wow you're dumber than i thought.

being a scumbag cop and getting a fake confession out of an idiot 16 year old isn't great police work. he's in jail for 40 years and there is a decent chance the real murderer is out there.

good police work is actually getting to the truth.

I think the standard operating procedure of offering a deal is often a worse injustice than lying in an interrogation.

Confess to lesser crime and get 5 years in prison or potentially life?

Functionally that's the equivalent to using torture to get a confession.

If by "technicality" you mean, "he didn't do it," then yes.

Agreed. He came across as such an insufferable douche. Of course, I can't imagine what it's like to be in a situation where one of your family members has been brutally murdered. Nevertheless, you'd think at some point someone would have the awareness to suggest that he stop talking on television...maybe sit the next few plays out. His interviews were almost as if he was a member of the prosecution.

Agreed, pleas are bad for two reasons: they let bad guys go earlier than they otherwise should; and they force innocent people into copping to something they didn't do. The problem is the criminal justice system would collapse without it.

Yep. As we were watching a few nights ago, my girlfriend commented, as I was thinking the same thing, about how sad it is to see the pictures of Steven as a child. It just makes you think about how much of this guy's life has been taken away from him.

well 1/2billion chance that the DNA was not Allen's * 1/5.5million that it was someone else in Wisconsin * 1/16^16 chance that 16 of SA's alibi witnesses all told the exact same alibi without a chance to collude = there technically was a chance he did do it.

I was going to ask fruit snacks if he thought SA committed the first rape too, but I guess I have my answer.

Can you give a TL;DW?

That guy voice makes my brain shut down.

There was some crazy guy in the area who tormented his wife, got arrested, released, did a bunch of pervy stuff, made some comments about TH including seeing a missing persons poster for her and saying she would not be found alive, the wife turned some supposedly adult women's underwear she found hidden in her attic to the police, but they supposedly wanted her to say her husband was a pedo. Oh, and there were some bones in there somewhere, but the wife threw them away - I reckon having no thought that they might be human. The dogs had gotten them.

I stopped watching too but I think he was talking about this:

I was up all night and a bit loopy. I read "bleach, gas and paint thinner" as somehow involving a blow torch I think... Doesn't really change my opinion though.

Not forced. Especially when he starts spitting of actual truths and doesn't have to pause and think for 10 seconds before each word. There is a point where he is talking about how after he cut her throat he could tell she was trying to slow her breathing because it hurt when she was breathing hard. Telling how far into her neck he cut, how deep the stab wound to the stomach was etc. He gives all these details but when asked if he shot her he quickly says no. They use their same tactics but he rather forcefully denies even touching the gun. "I never touched the gun."

Then you can see his guilt/shame when his mom comes into the room after they tell him he's going to jail. I don't think it's until days later over phone calls when he starts denying being part of the murder, likely to smooth over the tension with his mom who's rightfully going out of her mind.

I wonder how many of you actually watched significant portions of these tapes. When he's in the middle of a lie and is asked a question he just sits there like a ****** until the cop prompts him with options. When he's telling the truth (when it gets gruesome and scary) he talks at a normal pace and has certainty in his voice.

I already said I didn't. I think the guy was a misfit and made the mistake of threatening someone close to the cops in a small town.

actual truth? yet no evidence of what he said actually happening when if it did there would be more dna splattered everywhere than at a whorehouse

Why do people keep saying this with absolute certainty? Is it really 100% impossible to stab someone laying on top of sheets, maybe layers of cardboard, possibly the cabinet they burned, clean up with bleach, gasoline, & paint thinner and leave a small enough amount of blood that forensics couldn't collect it?

SA had planned this at least a few days in advance according to brendan (not to mention over a decade in prison in close contact with actual murderers). Do you think he was just going to stab her and let her bleed out evidence all over his garage? This is a guy who got let out of jail due to dna evidence. You don't have to be dexter to lay down some plastic sheets and then throw them in the fire. Then on top of that they went over the area with bleach and other cleaning supplies. They had days to do this.

And they didn't pull off the perfect crime. They didn't get rid of the car fast enough for whatever reasons, steve's cut finger got blood on the inside of the car, they failed to fully get rid of bones with DNA. The kid didn't keep his mouth shut, leading to him being interrogated again and pushed to tell the truth by expert interrogators. Many massive blunders were made, as one would expect from a bunch of low intelligence individuals trying to cover up a murder.

LOL.

It's more like when they tell him that they already know what happened and to be honest, he sits there like a ****** until they prompt him with options.

