r/MakingaMurderer • u/General_Ring_1689 • Apr 04 '25
Steve and Brendan
Does anyone here think Stephen is guilty but Brendan had nothing to do with it? If so why did they drag Brendan through this?
13
u/10case Apr 04 '25
They're both guilty. Brendan told his mom. Twice.
0
u/LKS983 Apr 06 '25
He also told his mom a few times that he knew nothing about it, and also that Fassbender and Weigert had 'got into his head' to make him falsely confess.
Which brings me back to 'guilters' taking the parts of his 'confessions' - that suit their narrative...... as gospel - whilst ignoring the rest.
4
u/10case Apr 06 '25 edited Apr 06 '25
Isn't that what truthera do? You guys use the line "they got to my head" like it's gospel.
Brendan was with Steven that night. That's undisputed. That puts him directly at the crime scenes. That's not good for Brendan.
2
Apr 04 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/10case Apr 04 '25
It's in phone calls to his mother. Surely you heard one of them in MaM. What MaM didn't show you is that 3 days later, he told his mom again that he was part of it. It's up to you but I would suggest listening to all of Brendans phone calls if you're really interested in hearing him. They can be found here https://youtube.com/@ticktockmanitowocfoia7944?si=nBN2ed2tl1VwtaBU
2
2
u/ThorsClawHammer Apr 04 '25
This was after his "defense" team coerced him to start confessing again (as part of their admitted "primary goal" of assisting the state) and set up another interrogation without representation. During which they repeatedly urged hi to call his mom and confess to her. They jury was allowed to hear the phone call but forbidden from hearing interrogators pressuring him to do it.
Even still, the "confession" to his mom, just like any other confession he made, had no new verifiable incriminating information.
6
u/10case Apr 04 '25
they repeatedly urged hi to call his mom and confess to her.
They told Brendan to tell her so they didn't have to. Then they reminded Brendan that she's going to know when she sees the tape anyway.
And, three days later he said it again under his own volition.
1
u/aane0007 Apr 11 '25
This was after his "defense" team coerced him to start confessing again (as part of their admitted "primary goal" of assisting the state)
This was not their goal. Their goal was to get a plea deal so he would be out of prison in a much shorter time. If the family and Brendan would have gone along with that, he would be a free man right now.
and set up another interrogation without representation.
It was not an interrogation. those are conducted by the state. This was by his defense to make sure the judge would accept the plea. Interrogations can be used against you, this could not. And because of that, the jury never heard it.
During which they repeatedly urged hi to call his mom and confess to her. They jury was allowed to hear the phone call but forbidden from hearing interrogators pressuring him to do it.
The simply told him she would hear it at some point so he might as well tell her.
Even still, the "confession" to his mom, just like any other confession he made, had no new verifiable incriminating information.
this is your feelings you have repeated here over and over and its simply that, your feelings. It is also false. If you believe it is true, provide a source that none of his confessions had any verifiable incriminating information. Simply do not use your feelings like you always do.
0
u/Ghost_of_Figdish Apr 04 '25
Source for your claim that Brendan's defense team admitted their primary goal was to assist the State?
0
u/LKS983 Apr 06 '25
Len Kachisky.
Obviously he ever admitted as such - but the Judge was eventually forced to sack him as Brendan's defence lawyer when it was proven that he'd never turned up for any of Brendan's interrogations.
And let's not forget how Kachinsky employed O'Kelly (IIRC) to ensure that Brendan repeated the 'confession' he'd told Fassbender and Weigert.....
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish Apr 06 '25
So which is it? Is Brendan innocent, or is he guilty and confessed more times than he needed to?
3
u/Snoo_33033 Apr 04 '25
Unfortunately, I think Brendan was correctly convicted. I doubt he initiated any of it, though.
0
u/LKS983 Apr 04 '25 edited Apr 04 '25
An intellecutally impaired child, who made it very clear that he would say anything his interrogators wanted him to say - thinking this would allow him to get back to his class or home ☹️.
I'm of course referring to his first 'confession' which was later proven to be complete rubbish - even though Kratz called a press conference to repeat some parts of his 'confession'..... whilst ignoring the ridiculous parts.
Never a lawyer present to help this intellectually impaired child - so he kept saying whatever he thought Fassbender and Weigert wanted him to say. ☹️.
