What facts are that Brendan was at the scene of the crime? Where was the crime committed.

He also confessed to not being part of any murder on multiple occasions.

Perhaps. State did not bring this into evidence I believe. Too difficult to make the case that she was raped, knifed and shot multiple times and that her body was moved to her car and then back to a burn barrel.

The amount of blood that should have been in the car if that was the scenario would be staggering.

Dassey lived a few hundred feet from where a missing woman's burned body was found. He has bleach on his jeans, consistent with his own story of helping to clean the garage floor on the night of the murder. After the murder he starts acting weird, suddenly losing a ton of weight, crying for no apparent reason, and saying strange stuff to his cousin about terrible things he saw at his uncle's. This freaked out his cousin enough that she felt the need to talk to a school counselor about it. He describes in horrible and specific detail seeing TH chained naked to his uncle's bed, says she was begging them to stop... then claims on the witness stand that he made up the whole thing from a James Patterson novel he read (as if he was reading 500p. crime novels for fun, with his IQ). Jury rightly saw through that answer as obvious coaching from his attorneys. He confesses to his part in the murder on multiple occasions, even telling his own mother on the phone that he did it because he was afraid of his uncle.

He was involved in the murder. It's obvious. Then again SA's guilt is even more obvious, and yet everyone has decided the diabolical Lenk/Colburn conspiracy is more believable than actual facts. Facts are boring I guess.

Didn't he also claim he cut her throat? Seems like that would cause blood to gush out everywhere yet no traces of her DNA where found inside the house.

IIRC he broke up with his gf around the time he started losing weight.

So, a guy "with his iq" (and his uncles iq) was able to clean the trailer so well that there's literally zero corroborating evidence to be found?

yep. revots has quite an imagination.

a couple of my posts from the start of january:

if revot didnt understand that 6 months ago you still think he has a chance to understand it now ?

Many people agree that avery might have killed her , but to accept that confession as gospel is impressive, nvm you have a ton of mormon and scientologist in USA#1 so i guess beeing gullible as **** isnt that surprising.

1) I don't think the bones have ever been conclusively identified as TH or even a woman. The coroner who signed the death certificate isn't even a doctor. He is a nurse.

2) Bleach on jeans -- if there was a knifing and shooting, there would be blood everywhere. Household bleach would not be able to cover it up.

3) A 15-year old acting weird, crying and changes in weight. Let's jail 90% of teens.

4) Chained to bed - there would be scratch marks and blood all over the place. The blood would seep through the floor.

You certainly can believe the BD is guilty, but nothing matches his "confession". Much more likely they/he killed her miles away and then drove her body back to the trailer to burn her.

That is why the 'state' was so reckless giving the PR conference. They boxed themselves into a ridiculous narrative and would have looked foolish to completely deviate from it once they realized it was a farce with no evidence.

You have to be out of your bloody mind. Not even the biggest shill ever ITT believes BD had anything to do with this crime. There just has to be a total inability to process information and logic in order to conclude that BD is actually guilty. The complete acceptance of certain circumstances and total disregard for actual facts shows that you are either A) a shill, B) unable to admit that you were wrong, C) all of the above + obtuse.

Well, BD may have had something to do with the crime or knowledge of the crime. There is not even a .0001% chance though that his "confession" matches any evidence.

The scene of two men violently assaulting a woman would leave so much evidence that it would take a crew certified in cleaning crimes scenes. She was shot 10 times. The blood splatter would be everywhere. Her throat was cut. Blood would be found on the bed and would seep in the carpet and then slowly filter to the floorboard and become matted. Magaines would have blood on them.

The only way for them to possibly rid the evidence would have been to burn the house down. Typical method by an arson/murderer attempting to conceal their crime. Yet seasoned arson investigators are still able to locate evidence of criminal activity.

That press conference and the rush to judgment poisoned the entire investigation. Perhaps BD did participate but there was no going back from the original narrative and saying that it happened 5 miles away perhaps. There was no reason for the prosecutor of the case to go on tv before and proclaim a story as evidence without a full investigation.

It's about levels of confidence. There is obviously a greater probability that Dassey was involved in the murder than any random person. There is even a greater probability that he was involved than any random associate of Avery.

You can claim that there is reasonable doubt as to the level of his involvement. I personally would vote guilty of helping dispose of the body, but not guilty of murder.

In short, there are some cases where evidence (DNA etc. implicating someone else) shows unequivocally that an accused wasn't involved. This case isn't like that. The question is whether the available evidence is sufficient for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conclusion that Dassey definitely wasn't involved is not supported by any facts.

Lol, plenty of people outside of these forums, who don't treat documentary films as gospel truth, think Dassey was clearly involved. A certain group of jurors, for one. Plenty of other people who don't imagine conspiracy theories around every corner. I mean Jesus we still have people itt who don't believe the bones were those of TH. Tough to have a serious discussion with people who are determined to be that blind to reality.

The more reasonable question is probably the exact extent of his involvement, given his evasiveness in answering questions. He almost certainly helped clean up the crime scene and most likely helped dispose of the body. I am very confident that he also raped and helped to kill her, which he confessed to. Of course the counter-argument is that he supposedly only confessed to this because he's an absolute moron, who thinks confessing to rape and murder means he gets to go watch wrestling.

Actually, the counter argument is (and always will be) there is absolutely zero physical evidence implicating BD of rape or murder.

There are actually 2 glaring facts that support Dassey's total innocence. 1) There is no physical evidence of guilt. Zero. 2) The police, his attorney and his attorney's investigator collaborated to blatantly and disgustingly coerce his confession.

