It's pretty clear Brendan doesn't know what happened to Teresa.

In the Nov 6th interview Brendan still thinks she is alive!

But Brendan does seem to remember the plot to 'Kiss The Girls'.

All I heard was "We know you are lying 50 times" countered by few times, "Now that is the truth". It was a multiple choice test with four answers for every question and he scored 25%. Police drop 75% of questions he got wrong and BD scores a perfect 100%. Only choices became a) sorry for scoring 100% or b) not sorry for scoring 100%.

I suppose they tried this 'reverse psychology' on Gregory Allen in the 1985 case.

ALLEN: I did it - I raped this woman and beat her to death.

WIEGERT: Hold on there. We know Steven Avery is pressuring you to say that.

FASSBENDER: Give yourself a break. We'll be on your side if you tell the truth. It's just that we can tell you are lying.

WIEGERT: We can tell...

ALLEN: No, man. Really. I caught up with this lady and raped her right up on the beach.

FASSBENDER: Don't lie to us. Now it will go better for you if you would just tell us the truth.

WIEGERT: All we want is the truth, Greg. Come on, son. You know we're on your side. Just tell us what happened. We'll know if you are lying because we know what happened.

FASSBENDER: We know what happened, we just need you to say it in your own words.

ALLEN: You know I raped her?

FASSBENDER: We know someone is pressuring you to lie. Don't lie to us. It's not your fault. Now tell the truth.

WIEGERT: It's not your fault if someone told you what to say.

ALLEN: So I didn't...?

WIEGERT: That's right, now we can believe you.

FASSBENDER: You are doing good, you can get this off your chest.

ALLEN: (indistinct)

FASSBENDER: No, you were on the right track for a minute, don't go back now.

WIEGERT: We know you didn't do it, so don't lie to us no more.

ALLEN: I don't know...

WIEGERT: You do know - and we know. You weren't there - you were somewhere else. Where do you think you were when this happened?

ALLEN: I might have dreamed it...

WIEGERT: Yes, you might have dreamed it. Or maybe someone told you what to say, told you to lie to us. So he could get away. You know who we're talking about.

FASSBENDER: Just tell us the truth - who told you to confess?

ALLEN: But I did it, no one told me what to say.

FASSBENDER: We can't help you if you keep lying - tell us the truth. We know someone told you to confess and cover for him. We're not going to stop until you tell us.

ALLEN: My Mom?

WIEGERT: You know that's not who it was. Tell us the truth.

ALLEN: (mumbles)

FASSBENDER: No, it wasn't Jesus. But you're on the right track. A guy with a beard wasn't it? Didn't the man who told you about the rape have a beard?

ALLEN: He had a beard?

FASSBENDER: Yes, it was a beard. What else? was he tall or short? Was he short? Can you tell us if the guy with a beard was short? Because if he was short we'll know you are telling the truth.

ALLEN: He could have been short...

WIEGERT: Now you're talking! So you remember it was a short guy with a beard who told you about how he raped this woman and beat her. And he told you to confess so he could get away. Do you remember his name? Did he tell you his name?

ALLEN: I don't remember...

FASSBENDER: You remember his first name, don't you?

ALLEN: No.

FASSBENDER: Stop lying to us. You were doing so good and now you're lying again - you know his name. It started with the letter 'S' didn't it?

ALLEN: It could have been 'S'.

WIEGERT: Good. Now you are telling us the short guy with a beard has a first name that starts with an 'S'. Can you tell us more?

FASSBENDER: You didn't call him 'S' - his name had more letters, didn't it.

ALLEN: I guess...

FASSBENDER: You're stalling. You are afraid of Steven, aren't you? He threatened you, didn't he?

ALLEN: I don't even...

WIEGERT: That's right, it started with an 'S' and rhymes with 'even' - tell us now. What was his name?

ALLEN: What?

WIEGERT: OK, I'm just going to come out and say it: it was Steven Avery, wasn't it?

FASSBENDER: Why didn't you just tell us this before?