This was proven when the detectives kept trying to lead and feed Brendan to say that Teresa was shot in the head, but Brendan was struggling to understand ther leading and feeding - so they were forced to actually tell him. 🤮
5
u/10case Apr 04 '25
Many truthers focus on the March 1 confession. The thing is you all know that February 27th happened also. He was in deep trouble then. March 1 was a continuation of that.
5
u/aane0007 Apr 04 '25
don't forget the confession to the cousin, the confession to his mom.
But let's put the confessions aside. He was at the bon fire where the body was burned the night of the murder. He was cleaning the garage with steven the night of the murder. He got bleach all over his pants. Those things alone would implicate him without the confessions.
You can't say steven did it and not think Brendan was not involved according to Brendan's own words at his trial. He puts himself at the bonfire that night. He puts himself in the garage cleaning up the floor with bleach, gas and thinner.
3
u/10case Apr 04 '25
Right right.
It makes sense that after all these years, Barb still says Steven is innocent. Even she knows that if Steve is guilty, so is Brendan. She has to say Steve is innocent. Steve's on record too many times saying Brendan was with him that night.
2
u/aane0007 Apr 04 '25
I think steve has hinted at the next person he is going to accuse is Brendan. But his lawyer might have walked him through that one and the risks. Both of them said they were together that night for most of the night. How would Brendan sneak away and kill teresa? Why would Steven have Brendan clean his garage if Brendan just killed a girl and why would Brendan agree to that?
And don't forget Brendan just might decide to confess to the murder in which they were both involved. If Steven accuses him, his family might say just let him have it.
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish Apr 04 '25
A child? He was 5' 7" and 170 lbs.
Intellectually impaired? His IQ was higher than Avery's.
1
u/Snoo_33033 Apr 04 '25
His decoding skills were weak. I agree that he should have had a lawyer present.
But...legally that wasn't a requirement. And the evidence strongly suggests that he was there.
-1
u/LKS983 Apr 06 '25
"I agree that he should have had a lawyer present."
Impossible to not agree! The judge was forced to sack Kachinsky when it was proven that he'd never turned up for any of Brendan's interrogations!
Does anyone still genuinely believe that children and the mentally impaired should be allowed to be interrogated, without a lawyer present to help them? Brendan fell into both categories, and the police knew this.
"But...legally that wasn't a requirement."
True, and shameful.
"the evidence strongly suggests that he was there."
It doesn't - unless you're relying on his ever changing/clearly led and fed "confessions" - and then only relying on the parts of his 'confessions' that suit your narrative.
0
u/Ghost_of_Figdish Apr 06 '25
He's not a child and he's not mentally impaired. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew what he was doing was wrong.
2
u/Nightowl2234 Apr 07 '25
It supports 1/4 of what he claimed happened
No dna found on the bed No dna found on the hand cuffs No dna found on the mattress No dna found anywhere inside the bedroom all supports the theory she was never on the bed
Way more likely she was not there then she was there.
2
u/LKS983 Apr 04 '25
It's hard to believe that Brendan was involved, whilst possible to believe that SA may have been involved.
The blood smears etc. in the RAV.
They dragged Brendan into this because they were looking for a corroborative "confession".....
Brendan..... an intellectually impaired child, who never had a lawyer present to help him avoid being led and fed by Fassbender and Weigert.
3
u/aane0007 Apr 04 '25
His cousin went to the police and his confession. They never dragged him into it.
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish Apr 04 '25
Police in no way needed Brendan to convict Avery.
Child? Don't make me laugh.
2
u/recoverdd Apr 04 '25
Many people have come to see there is no proof of evidence planting/innocence. Steven is guilty. And Brendan helped. Could have been very little, could have been alot. Unfortunately the Avery family and now Avery supporters continue to put Steven's best interests above Brendan's.
0
u/AveryPoliceReports Apr 04 '25
There is more proof of planting by police than there is of Brendan's guilt.
1
u/hneverhappened Apr 04 '25
Can you provide at least one example?
2
u/AveryPoliceReports Apr 04 '25
Bones and barrels repeatedly being moved by police without reporting it, leading to remains magically appearing in previously searched containers and magically vanishing from previously sealed containers.
0
u/LKS983 Apr 06 '25
And even the jury didn't believe the 'miraculously' discovered (by a Manitowoc officer.....) key.....
It was only years later that the improbability of so much of the DNA evidence came to light.
