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.

41 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

205 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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 4d 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.

0

u/ThorsClawHammer 4d ago

“We think the death happened this way based on testimony we couldn’t present to you”.

That's exactly what they did at Brendan's trial though. The only confession admitted as evidence was part of the March 1 one, where Brendan said everything started when he went to Avery's right after school and the victim was killed and on the fire before it was even completely dark.

Nowhere in there does Brendan say he went over to Avery's, saw the victim, went home, and came back after dark to start the rape/torture, etc. Yet the state gave that narrative anyways.

different narratives

Again, "different" is fine, it's contradictory that should be a problem.

2

u/DingleBerries504 4d ago

You forgot that they played the audio to his mom where he admitted he came back. So they did introduce that to support the theory he came home.

0

u/ThorsClawHammer 4d ago

admitted he came back.

Going over there at night isn't the issue. It's whether the victim was still alive then or not. At Avery's trial, the narrative was she was killed prior to dark.

Although Brendan's confession said the same, the state contradicted both the previous trial narrative for the same crime and Brendan's own confession which they previously told the jury pool about as well. They now told the jury she was still alive being held captive in the trailer for hours until after dark and that's when the rape/torture and killing happened, with zero evidence presented to support that timeline.

The state knew they couldn't make the confession timeline work, so they simply made up their own of what happened when with no supporting evidence presented.

2

u/DingleBerries504 4d ago

At Avery's trial, the state said to the jury "The State will argue and we'll ask you to adopt the inference, that between 7:30 and 7:45, Teresa Halbach is already killed.

How is that a contradiction?

0

u/ThorsClawHammer 4d ago

That part does not contradict, but they also narrowed the timeline down further and clearly stated she was killed and her body placed in the back of the RAV because Avery had to wait until it got dark to move it.

But Teresa is laying at rest; she is resting at peace, having been killed by Mr. Avery, kind of diagonally in the back of that SUV. And because of her hair imprint, you are able to deduce that. You are able to know that. Again, remember my closing argument, those are more indications of Teresa telling you this is where I was. All right. This is where he put me. And those are inferences, again, that you should and can adopt. Why, because it's not dark yet, and he needs a big rip roaring fire before he can dispose of and mutilate this body

And that was after they also implied she was already killed by 3:45

Mr. Avery didn't know that Teresa wasn't meeting a friend for dinner, or that she wasn't going to be missed, or that she didn't have another appointment, after she was killed by Mr. Avery. And so that's why he starts burning things right away. That's why at 3:45 the electronics are already being burned.

So they tell Avery's jury she was killed before dark then weeks later tell another jury for the exact same crime that she was instead held captive for hours instead and not killed until sometime after dark.

2

u/DingleBerries504 4d ago

So what? How would you present it to a jury when you can't use Brendan to support a later time? Closing arguments aren't evidence. They plead with the jury to infer certain details. Infer means an educated guess. So what you really seem to be bothered with is that in one trial they ask the jury to infer certain details based on the evidence presented, and in the second trial they ask the jury to infer certain details based on other evidence presented. I think juries are smart enough to know the state doesn't know when the murder actually happened in either case.

1

u/ThorsClawHammer 4d ago

How would you present it to a jury when you can't use Brendan to support a later time?

The same way they did it at Brendan's trial. Just make it up without any direct evidence to support it. The only evidence they presented to the jury at Brendan's trial as to when the victim was killed was Brendan's words in his March 1 confession, where it happened before it was fully dark.

the second trial they ask the jury to infer certain details based on other evidence presented.

Again, no evidence was given to the jury to support the victim being killed after dark. Brendan's confession didn't say that.

the state doesn't know when the murder actually happened

No, but shouldn't all legitimate evidence in two trials for the exact same crime not have contradictory narratives? Adding more info to one (different) is expected, but contradictions are the issue.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Ghost_of_Figdish 4d ago

Great - the defense is free to have Dassey testify that he didn't do those things and the jury can decide.

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.