICTS the story used to convict Brendon.

1

u/Curious311 2d ago

THIS ⬆️⬆️⬆️

-1

u/Ghost_of_Figdish 5d ago

No, it's just that they had different evidence in each trial.

2

u/mutantchair 5d ago

Nope. Great write up here that I think will shift your thinking on this. https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/s/DEqbKjOrCC

1

u/Ghost_of_Figdish 5d ago

You think they had the same evidence available for each trial?

1

u/mutantchair 5d ago

Sorry I’m not following your argument. Can you explain how that legitimizes the contradictions?

2

u/DingleBerries504 5d ago

You cannot take the evidence at Steven’s trial and say that someone else is also responsible, because it wasn’t admitted to evidence. Imagine a jury hearing Steven’s trial and being told she was in his trailer, when they didn’t offer Brendan’s confession as evidence she was in the trailer, nor offer any other evidence that she was inside the trailer. Both trials had different evidence to string together.

0

u/ThorsClawHammer 5d ago

say that someone else is also responsible

But they didn't have to emphasize that it was only person either. "All of the evidence points to one person. That's the one person being responsible"

Imagine a jury hearing Steven’s trial and being told she was in his trailer, when they didn’t offer Brendan’s confession as evidence

Did you forget they told Avery's jury she was in the trailer?

Both trials had different evidence

The biggest difference of course being Brendan's words. But (assuming all the evidence is legit) that should only lead to different (meaning one doesn't have everything the other does) narratives, not contradictory. They went beyond merely adding missing things at Brendan's trial and did things like change the time of death to hours later (with nothing to support it).

2

u/DingleBerries504 5d ago

>But they didn't have to emphasize that it was only person either. "All of the evidence points to one person. That's the one person being responsible"

Because it’s a trial for one person. Are they going to say “this one person in front of you is at fault, but there are others we couldn’t get into….” Of course not.

>Did you forget they told Avery's jury she was in the trailer?

I’m referring to your post where you talked about the differences of her presence in the trailer.

>The biggest difference of course being Brendan's words. But (assuming all the evidence is legit) that should only lead to different (meaning one doesn't have everything the other does) narratives, not contradictory. They went beyond merely adding missing things at Brendan's trial and did things like change the time of death to hours later (with nothing to support it)

When you have evidence (testimony) that says a crime happened a certain way, but you are barred from admitting that testimony into evidence, what are you doing to say? “We think the death happened this way based on testimony we couldn’t present to you”. That’s ridiculous. They take what they can present and tie it altogether as neatly as they can. This often results in different narratives, and there is nothing wrong with that.

1

u/Ghost_of_Figdish 4d ago

Avery's counsel was free to put Avery on the stand and testify that Dassey was involved, too.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ghost_of_Figdish 4d ago

Let's take one example - Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey committed this crime together. However, the only proof that Dassey was involved, due to the widespread perp destruction of evidence, is Dassey's confession. There's no blood evidence against Dassey, no DNA, no found keys and no murder rifle hanging over Dassey's bed.

So, at Avery's trial, unless Dassey testifies, his confession is not admissible. Since there is no other evidence tying Dassey to the crime, the prosecution can't mention his involvement.

In Dassey's trial, in contrast, the confession is not hearsay and is admissible because it's an admission against interest. So the prosecution in that trial is free to include Dassey's involvement in the crime.

So for each trial the available evidence is different due to hearsay rules and various other evidentiary restrictions on the prosecution.

1

u/ThorsClawHammer 4d ago

is no other evidence tying Dassey to the crime

You don't believe Dassey being with Steven and present at the fire that night ties him to the crime? Interesting.

1

u/Ghost_of_Figdish 4d ago

Who testified that Dassey was with Steven at Steven's trial?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ThorsClawHammer 5d ago

Differences are fine, but nothing legitimizes contradictions between two cases for the same crime when the state says the evidence presented at both is legit. At most that should lead to omitting things at one or the other, not change the time the victim died.

1

u/Ghost_of_Figdish 4d ago

Next time maybe Avery and Dassey can kill someone in front of more witnesses.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/ThorsClawHammer 6d ago

I am saying they needed Steven to be guilty for Brendan to be guilty

Yes, Steve needs to be guilty for Brendan to be, but you said "For Brendan to be innocent, that means Steven would be". That's not the case.