I don't disagree that everybody grieves in their own way. If you talk to people who work on missing persons cases though they'll tell you that the family of the missing person is almost always optimistic and hopeful for a safe return just after the person is reported missing. They're not usually grieving at that point. I'd say you'll be in the minority who find the brothers words and actions to not be alarming or strange.

I think you're putting way too much credence into a small number of clips. Remember he is being interviewed by the news, so he's probably nervous and doesn't know what to say. There is no substantial evidence connecting the brother to the crime.

And if one of my family members went missing of course I would inject myself right away. Who wouldn't?

Theresa's brother is the last person I would suspect. If anything, he's guilty of being dumb and a puppet of the prosecution.

It's pretty common knowledge you don't put a defendant on the stand if you think you are winning. It's more of a last ditch effort. I'm sure there are exceptions but I don't think this is one of them. SA just isn't that well spoken and the prosecution had a lot of ammo to throw at him(cat burning, wife death threats, sexual assault, leg shackles, etc).

He didn't look nervous at all to me when he was talking to 20 reporters at court meetings. In fact, I read many comments of people saying he looked like he was gloating, enjoying the spotlights and very happy with how things were evolving.

You're totally right, but the problem in this case is that there is no substantial evidence connecting anyone to the crime (except SA obviously). Simply because they didn't look for it, nobody was a suspect at any point in this case.

So you could say: if there's only evidence leading to SA, he must've done it. Well, yeah, he is still the most likely person to have done it, but most people watching the documentary, one-sided or not, feel like there's something off. We do have 1 certain, undeniable fact and that is that a lot of these people were corrupt in the rape-case. To expect they did everything by the book in this case would be gullible, to say the least.

If I was getting a call from a blocked number and answered to find it was Steven, the next time it rings and it's a blocked number I would think it was Steven.

So you can't rule him out bc of this.

No, but he was on the scene for those 2 days and were those the 2 days where he logged out but didn't log in to the timesheet, then lied/got it majorly wrong when questioned in court?

I'm referring to his initial interview with the news during the time Theresa first went missing.

Ah, ok. Thanks for clarifying. I think the point is still valid though given the garage had previously been searched iirc with no bullets found and then they find it only after Lenk was in there.

Ya, this is why I can't jump to saying he's a douche, or was involved. He does come off incredibly smug tho and too easily convinced of Avery's guilt for no real good reason besides FEELINGS.

So watched it all, and there is no way that either Steven or Brendon are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think Brendon is guilty of anything regarding an actual murder. The interrogation scene with the police where they spoon feed him what they want to hear is just sickening. I don't see how anyone could walk away hearing that confession and not think that it was just a learning impaired kid being taken advantage of by intimidating, more intelligent police officers. It's like he was playing mad libs and waiting for positive confirmation when he made a good guess.

The police not finding any blood that would replicate any potential storyline they were trying to give Steven means he should be off. I would expect blood trails from where he was dragging her from one spot to another. I would expect scratch marks on Steven's body somewhere, basically more signs of a struggle. There was no scenario laid out (albeit in a very one sided documentary) where I didn't have a lot of doubt as to whether SA killed her.

I also think it is very likely the police did plant some if not most of the evidence that was used against SA. The key and the handling of the Rav4 both stick out as shady. They liked 1) thought he was guilty of the act, but didn't have enough evidence to convict him and 2) thought it nothing else him being behind bars would be a good thing for the town as I imagine he was a lot less redeemable than the doc described him as. Even if he is near evil incarnate like the prosecution tried to describe him as, he didn't deserve to go to jail as presented by the case.

All that said, I do think Steven likely killed her. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't rape her. What I think likely happened with Brendan's involvement is that he got out of school, walked into Steven's house to hand him the mail and heard screaming. He may or may not have actually seen Teresa, but likely wasn't there for the death. This explains why he was so clueless as to exactly how she died, but he knows Steven killed her. He could have been shown the shackles at a time unrelated to the event. He was likely called back to the 'bonfire' to help Steven with the cleanup where Steven threatened him and made him help with disposal of bones in the fire.

Even if he did kill her, a lot of the details don't make sense. Unless he had been thinking of killing for awhile and had experience cleaning up messes in his garage, I doubt with his or Brendan's intelligence they could have cleaned up all of the mess. Maybe in his time in prison before he learned how to clean up blood from someone...If he had specifically requested her to take the photos of the car and used his sister's name, I could believe that he intended on getting her in a position to assault and kill. The family at the complex seem to be very tight-knit, and by the time of the trial most family members seemed very rehearsed in the same basic dialogue of what to and not to say.

I'm under the impression that Steven might be a psychopath and have a lot darker side than what was portrayed in the doc. I think he did likely kill Teresa. Brendan may have known about it in some way, as maybe other members of the family did as well. None of this really matters as I don't think anything can be proven in this matter, and neither he or especially Brendan should be locked up.

I also think its highly unlikely that the brother was involved in any way in the death. He was told that this monster killed his sister, so he probably just rolled with it. Nothing he or the ex did seemed suspicious enough to make me even consider them suspects.

