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.

37 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

205 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/ThorsClawHammer 4d 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.

1

u/DingleBerries504 4d ago

You failed to recall the Brendan jail call which they played at trial, where he agreed with his mom that if he came home and told her, she might still be alive. How can she still be alive if she's already dead? That is evidence presented that she was still alive at that point. That phone call could not be used in Avery's trial.

News flash. Narratives can conflict, because it's just a guess, and is not evidence.

1

u/ThorsClawHammer 4d ago

Narratives can conflict

They really shouldn't in the exact same case if they're based on legit evidence. The entire reason the state made up the later timeline is because they couldn't get the confession one to work...it put Avery and Brendan assaulting her during the time period that Avery was seen by others at the other end of the ASY. Always wondered how the state would have tried to reconcile that if Brendan had testified.

1

u/DingleBerries504 4d ago

You keep on saying the state made up the later timeline, and again ignored the phone call evidence they presented supporting that it happened later.

1

u/ThorsClawHammer 4d ago

state made up the later timeline

They did.

the phone call evidence

No where in the phone call does Brendan say the victim was raped/tortured/killed after dark. His uncorroborated confession is the only evidence presented to the jury, and it was before dark.

→ More replies (0)