no, so what? Why are you more concerned about what he didn't say? YOu should be concerned about what HE DID say. You don't think its plausible he would have left out details then when he discovered he was in actual trouble and serious trouble didn't want to help much more?

Technically no, I will paraphrase and those that want can watch the confession themselves. It was the march 1st one that is relevant here.

after brendan had confessed to raping her, and cutting her, and killing her, putting her body in the back of the car and a few other things the conversation went something like this..

Police: who shot her
brendan: Stevan did
Police: how many times
Brendan: like ten times
Police: how many times in the head?
Brendan: 3
police: what side of her head was she shot
Brendan: like the left side (points to the left side of his head)

Already answered

Brendan said they put her in the car with the intention of taking her to a pond to kill her and throw her in the water. They arrived at the pond and it was dry so they brought her back to kill her and burn her. When they returned branden thinks she was already dead but they shot her anyway.. I am paraphrasing here.

evidence?

You seem to hang everything on this confession. No doubt in your mind despite all of the other inconsistencies. Do you not give any possibility to someone else doing this (e.g. one of SA's brothers, perhaps)? How you can so blithely send someone away forever when there is obviously reasonable doubt amazes me.

fwiw, Brendan says in the confession that they cleaned up with paint thinner and bleach on the garage floor. They ask him the size of the mess. Brendan says it was 2 feet by 2 feet. So it wouldn't exactly require super human cleaning skills. The audio is a bit rough at that part so I can't be 100% sure that's what he said. Maybe others can hear it better. It was around 54:00 or so of the March 1 interview.

does blood disappear in 5 months? if this bullet really landed there in the process of murdering Teresa, it should have been covered in blood. there should have been a small trail of blood from where it rolled, or specks of blood around where it landed. How did they clean up all of the blood around the bullet, but leave the bullet? If the bullet fragment really exited her skull, or bounced off, or however it was supposed to get under that bench, then it goes against the theory that this was a relatively clean murder that was easy to clean up.




I'm not convinced that Avery is innocent. He's probably the most likely killer, but I highly doubt it happened in the garage, and I highly doubt it happened in a version of events that resembles Brendan's story in any way shape or form. The Bullet in the garage, found on the third search that magically corroborates a questionable confession by a mentally inept 16 year old kid doesn't prove a damn thing.

Anyone saying brendans confession was not good evidence he did this is not paying attention to me.

HE KNEW STUFF THAT NO ONE KNEW.

He knew teressa was in the back of the car
he knew stevan had disconnected her battery
he knew teressa was shot more than once on the left side of her head
he knew her body was burned
he knew the garage was cleaned that day
he knew that stevan owned shackles (which was just bought a couple weeks before this)


How did he know all this? He confessed to all this before the police were pressuring him to admit stuff. This is how they knew he was responsible.

Is there any DNA linking anyone else to the murder? Because there's plenty linking SA to it. The only way he's not guilty is if there was a police conspiracy of Biblical proportions. And no one has shown one shred of evidence of that, just some suggestions and innuendo.

Technically no? Lol

Everything he told the police was a result of the police trying to get him to admit that she was shot. Eventually they just come out and ask who shot her. You may want to rewatch.

Interesting, you are now saying the bullet they found wasn't a bullet that went through teressa? Funny the defense didn't get any experts to testify to this. Funny indeed. You should be a lawyer sir.

Even if the police planted the evidence, it doesn't mean he's innocent

He also knew the color of the shackles.

You have to stop with the "Stevan." I'm about to blow every time I see it.

I said technically no because although police asked who shot her he admitted to other stuff he shouldn't have known. 1, how many times was she shot? Most would say once if they were just trying to go along with police. How did he know she was shot more than once? how did he know which side of her head was shot?

that along with many other things like stevan disconnecting the battery to the car. How the **** did he know that? Thats pretty ****ing random. The dna was found on the hood latch after he told them this by the way so you can't argue that anyone coerced him into saying this.

Is it odd that all of the "bad guys" in the documentary claim to have not seen it yet?

last life no that is a ****ing lie. The police started the questioning about who shot her with the question.. "who shot her"

Why would SA disconnect the battery?

Yep, I'm on the same page as you. When the doc revealed that BD told his cousin stuff before even being interviewed by the police, alarm bells went off. The coerced confession narrative doesn't fit.

It's true BD's confession is inconsistent and it's peculiar that they couldn't find blood/dna anywhere in the garage. But it's still more likely that they just did a good clean up job or BD is lying about where the murder took place, than all the other conspiracy theories. The only reasonable conspiracy is that another member of the avery family killed her and dumped the body/car. The cops would then have to move it and plant evidence to guarantee a SA conviction, justifying it to themselves by believing it was him plus solved their legal troubles... and then on top of it all for BD to be delusional... it's just so unlikely but possibly in the realm of reasonable doubt.

I think Branden said why but I don't remember.

Which should be enough to throw his entire confession out of court. They planted the idea that she was shot to someone who had not confirmed she had been shot. You don't see a problem with this?

So the search party couldn't just roll through the lot pressing the alarm button on the car's remote to find the car.

No, listen to what I am saying. He had already confessed to details he shouldn't know. He already confessed to them putting her in the back of the car after she was bleeding. He already confessed to burning her. He knew stuff he shouldn't have.

Then he even knew stuff about the gun shots he shouldn't have. He knew there were multiple gunshots in her head. He knew what side of her head was shot.

What are the chances he guesses both of those things correctly while lying about killing someone?

I don't think anyone is really paying attention to you - regardless of what they think of the confession.

Also the "who shot her" question is a technique to see if the person is falsely confessing. Police thought at the moment he was nothing more than a witness and wanted to protect him. They even had him staying in a hotel away from the family. They ask questions like that to see if the person answers correctly. Branden could have said, "no one shot her" he didn't that is just another thing he knew.

I think SA is smarter then that.

They found the remains in the fire pit in November, well before the March interrogation, what are you talking about. Everyone knew about it by that point.

I don't give a ****, you can't plant that in the mind of anybody you question and then expect to use it as a piece of evidence. It presupposes the answer to a question that hasn't been revealed by the person giving the information.