ALLEN: Because I couldn't think of it?

FASSBENDER: Look, we are on your side. Obviously you are scared of Steven because of what he did, and what he told you to do. But we can help you if you would just tell us the truth. We know what happened, and you had nothing to do with hurting that lady. She's in the hospital and she's going to be OK...

ALLEN: I thought I killed the *****!

WIEGERT: No, it was Steven Avery who beat her up.

FASSBENDER: ...and raped her just like you described, Greg.

ALLEN: What's going to happen when this Steve Avery guy denies this and that lady IDs me?

FASSBENDER: We got all that covered. Right now we just need you to tell the truth - the real truth because we know what happened. You were somewhere else, like at the Dairy Queen when this lady got assaulted. Steven found you and told you what he did. Then he threatened you that if you didn't confess he'd kill you didn't he?

ALLEN: Who did what now?

WIEGERT: We know what happened, we just need you to tell the truth. We know you're scared of Steven, but we're going to protect you.

ALLEN: Who is this guy?

FASSBENDER: Don't try to back out now - you identified him, described him and even gave us his name. You just tell the truth like you did just now and we'll make sure you can go on with your life.

WIEGERT: We are looking out for you, we just need you to tell the truth and stop lying about being involved in this crime.

FASSBENDER: The sooner you just admit that Steven Avery committed this crime, the sooner we're going to let you go on your way.

ALLEN: You'll let me go?

WIEGERT: Like I said, we are on your side. We are behind you. We know what happened, and we'll know if you are telling the truth or not. Just tell the truth...

ALLEN: ...about this guy?

FASSBENDER: Begins with an 'S'...

ALLEN: Steven?

FASSBENDER: That's right - you named him!

ALLEN: Steven is the guy with a beard?

WIEGERT: That's what you already said, just keep on telling us the truth.

ALLEN: This big guy Steven told me what he did...

WIEGERT: Don't start lying now.

FASSBENDER: You already told us, he wasn't big he was...

ALLEN: Little?

WIEGERT: Yes, that is the truth: Steven Avery is a little guy. Now come on, we'd never be able to solve this case without you sticking to the truth. We know what happened, we just need you to say it in your own words.

FASSBENDER: We will be on your side if you just tell us what we know happened.

WIEGERT: Just tell us what we say happened.

ALLEN: This little guy, Steve, told me I should confess to raping this lady?

WIEGERT: Think of her family. They want the guy who did this, they want Steven Avery put away.

ALLEN: Who is this guy?

FASSBENDER: Never mind - just stick with the facts. Steven Avery approached you at the Dairy Queen and told you what to say.

ALLEN: Dairy Queen? I never been there - I'm lactose intolerant.

WIEGERT: You said Dairy Queen earlier - are you going back on us? Are you going to start lying now after you've been doing so good?

FASSBENDER: Don't go back on us. You better tell us how Avery threatened you or we'll have to cut you loose. Then you could end up spending a long time in jail.

WIEGERT: A long time, believe you me!

FASSBENDER: So where did this take place?

ALLEN: At a Dairy Queen?

FASSBENDER: ..and who was it?

ALLEN: Steven Amory?

WIEGERT: Avery.

ALLEN: Steven Avery came up on me at a Dairy Queen, and he told me about how he raped and killed this ***** at the beach...

FASSBENDER: Don't forget, she's probably going to pull through.

Allen: That's a surprise because I really lit into her.

WIEGERT: Avery did - he's the one that beat her. So he threatened you, didn't he? Steven Avery threatened your life.

ALLEN: So he, uh, told me what he done and then he threatened me. How did he threaten me if he was a little guy?

FASSBENDER: Did he have a knife, or a gun?

WIEGERT: It makes sense if he had a knife.

ALLEEN: Yeah, could have had a knife...

WIEGERT: So he did have a knife?

ALLEN: Could have had a knife, I guess.

FASSBENDER: You guess or you know? You wouldn't be threatened if you just guessed someone had a knife, he'd have to show you, right? Avery showed you a knife, didn't he?