I've been thinking of possible motives for other potential suspects. A few people have pointed to Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey. As I mentioned before I think their stories needed to be looked in to further than they were. SA was closing in on a possible 36 million dollar payday. Scott doesn't like SA that much and he himself probably isn't the smartest person around. Is it possible that he thought framing SA for murder and getting him locked up for life would mean that 36 million dollar payday would go to next of kin and he would be able to get a good chunk of it? Obviously this is all speculation but just brainstorming potential motives to the murder, of which none were presented by the prosecution against SA.

Blue ribbon guy crying on the stand, what the he'll was that about? Tilted me hard.

His conviction that Brendan is 100% guilty and lying on the stand without even reading the confession is also not a good look

Were any tests done to see if a clean up occurred in the room? I'm only halfway through but would seem pretty easy to confirm or deny. At this point I feel for the girl and her family the most. Maybe they have closure but shoddy, careless police work has muddled everything and likely guarantees no peace for anyone involved now that this documentary has been released.

IT WAS FROM HER CHUUUUURCH!!

what hypocritical garbage that guy is. He worked with the "defense" to help the prosecution coerce a fake confession out of a mentally challenged kid.

I don't believe in hell, but if there is one I hope there is a special place there for people who act like him and fall to their knees at the sign of a cross but will gladly send the less fortunate up a river if it suits their needs

Agreed with the points coasterbrad made.

99.99% Brendan didn't do ****, and its crystal clear after seeing his "confession". His defense was baaad. The Len lawyer reminded me of The Offices Toby Flenderson.

100% police planted evidence, you dont just mystically find a key on 10th or something search. That proves that they planted evidence, and now you have to question every other piece of evidence if its planted or not.

Impossible to say who killed teresa. I believe SA didn't do it. Not only there is no real physical evidence, but when you think about the first rape conviction where he WAS innocent, after they blamed on him and put him to jail, look the way he reacted, how he was. He didn't break, he wouldnt confess to a crime he didnt commit. He knows he didn't do it.

If he killed teresa, I don't think he could portray himself the same excact way with full pokerface. The guy had an IQ of 70. How is it possible this guy could pull off this kind of act in every single discussion, be smart enough to clean all of teresas blood and dna, but then be dumb enough to leave her car in his front yard hiding behind branches when he could just crush it.

One thing that I just thought. When they found out that teresa was reported missing and they started searching for avery yard, SA was somewhere else, but not in custody iirc. If he did it, he would know that they are going to find the vechile and bones in the fire and get him, why wouldnt he make a run for it? Because he's innocent and doesn't know those exist in his backyard.

For people that didn't watch the interview with Dean Strang: Apparently the law (in the us or in Wisconsin I don't remember) allows you to present 2 stories that are directly contradicting each other in order to get 2 people convicted for the same crime. He gave an example where 2 people were guilty of pulling the trigger in a murder case, which obviously isn't possible (unless they were butt buddies maybe).

It's pretty obvious none of these people give a rat's ass about justice to begin with. Except the 2 stars of the show, Strang & Buting.

So these are the things that I think look bad for SA:

1) DNA found all over and under the hood of the car. It is possible he touched other parts of the car before her death for whatever reason, but not under the hood.

2) That he called her phone using *67 3 times earlier in the day, only to call without using it later. This is consistent with trying to establish an alibi and hide that she ever arrived.

3) Specifically requesting Teresa be the one to come and take the pictures and use his sister's name since she refused to see him after last time. This makes me think he definitely wanted Teresa specifically showing up for a reason, and him being in just a towel the previous time isn't good for him at all either.

There is other even more circumstantial evidence like his supposed 'torture room' that can only be attributed to two prisoners (not trustworthy sources at all) and a clearly tricked mentally slow kid.

Even thinking through all of this, I'd be hard pressed to convict or even make too clear of storylines for how and why he could have killed her. For every one bad fact there are good facts beside it like him talking to his fiancee multiple times when he would have been committing this murder.

1. no it's not
2. how's he supposed to do that anyway?

3. and even if he could prove it...how could he do that without this? emotional appeal?

Person I wanted to punch in the face the most was the guy who gets the call FROM A POLICE OFFICER that someone confessed Avery was imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit.

Obviously random people call in with random **** all the time, but to ignore a police officer and not follow up in anyway is beyond disgusting. 8 years!

Yeah everyone thinks Len and Lenk are huge scumbags, but holy crap Colburn might be the worst police officer of the entire bunch.

They could think or even know SA is guilty and would act the same way no? Just because you know your client is guilty doesn't mean it isn't your job to defend them to the best of your ability.

It could also be the reason he didn't take the stand. I believe that a defense lawyer isn't allowed to let their client lie on the stand if they know they are lying. Is that correct?

Of course this would still mean they are acting in the name of justice within the system.

Is it possible SA knows someone from his family who did it but won't roll over on them because you know, family, blood blah blah blah?

One thing I don't understand is why Teresa went back to the property if she was already scared of Avery. I know he supposedly gave a fake name/number, but the address was still the same, so she had to know he was likely to be there before going, no?

Where did you get all that from? I don't remember seeing any of it in the doc. Maybe I just missed it.