Any increase in probabilities of his involvement are diminished by orders of magnitude given the facts above.

Since you brought up probabilities, I'll leave this post from January here:

Jurors get very limited information. One can argue if that is good or bad, and that is exactly what lawyers argue about quite often.

An outside person can examine ALL the information that the jury received PLUS additional evidence that was not introduced at trial for whatever reasons.

Additionally, it is obvious to all but a few that in a trial in which the efficacy of much of the evidence is seriously questioned due to possible police/attorney malfeasance the jury outcome carries absolutely zero weight.

No.

Here's the thing. Imagine you don't know anything about Dassey, he's just random guy. The likelihood of his involvement in the murder would be microscopically small. You might find an alibi or DNA evidence that would reduce that to absolute zero, but even if not, the base likelihood would be tiny.

When you find out that Dassey is a relative of the murderer, he becomes a more likely suspect. When you find out that he was at the murderer's house on the day of the murder and at the murderer's fire pit on the night the body was burned, he becomes a more likely suspect.

Okay, not finding physical evidence is a factor in support of his non-involvement, but based on the facts of the case - ie., the body being burned beyond recognition - there wouldn't necessarily be a lot of physical evidence. And if the extent of his involvement was helping to dispose of the body, what physical evidence would you expect?

I don't really see what you're getting at in saying that the actions of the police and his lawyers are evidence in support of his non-involvement. I mean he did confess. I would agree that there are enough examples of false confessions that we shouldn't take a confession as absolute proof of guilt. But to take it as evidence of innocence seems bizarre.

I can't believe revots et al have this little class.

And he's acting like the final confession, after the missing fox hills interview, still weight.

I went almost line by line showing the pattern, how they'd feed him all the answers, then do another follow-up 'official' interrogation when he'd repeat them, 3 times in pairs of 2. And before the final and most damning 'confession' there's a totally missing interview.

It's completely fabricated nonsense and now a judge agrees.

Shills, have some self-respect ffs.

Okay, there are legitimate discussions about the weight his police statements should have as evidence of Dassey's guilt, but to take them as evidence of his innocence (as the previous poster seemed to be doing) is just crazy. It makes no sense.

Yes, there are cases of false confessions - usually a result of high-pressure interrogation tactics, usually recanted very shortly afterwards. Dassey confessed to involvement on multiple occasions months apart. It's not a typical case of a coerced confession. Is it possible? Sure. Strange things happen. Is it likely? Not really.

Not to mention that there are also the statements he made to his Mom, to his cousin, his own admission to being with Avery the day the murder was committed, to being at the fire the night of the murder, his conflicting statements to police early in the investigation.

There is very strong evidence of his involvement, anyone claiming otherwise is not being intellectually honest.

Pretty sure people are talking about physical evidence of Dassey's involvement. Of which there is none

There is. The discovery of the victim's body at a location where Dassey was seen (and admitted to being) on the night of the murder.

Okay, there's no fingerprint and DNA evidence, but you wouldn't necessarily expect that given the facts of the case. The murder happened in a cottage that Dassey visited regularly - finding his fingerprints and DNA there wouldn't prove anything. The victim's body was burnt beyond recognition so no trace of her attacker(s) could be recovered. Avery's but not Dassey's blood was found in the victim's car - that's one fact that helps Dassey's case somewhat.

In other cases, suspects have been exonerated because physical evidence found at the scene EXCLUDED them (ie., it matched someone else). In this case the physical evidence is just inconclusive as to Dassey's guilt - there's nothing that implicates him, but also nothing that exonerates him.

I'd also like to point out that the conspiracy nuts seem to believe that the cops planted most of the physical evidence against Avery. If they were so keen to convict Dassey too, why wouldn't they have done the same thing for him? Why couldn't they have planted his blood in the victim's car too? Why couldn't they have planted the victim's DNA on his jeans? And what possible motivation could they have had to try to railroad this kid? The supposed motivation for framing Avery is already far-fetched, but at least within the realm of possibility. But to come up with a motive for framing Dassey you'd really have to clutch at straws.

There doesn't have to be any physical evidence that exonerates him. That's not how our law system works. Is there any physical evidence at the scene that exonerates you?

ikasign are you aware that NO dna Belonging to B.D was found at S.A. residence?

Also the FBI DID NOT get a match off any of the bones discovered on Avery Land to T.H, INFACT they did not call them bones but charred remains.

I guess what you have been saying itt is that you would be OK with this investigation if it was a member off your family, and that's cool & all but at least 99% of american's would not be happy.

This has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

Physical evidence is not a requirement for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is other evidence against Dassey establishing a very strong case for his guilt. Given the specific facts of the case, the lack of corroborating physical evidence (aside from the location of the body) is not particularly strong evidence of his innocence. It is evidence in his favour, but it is in no way conclusive, let alone when set against the evidence for his involvement.

In another case with other facts, a lack of forensic evidence might be conclusive. For instance in a rape case, if you found semen in the victim's body that didn't match your suspect and no semen matching your suspect, that would be very powerful evidence that you have the wrong guy. The case against Dassey isn't like this.

Ahh those bleached Jeans, lOl, What about the shoes he was wearing on the night off the big clean up?


Also ikasign can you explain away why the mcsd did not search at Crivitz when they found the Rav4 & most of the Avery clan was up there, you know to look for a missing person?


https://stopwrongfulconvictions.word...investigation/
Dem bones.... MTDna yeahhhhhhhhhh Now that is a ****ing joke if it was not so serious.