WIEGERT: In your own words now, we don't want to put words in your mouth.

FASSBENDER: Just tell us the truth. We know what happened. Steven Avery pulled a knife on you, didn't he? Avery made you confess because you were scared of him. Scared of what he did. It's not your fault. But now we are getting so close to the truth. I'm really proud of you - at first you lied, but now we are getting the truth. Steven Avery attacked this woman and told you the details. Then he pulled a knife on you and told you what to say. Didn't he? Tell us the truth. Avery threatened you with a knife.

ALLEN: Yeah, it must have been a knife.

WIEGERT: Now you need to put it all together. The whole truth about Avery, the knife, and everything. In your own words. Tell us the truth.

Allen: Steven Amory told me he raped this lady and beat her up. Then he met me at the Burger King...

FASSBENDER: Was it Burger King or Dairy Queen? Think real hard - we want the truth. You said Dairy Queen before, didn't you?

ALLEN: I think so...

FASSBENDER: So Avery caught up with you at the Dairy Queen? Is that the truth?

ALLEN: I guess.

WIEGERT: You guess? Come on, Greg. We are on your side! Just tell us what you know. You said Dairy Queen before.

ALLEN: It must have been the Dairy Queen.

WIEGERT: So put it all together - just the truth.

FASSBENDER: The sooner you tell us the truth, and we know what happened so we'll know if you try to lie to cover up for Steven Avery. Just tell us the truth about Steven and we will let you go.

ALLEN: Avery came up to me at the Dairy Queen, he told me what he done. Then he pulled a knife on me and said if I didn't tell the cops I done it that he's going to stab me.

FASSBENDER: He would stab you?

ALLEN: Yeah, with the knife.

WIEGERT: That's how we know you are telling the truth - you told us another detail we can confirm. If you said he threatened to shoot you with the knife we'd know you were a liar.

ALLEN: How's anybody gonna shoot off a knife?

WIEGERT: Exactly!

FASSBENDER: I think we have enough. Now don't you go back sliding on us!

WIEGERT: We are going to let you go because you told the truth. But don't you come back telling lies about how you raped this lady. We know the truth now. You told us what we know is the truth. The truth is it wasn't you - we knew that all along, we just needed you to tell us in your own words.

ALLEN: Cause I didn't do it?

FASSBENDER: You didn't do anything. We got to the truth that we already knew before we talked to you.

WIEGERT: Now you get along, now. Don't go making any trouble for yourself telling folks that story you came to us with. Don't make us tell everyone what a liar you are. Just keep on telling the truth like you did with us just now.

^^ Amazing

Wowser. That nailed it very well. They have their roles down to a science. Can you imagine what it was like before there was videotape? They would just write down the subject confessed.

Wasn't force fed so it's all good.

Yet can't specify objectively with validity how trials were unfair, they just cite stuff they personally disagree with, such as you with the press conference, so again it's all good.

Irrelevant argument. All that's relevant is if there's evidence of prosecutor misconduct at either trial. There isn't. That's it.

Stay classy. It's all about the injustice with you murderer groupies isn't it? And not because many of you are just plain nasty pieces of work...

No I mean compelling in general seeing as poor innocent Brendan's fate rests on whichever argument is accepted.

It was a genuinely honest question to which again your unwillingness/inability to address is duly noted with an utter lack of surprise.

Says the guy who dishonestly claims there's no evidence against Dassey other than his confession & keeps raisingvarious bars for his special little guy such as whinging over prosecution changing their narratives despite this being allowed by courts? Lol. Methinks doth project too much...


Such as the primary sources. As opposed to you who's apparently going by a netflix doc and who actually said earlier on itt that you couldn't be bothered "wading" through transcripts.

And I'm just as comfortable dismissing your empty bluster & whinging ad hominem attacks for the hot air noise that they are.