You should really revist this if you're interested in the truth. In a few of the interrogations when they say something like "we already know you stabbed her, tell us about it" it's because he literally told them about stabbing her in a previous interview but then clammed up on details. Maybe later I'll track down the part where he talks about how deep he cut her throat and how she was breathing hard from screaming etc. It's ****ed up and he's not being prompted in any capacity and is speaking relatively fast paced.

Apparently you have to be Dexter to use a carshredder and a smelter but not to get rid of any DNA-evidence. Maybe he called Dexter, but he had to leave early to chop some wood.

Anyways you are just a troll and not worth to be considered anymore.

Still, even though I think Jodi is a drunk, looking at some of her statements and those of Beerntsen(He apparently asked her for a house, which doesn't necesseraly mean much but what stuck to me was this in combination with Jodis statement of "Bitches owe me"), I'm a bit more convinced he did it, like 60/40 now.

It's kinda upsetting that there is the high possibility that we'll never find out if he is innocent and if so who actually did it.

One of my favorite parts was when the lawyer was pretty smugly asking brendan which book he could have possibly gotten all of the details from, thinking he was going to make him look even dumber, and brendan just looks at him and says "kiss the girls"

Haven't read that book in awhile, so no idea if it was true, just loved how he answered

Honestly, I'm looking for that part now and can't find it. Not saying it's not there...I just genuinely can't seem to find it.

QFT:



SA: "Come over to my house and help me get rid of a body"
BD: "Yeah, Okay."
BD walks over to the garage where SA is working on the Monte, er wait no, the gray "Suzuki" is there so BD walks over to it.
SA: "Wait, wait did you see that?"
BD: "Ya."
SA: "That is a body. That is Teresa Halbach, a girl you've never heard of in your life, but I'm going to tell you her name anyways. I forgot that I already told you to help me move a body, but now that I seen you seen it, I'm going to tell you what her name was n that, k?"
BD: "Ya."
SA: "And if you tell anyone, I'm going to stab you a little bit okay?"
BD: "Ya."

While no one can actually be 100% certain about anything, it is more than reasonable to doubt that what is described here would not leave a single trace. You're forgetting that he also shot her 11 times, er 5 times, or at least twice in the head. One of the bullets from that head shot allegedly passed through her air, scalp, skull, brain...then skull scalp/skin and went clean through. So entry AND exit wound. IMO this much more clearly shows that this did not happen the way BD confesses and the state alleges because there is no way in hell that this garage:



which was searched 6 times, yielded nothing but a Lenk special.

I can say with near 100% certainty that there is no way every single bit of blood or other spatter from alleged multiple gunshot wounds would have been able to be removed from this "crime" scene.

And if that's not enough for you: It is also extremely reasonable to doubt that he could clean up ONLY her flesh, blood, and dna evidence while leaving his own blood AND DNA, other Avery's DNA and deer blood.

Considering how messy SA house was, the fact that he could kill someone inside it and leave it WITHOUT one trace of blood or TA DNA on top of leaving a bullet inside the house seems ******edly improbable.

Serious question: do you believe that non "literally ******ed" people confess to crimes they didn't commit? Like just your average to below average IQ crowd?
Try being black.
Speaking only for me, I'm sick of smug euros going on rants about how the US sucks. It's more annoying in person than on the internet though.
Yeah, he 'confessed' to raping and repeatedly stabbing her in the bedroom. But we know beyond any reasonable doubt that that DIDNT happen. I'd love to know how this fits in with the theory that he wheels were turning and hr was covering his ass. Why would his most brutal and dramatic confessions be things that didn't happen?

Yes, Brendan is a really bad liar because he's so dumb. SA told him about planning to rape and murder TH days before the incident. What really happened is he went over and raped her because he wanted to know what sex felt like (his unprompted words in the confession).

It's like a kid stole some cookies from a cookie jar.

"Hey, did you take those cookies from the cookie jar?"

"naaa" (looks around nervously and fidgets)

"Well what were you doing 10 minutes ago?"

"uhhhh... I don't know... can't remember"

"were you outside playing with John?"

"yeeaaayyy" (long drawn out response after pause)

"But John is over at Tommys, so you weren't with John!"

"yeeeaayyy"

"so did you take the cookies from the jar? be honest, you won't get in trouble. I just need to know."

"yeeaayyyy"

"Tell me more about how you got up to the high shelves and what the cookie was like"

Child continues to list off unprompted details about the cookies and how he got them from the high shelf.

2p2 Detective: This childs story is inconsistent and proof he was coerced into admitting guilt!! Why are there so many inconsistencies? Was he with John or not?

that's really how you interpreted that?

re: post 1745