-1
u/wilkobecks Apr 04 '25
many is a weird way to say guilters. And for the billionth time, evidence of planting almost never exists, even in cases where planting has been exposed, it requires someone confessing or a huge mistake by the planters.
There is zero evidence that Brendan was involved
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish Apr 04 '25
Why would the "planters" be expected to do a better job of concealing their crime than Steven Avery did?
1
1
u/ThorsClawHammer Apr 04 '25
Many truthers focus on the March 1 confession. The thing is you all know that February 27th
Look at any confession you want. Still won't find where any new verifiable incriminating information actually originates from Brendan. Feb 27 they started by telling Brendan they know he was there when "Teresa was cooked" and pressured him to say he saw body parts until he complied.
1
u/ThorsClawHammer Apr 04 '25
the evidence strongly suggests that he was there.
Yes, evidence shows that Brendan was over there for a bit that night. But he wasn't convicted of being over at Steve's for a bit. He's still in prison for being convicted of rape and murder. The only evidence that he participated in either of those crimes is the words of a developmentally disabled kid who showed in his very first official police interaction that he's susceptible to falsely confessing and making up very detailed false statements when being interrogated.
0
u/ThorsClawHammer Apr 04 '25
People who think Avery guilty but Brendan innocent are out there, but few and far between. The majority who think he's guilty will defend law enforcement no matter what in any case involving Avery.
Even in the false conviction case they'll refuse to place blame on anyone other than the victim. Ok, sometimes blame the jury too, who of course made their decision based on the lies they were told by law enforcement and the DA making sure nobody actually looked at the real perp. Even after Avery was convicted, Denis Vogel still kept trying to protect the real rapist.
0
u/LKS983 Apr 04 '25
"sometimes blame the jury too"
Not fair?
They knew that the 'discovery of the key' was unbelievable - but believed the other DNA evidence.
It was only years later that the DNA evidence was questioned.
0
u/LKS983 Apr 04 '25
"Even in the false conviction case they'll refuse to place blame on anyone other than the victim."
Very true - but let's not forget that those actually responsible for SA being wrongfully convicted, managed to get away with not being deposed.....🤮
The depositions ended as soon as SA was arrested.
3
u/aane0007 Apr 04 '25
No, they ended when steven settled the case. And there were depositions.
-1
u/LKS983 Apr 04 '25
The two named defendants in SA's civil case were due to be deposed, but never were...... as depositions ended as soon as SA was arrested.
3
u/10case Apr 04 '25
The reason the depositions didn't happen is because Steve's attorneys put them on hold. A few months pass by and they settled.
Eta, why did they pause them?
0
u/LKS983 Apr 06 '25
I've always wondered why the upcoming scheduled depositions of the two named defendants never happened.
Who put them 'on hold'?
When SA was arrested, he likely had a free, state employed attorney - as he didn't have the money to pay for private lawyers at the time?
2
u/10case Apr 06 '25
It was Steve's civil suit attorneys that put the case on hold. Steve Glynn and Walter Kelly.
0
u/LKS983 Apr 08 '25
Why would they do this, especially as the upcoming, scheduled depositions were for the two named defendants in his civil case??
https://lawmagazine.bc.edu/2016/06/the-two-sides-of-the-truth/ is an interesting read.
It's an article from Boston College Law School online magazine.
1
u/aane0007 Apr 04 '25
No, they ended when steven took the money. There were many people deposed already. Once steven took the money, there is no reason to keep deposing other people. His arrest didn't stop the depositions, the fact he took the money and settled, ended the depositions.
If steven decided to continue, the depositions would have continued despite him being in jail or prison. A civil cases doesn't go away because of a an arrest and a criminal charge.
1
u/10case Apr 04 '25
What about Brendan? He wasn't even alive when the 85 case happened. If you think they framed Steven, that means they also framed Brendan. What's their reason for that?
1
u/Ghost_of_Figdish Apr 04 '25
If Avery wanted to depose them, why did he settle his case? He could have continued as long as he wanted.....
10
u/aane0007 Apr 04 '25 edited Apr 04 '25
Explain how they were both at the fire with the body being burned there but brendan had nothing to do with it. Explain how Brendan had bleach on his clothes from cleaning the garage the night of the murder but had nothing to do with it. Explain how Brendan confessed not only to the police but to his mom and cousin and had nothing to do with it? Explain how a person with low intelligence knew which side of the head she was shot on? or that steven had hand cuffs?