Except there isn't as the en banc review has been granted meaning that as of now both Duffin & Rovner are vacated until en banc reaches its decision which is why it's rather pertinent you opine whose argument is more compelling & more on point re the law, which as a lawyer you should be all too willing to address. That you're unwilling or unable to speaks volumes on the inherent weakness of your case.

Again they're vacated. Try to keep up.

Nope. Regarding another case I never accepted the Hellman appellate court's reasoning & don't accept the Marasca-Bruno reports reasoning even if forced to accept their illegal verdict.
Nor did I agree with the court's decree that those girls in the slenderman case should be tried as adults.
Nor am I interested in your false assertions but only if you're able to defend both Duffin & majority. You've shown yourself unwilling or unable to do so, hiding behind the excuse that you totally could but just won't to me which is one of the oldest internet excuses around btw ergo laughed at.

Already asked you who was more on point re the actual law Hamilton or the majority & you've shown yourself unwilling/unable to answer, which Is why I said I can comfortably dismiss any future potential advocacy comments you may make, again try to keep up.

So again due to your inability to defend the majority argument with validity, your future advocacy comments are again comfortably dismissed.

We'll see what happens at the en banc and whose argument & points re the actual law will hold up, yeah?

Re "biased".
I simply believe both are guilty after studying the evidence and primary sources.
Those who either believe in innocence or an unfair due process have provided nothing compelling to support this. All they have is a currently vacated ruling & indeed when asked to opine on whose argument is more compelling refusal or inability ensues.

Nor am I the one subscribing to nutty implausible and jaw droppingly stupid conspiracy theories which don't have so much as a scintilla of evidence to support such conspiralunacy.
Nor am I the one showing glaring double standards, such as rejecting multiple courts of law without being able to validly specify how they err but deeming innuendo, speculation and accusation sufficient for LE, Ms Halbach's ex or anyone else who isn't Steven Avery or Brendan Dassey.

I haven't engaged in any such fallacies or illogicality. Unlike those who seem to have a problem with the verdicts.
So yet again I'm comfortable in my position & yet again we'll see how the en banc goes. If Dassey ultimately eventually walks I'll accept it & my sympathies will be with the Halbach family who've had their wounds needlessly re-opened thanks to two fame hungry unethical unscrupulous filmmakers.
If majority reversed though I suspect that none of those who have a problem with the convictions will accept it.
And yet again if this is what advocates need to make a case for innocence or unfair due process- conspiracy theories, bar raising and double standards re burden of proof & reasoning- then yet again you have no case to make here.
But we'll see what happens at en banc.

Obviously, corpus vile is welcome to his opinion. However, others who have studied both cases have come to the opposite conclusions.

Among those who hold there were egregious problems are appeals court magistrates in the case of Brendan Dassey, and the nation's leading defense lawyer in the case of Steven Avery.

This is simply false. Perhaps not 'compelling' for corpus vile, but in Brendan's case compelling enough to persuade magistrates at the federal level to overturn the original verdict and forcing the prosecution to defend their work.

In the case of Steven the courts are ready to consider new evidence coming from the defense.

So when we see progress on the path to setting both of the accused free on the basis of deeply flawed convictions what is 'compelling' to corpus vile is hardly relevant, Corpus may not find the theory of evolution to be compelling either, but he is swimming against the tide.

LOL!

Yes, that is all they have. Courts agreeing with the defense may not seem like much to corpus vile, but then his opinion doesn't mean ****.

This is a flat out lie by corpus vile. Just because people are tired of explaining to trolls like him again and again and again does not mean these explanations have not already been provided. One doesn't 'win' an argument by simply outlasting others with tactics like this.

Again, trolling the thread with some goofy buzzwords doesn't constitute an 'argument' as such.

There is nothing implausible about cops framing an innocent person. Anyone with any familiarity with the actual history of law enforcement and courts knows that this happens with alarming frequency.

On the matter of evidence for that being the case here, again we have all the necessary material to make a circumstantial case: means, motive, and opportunity. That police manufactured evidence by suborning perjury from Brendan is itself evidence of framing.

