Calling the victim to come over before he kills her maybe?

I just think cooking Ramen Noodles would be a chore for this bunch. All I'm saying.

Before his trial, Brendan took 2 IQ tests. On the KBIT-2, Brendan scored a verbal IQ of 84, a non-verbal IQ of 87, and an "IQ Composite" of 83. On the WASI, he scored a "Full Scale IQ" of 81.

This put him in the "low average" range and the 13th percentile of 17-year-old males.

He supposedly has fires there about once or twice a month. Why do you think he initially denied having the fire in his burnpit and his barrels?


You have to stop believing smacc's crazy posts - it was her.

Why do you think in his initial interview on November 6th or 7th, Brendan didn't mention hanging out with Steven and having a fire that night?

Why do you think in that interview when she was still just a missing person, Brendan asked the police if they think Steven raped her?

Why do you think Brendan told police he saw her in that initial interview Nov 6th after initially denying it?

Say What? 2 Bullets(1 fragmented piece) found months later & you expect ppl to believe that on the day's that they search for evidence that they left the Bullets but picked up the shell casings or that they missed them.

Not bad Fraley, call me sir in 1 post then the post after you call me a loon when OBV you have read both posts that I posted. Again lOl OK.

Now pls tell the thread"What burn Barrel all these important piece's of evidence was found"?

I know you Can't.

Brendan's conversation with his grandfather:

Ya he was with Steven hanging out and having a fire and cleaning the garage.

Did he cut her hair off or not?

There would be no reason for him to lie about this information after he already admitted to participating in a rape and murder.

And you know that the investigators should have framed the question, "Was there any other weapons involved? Was there a gun?" instead of "We are going to come out say it, who shot her?"

Idk.. Trivial in the grand scheme of things.

Sweet! So you agree that is true correct? So by default if it is demonstrated that Steven burned her in that fire that he was "hanging out at" then it should also be demonstrated that BD helped him.. Do you agree?

Zellner's latest tweet:

Something some of us have said all along. Nothing in Dassey's confession was corroborated after the fact. In a real confession there will be information the police did not know about but which then can be corroborated via investigation. Yet a lot of things Dassey said were determined to flat out not be true at all.

It is ridiculous in 2016 we still allow the uneducated, poor and mentally disabled to be railroaded into false confessions. We have known this has been going on for several decades plus. Allegedly the FBI has been trying to teach local law enforcement how to avoid false confessions yet this was an absolute text book case.

Why don't you guess why he said he cut her hair 10 times (guessing) and then said he didn't cut her hair?

I will give you multiple choices. It is just a guess. Add something if I am wrong.

a) He was nervous
b) He originally said he cut her hair and was afraid of how the investigators would react if he changed his answer.
c) He had no involvement and everything was a guess. When they liked his honest answer, they were nice. When they said he was lying, he guessed something different until they were pleased and would move on to something else.
d) He thought about the whole situation, and realized that he never cut her hair. There was just so much commotion this being his first sexual experience (and in front of his uncle) and the knifing and murder and burning the body and cleaning the garage, that he needed time to gather his thoughts. He wasn't mentally prepared to be interrogated for multiple hours.

Now at his trial, Investigator Wiegart testifies that he believes BD cut her hair. Even though he did not find one single fiber of the victim's hair anywhere where he alleges the crime occurred. They also checked the vacuum cleaners and did not make any matches.

Did BD cut her hair?

Does the investigator really believe that BD cut her hair? Why would't he say he had no idea really. Isn't that the truth? Or just answer no. There is no evidence of any hair and that answer would match with BDs final answer. We would feel more confident with his confession. Evidence = answers.

I know you see it as a trivial in the realm of when someone is raped, knifed, shot and burned, who cares if her hair was cut off or not.

What is not trivial is if this minor piece of his alleged involvement is found completely false, why wouldn't it be fair to think that everything else could be false too.

And if you really believe this is trivial, why do you think they asked him so many times if he cut her hair? Why did that matter to them so much if it is trivial?

Contributing factors to exonerations:

http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exo...rsByCrime.aspx

There is nothing that BD says in that transcript I posted that "sounds like a cop". Have no idea what Zellner is saying here.

Also I'm sure she's a good lawyer but her tweets are pretty stupid overall, not to mention unprofessional.

Yeah, people who use the media to gain in the courtroom are real scumbags

What is wrong with you?

He said that her tweets are stupid and unprofessional. Read some of them, it's not hard to tell:

Sixth visit: SA's message re big tour: "Don't get it. They lost. Pretty sure $ not coming to help me" #3769daysbehindbars #MakingAMurderer


Law professor -with no exonerations-thinks tweets have no impact. So why is he commenting about them? #MakingAMurderer #Hedothprotesttoomuch


CIA interrogator:SA guilty bc of "non-verbal clues." Knows about those bc of waterboard classes-MindReading=inadmissible
#MakingAMurderer


SA's former cellmate doesn't like him. That always happens when one guy is innocent and the other is not. #MakingAMurderer


How long will the witnesses who lied at trial be protected by those who know the truth? #MakingAMurderer #TruthMatters #GrowAConscience

I doubt she is the one tweeting, but i agree that it looks a bit stupid at time

As for your opinion about coerced confession, i guess i ll base my opinion on several lawyers and fbi agent who commented on it and said it was textbook coerced confession.
If that can help you to accept it, it doesnt even mean that they tried to feed him stuff intentionaly but could be just that they have no clue how to do their job and induced those confession from brendan because of it.

If someone is physically typing the tweets and hitting send, it's irrelevant. It's her account. She's responsible. They look like someone throwing darts and seeing what sticks.

I want to address a few things..

First golfnuts,

I say him cutting her hair is trivial not because of the rape/murder being more important (although obviously it is) but because we KNOW he was with steven based on his confession. The confession has been misrepresented because most of the stuff he confesses to was not coerced. Hes just telling his side of the story. If for whatever reason some of the stuff he lied about that doesn't change that some of the IMPORTANT stuff he said was truthful and matched the evidence..

Mainly that he was with Steven, knew about his cut, calls with jodi, was at the bonfire (testified to this under oath) we can say with quite a bit of certainty that she was in fact burned at the bonfire. Then there is the stuff with the gun. He knew which gun it was, sure it could have been a lucky guess but couple that with the fact that he was with the killer for a large portion of the day (a killer that has an extraordinary amount of evidence pointing to his guilt) it is obvious beyond any reasonable doubt that BD was involved in some capacity.

As for eddie,

When loose change came out, initially any expert commenting on that movie agreed with the truthers. Usually when these conspiracy theories start they gain a following based on how popular the propaganda is. Then the experts who take time to join the debate just agree with the majority of people following that debate. I am fairly certain as people continue to come to our side that eventually experts will comment on these assertions and point out how they are wrong.

^this, it is clearly a publicity stunt. I am absolutely shocked that others don't see that.

You guys are being ridiculous. Review what she has done as a lawyer, especially as it relates to getting people exonerated.

Nah Let's forget Ken kratz who use his position to abuse weak women but hâte on that lawyer who get innocent people out of jail.