Had corpus vile been sincerely interested in learning how law enforcement and law courts have screwed the pooch in either of these cases, certainly reading this thread would have provided plenty of material. But corpus insists that if someone doesn't choose to repeat for the umpteenth time the same facts already laid out that this invalidates everything. This is like a creationist who refuses to enter the natural history museum and shrieking that there is 'no evidence' of evolution.

Among those who have a problem with these verdicts are federal level appeals courts. I have a sneaking suspicion that they know more about this case and the law than an internet troll like corpus vile.

If Brendan is freed from prison due to the misfeasance or malfeasance of law enforcement, that is more like justice than keeping an innocent person in jail so that the victim's family can comfort themselves knowing someone (anyone) is serving time in prison.

There's nothing 'needless' about keeping innocent people out of prison. Corpus doesn't seem to be aware that the appeals process exists for a reason, and that in the process the cases are going to 'reopen old wounds'. It tells us a lot about corpus vile's shallow thinking that he can even write that, let alone post it for others to read.

As for the film makers who helped make the public aware of this case, there is no need to unleash a vile body of invective on them simply because they documented what happened. How could they have any idea that this would make them 'famous'? How 'unethical' or 'unscrupulous' is it to simply turn on a camera and record what people say of their own volition? It's not like Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi coerced anyone who participated (unlike cops who browbeat Brendan into implicating himself and Steven, for example - but that is corpus vile's double standards showing).

Since corpus vile was unable to provide any examples of anyone doing the things he claims here (note the lack of direct quotes, for instance), we can be confident that corpus is ignorant and proud of it, angry at anyone who dares question law enforcement, and fully capable of substituting his irrational emotions for actual reasoning or persuasion.

Perhaps one reason corpus vile hasn't read the many posts detailing what's gone wrong is that he has put many people in this thread on 'ignore'. That is willful ignorance and corpus can hardly complain when it is by his own choice he knows nothing.

Corpus vile implies there's something wrong with that, but shows his double standards when disagreeing with Italian courts and their decisions in that case. Much like the Kercher verdict in Italy, people interested in the case have their own opinions based on their knowledge and understanding of the facts. Corpus and his friends have floated all kinds of conspiriloon theories about how the Mafia and the US State Department conspired to get Knox (and Sollecito) off the hook.

Corpus vile needs to get the log out of his own eye before whining about the alleged specks in anyone else's.

You don't find it unethical that they edited testimony and interviews to show us an answer to one question that was answered on another like they did with AC testimony? That is quote mining and is dishonest. It is also dishonest to misrepresent events that are relevant to steven being framed like arguing lenk had access to avery's blood or why the evidence box containing avery's blood was opened for example. When we are dealing with a murdered woman and her grieving family that is unethical.

I didn't like that either. Took away from the documentary and put their own spin into the case.

You saw a candid confession. I saw wtf is this and I can't believe anyone could believe what this intellectually-challenged toddler was being forced fed to spew out.

The jury perhaps believed, at least in BDs case, that the confession was candid. Federal judges perhaps disagree.

You can read all the interviews, and all of his confessions and you can in a vacuum reach the conclusion that he is either a liar being caught or an innocent person being fed what to say. It would be hard to tell the difference.

The biggest problem is there is other evidence that proves he was with avery the same night avery killed her.

Apparently, the opinion of those judges has been called into question and overrulled.

Another thing about BD intelligence. His ability to process information and reach conclusions is in the 90s, his ability to communicate is extremely low. low 90s IQ is the average IQ of people in prison fwiw. Most of them however are able to communicate better than BD.

I agree that the slipshod 'investigation' by law enforcement was a disgrace and a slap in the face of the grieving family. You'd think in the biggest case to ever happen in the county they would make double sure to conduct themselves with rigor and cross all the 'T's and dot all the 'I's.

As for Lenk conceivably having access to improperly stored and unsealed evidence that is a huge red flag for how law enforcement in this corner of the state is conducted - unprofessional and sloppy. That shows how much they cared about the murder victim or her family.

It doesn't really matter why the box was originally unsealed - the point is that it needs to be resealed so that no shenanigans can take place. Even I know that much.

If out of a ten hour documentary one inadvertent mistake can be pointed to, it sure looks like Ricciardi and Demos outperformed the cops as far as doing a proper job of work goes.

As for 'quote mining' I find it interesting you took only a few sentences out of the refutation of corpus vile's post to highlight. But if this means you agree with the other 95% of what I wrote I can work with that!

Anyone who can watch, listen, or read the coaching sessions law enforcement put Brendan through without catching on that it is a con has serious defects in their judgement.

Corpus vile burbling that 'it's all good' just goes to show what a moral and intellectual deficit he labors under.

We must remember that the jury did not get as much information as we did. They were deliberately misled by the prosecution which seemed to be intent on 'punishing' Brendan because he wouldn't help them frame Steven.

You agree with who? Why would you respond to my post and say you agree with something I am not even saying?

He didn't have access to it. The doc presented an order signed by lenk to move evidence from the 1985 case and presented it in such a way that the viewer thought that evidence contained the blood vial. It didn't. They then told us that lenk had a key to the evidence room, he did but not the room where the blood was held.

It does matter because the doc presented their story in such a way that made it look like it was possible the police unsealed the box, took the blood out and planted it. We now know that is complete hogwash.

If you want to say it matters because it should be sealed, fine but that misses the point. The point being made is that the doc misrepesented what happened with a clear intention of misleading the viewers into thinking it was reasonable to conclude the blood was planted by lenk.

I gave you 3 examples. there are several that can be named. The movie is full of clever edits to make it seem like somone is saying something they are not, leaving out important parts of the story, and misrepresenting what happened.

This.

There are thousands of murders committed every year. Good luck creating ten one hour pieces of about any case. I don't care how brilliant of a filmmaker you are.

Here the protagonist is:
a) Poor
b) Not good-looking
c) Charged with torturing and killing an animal

I am sure Hollywood was not saying, "run with it." There was no race involved with this crime either. This had all the makings of a boring show that should have been wrapped up in 47 minutes as part of a Dateline show and then forgotten.

It resonated not because of a SA/BD, but because of how one-sided the investigation and prosecution seemed to be, even against a fairly unsympathetic character.

The Hallbach family should be furious that there is still doubt. It certainly wasn't created by the filmmakers.

I was hoping you would agree that the ****ty job done by law enforcement in this case was not a good thing. My mistake.

Which viewer thought what now? So Lenk did sign something which showed he had access to evidence from a different case? Who is this 'they' that supposedly told us something?

How is it 'we' know the things you are now claiming?

No, it appears you are missing the point - evidence is sealed from tampering for a reason.

So now you are claiming that you know the 'intentions' of the film makers.

Did you consider the fact that your Magic 8 Ball might be defective?

You made several vague claims and now you make even vaguer claims that there are more places where the documentary is misleading, and all in aid of the unproven claim that such mistakes were deliberate.

Yes, if it was my sister who'd been killed I'd be plenty angry that law enforcement didn't pull up their pants and do a proper job.

Folks like corpus vile who idiotically claim that the documentarians were aiming at fortune and fame don't know squat. There's a ton more money in presenting law enforcement in a favorable light, as millions of hours of cop movies and cop television shows proves beyond a reasonable doubt.

The parts in red were cut out of the doc. Can you see why?

There is a part in the show where they are talking about Lenks name always coming up, they bring up him being in the bedroom when the key was found and him being on the scene during the search. Then they talk about the blood that was found in the rav 4 and say that lenk signed an order to move evidence from the 85 case. This is true, but it was to move hair and nail clippings, not the blood vial.

Just to name a couple of examples. There are a ton more. The misrepresentation of avery's past crimes. Leaving out that it was a neighbor who turned avery in for flashing Sandra morris after seeing him do it. Leaving out that avery pointed a loaded gun at her and threatened to kill her. Leaving out that avery soaked the cat in gasoline with the intentions of watching it burn to death.