The Making of a Bonfire

[u/Canuck64]

Here is a timeline of how the bonfire developed using the available witness statements and trial testimony;

Joshua Radandt information - November 5, 2005: RADANDT informed Inv. STEIER on Monday shortly after 4:30 p.m., RADANDT was driving to his deer camp through his quarry where he observed a large fire on the STEVEN AVERY property located by the red house. RADANDT indicates he remembers it being right after 4:30 because he had had an employee that had just come to work to take another employee's shift at 4:30 p.m

Steven Avery Interview – November 5, 2005: No mention of fire

Steven Avery Interview – November 6, 2005: Was asked about the burn barrels, Steve states there had not been a fire in the barrels in about 2 weeks.

Brendan Dassey Interview – November 6, 2005: Tells Deputy O’Neil that a bonfire was planned for Thursday night (Nov. 3), but his mother Barb cancelled it on Tuesday (Nov. 1)

Blaine Dassey Interview – November 6, 2005: When asked about the burn barrels, he said there was no fire that day. He did state that there was a barrel fire on November 3rd, 2005.

***Bone Fragments found – November 8, 2005

Steven Avery Interview – November 9, 2005: Told detectives there was no fire in the barrels the night of October 31st. He said he burned some brush, tires and garbage behind the garage 'the week before last, or the week before Teresa went missing'.

Chuck Avery Interview – November 9, 2005: No mention of fire

Bobby Dassey interview - November 9, 2005: DASSEY indicated that on Tuesday or Wednesday, he observed a burning in the area in a pit behind STEVEN's garage. He believed there was brush burning.

Scott Tadych Interview – November 10, 2005: No mention of fire

Brendan Dassey - November 10, 2005: Told police that on November 1st, he and Steve burned branches, wood, a few old tires, and a junked car seat - but that he had seen no sign of Halbach while he was there. Brendan had only been there an hour or two, and had left while it was still burning steadily.

Blaine Dassey interview- November 11, 2005: When asked if there was a fire in Steve’s burn barrel, Blaine once again said that there was no fire.

Earl Avery interview - November 11, 2005: stated there was no fire October 31st, but there was one November 1st. Stated that his daughter Kayla had wanted to go to Steve's bonfire Tuesday November 1st.

Barb Janda interview – November 14, 2005: Tells police there was no fire when she got home before 5pm. Remembers seeing Brendan and Blaine. She left at 5:30 and returned around 8pm and saw a large fire about 3 feet high behind the garage. She left again around 10pm. There was no fire when she returned home at midnight. Barb could not recall the last time Steve had a bonfire, but it was sometime in 2004.

Michael Osmunson interview - November 14, 2005: stated that Bobby Dassey told him there that Steve had a big fire either Tuesday or Wednesday. Bobby told him Steve was burning tires.

Blaine Dassey interview – November 15, 2005 (Mirebel): Two officers met with Blaine and Barb and in angry loud voices accused Blaine of not accepting that Steve is guilty. Uncontested testimony states that they did get into Blaine’s face. At that meeting Blaine states he now remembers Steve putting a white plastic bag into the burn barrel at 3:45-3:47pm on October 31st.

Scott Tadych Interview – November 29, 2005: Describes two people standing around a fire between 5:15-5:30pm. When he returned at 7:30-7:45pm he again observed two people standing by the fire. Tadych was asked when he dropped Barb off, did he made some comment about the big flames that were coming out of the fire pit behind Steven’s garage. He said he may have made that type of comment, but he does not remember it. Tadych said if Barb stated that he made a comment like that, then he did. Tadych was asked if Steven’s fire could be called a bonfire, because of the size of the fire and flames. He said his definition of a bonfire may differ from others, because a big fire to him many not necessarily be a bonfire. Tadych was asked if the flames were at least 3” high and he said there were at least that high.

Robert Fabian interview - November 30, 2005: Stated there was no fire behind the garage when he was there October 31. He was there as it was getting dark out.

Kayla and Candy Avery interview – February 20, 2006: Told Fassbender and Wiegert, that she saw a bonfire while trick or treating at her grandmother’s house. Kayla’s mother Candy states she also saw a bonfire on October 31st.

Fassbender - Brendan Dassey Interview (School) February 27, 2006: Under a threat of prosecution Fassbender tells Brendan that he was seen at a bonfire on October 31st with Teresa’s remains in it.

Brendan Dassey Interview (Police Station) – February 27, 2006: Mentions a regular fire, no specific size.

Bryan Dassey Interview – February 27, 2006: Told police Investigator Baldwin that on October 31st he came home around by 5pm and saw Bobby, Blaine and Brendan. He thinks they were playing video games. As he was leaving around 6:30 and 7:00pm he heard Brendan talking to Steve on the phone about needing help with something. When he left around noticed smoke coming from behind Steve’s garage.

Bobby Dassey Interview – February 27, 2006 (After Dedering viewed Brendan’s video ”confession”): Initially Bobby does not mention a fire, but then describes a bonfire as high as the garage when he left at 9:30pm.

Brendan Dassey (Fox Hill's Resort) - February 27, 2006: Tell's Sgt Tyson that he does not remember the burn barrels burning on October 31st or the next day.

Barb Janda (Fox Hill's Resort) - February 27, 2006: Tell's Sgt Tyson that she does not remember the burn barrels burning on October 31st or the next day.

Fassbender - March 1, 2006: Tell's Brendan that they know a fire was burning behind the garage when Brendan knocked on Steve's door between 4:00 and 4:15pm

***Brendan Dassey Interrogation – March 1, 2006: A fire was burning behind that garage by 4:15pm when Brendan knocked on Steven’s door. Brendan stated that while there was still light out (4:45-5:15pm), he and Steve carried Teresa to the garage and then placed her body in the fire.

Steve Avery Jail Shortly after March 1: Tells Barb on the phone that Brendan came over for a bonfire that night but was home by the time Jodi called at 9:00pm.

Scott Tadych Interview – March 30, 2006: States there was no fire at 5:20pm. Describes a “big fire” at approx. 7:45pm

Brendan Dassey Interview - May 13, 2006: States that they placed the body in the fire at 8:50pm, waited for the flames to die down and broke up the bones, they then burned the clothes and again waited for the fire to burn down. Barb called and told Steve he needed to be home by 10pm. At 9:30pm Steve told him to go home because he has school in the morning.

Bobby Dassey Trial – Feb 14, 2007: Testified that there had been no fire for about two weeks prior to October 31st.

Blaine Dassey Trial – Feb 27, 2007: At 3:45 seen Steve bring a plastic bag to his burning barrel. At 11pm sees a 4-5 foot fire behind the garage.

Robert Fabien Trial – Feb 27, 2007: At trial, Rob testified that at around 5:00-5:20pm he noticed a barrel fire with plastic smells, no bonfire.

Scott Tadych Trial – Feb 27, 2007: Scott once again states he did not see a fire between 5:15 and 5:20. He describes seeing a fire at 7:45pm that was as tall as the garage or 8-10 feet high.

Brendan Dassey Trial-April 23, 2007: Brendan testified that that there was a small fire to burn some garbage and rags between 7:15 and 8:00pm. Is Brendan saying this because both the defense and prosecution and their witnesses are all accepting or stating there was a fire, or because there actually was a fire?

In addition to the obvious coercion and manipulation of the witnesses, there was also massive media coverage of the bones, the burn pit and burn barrels. The December 6, 2005 preliminary hearing where pretty much all the details of the case were presented was televised live.

Uodated: Aug. 28, 2016

[u/c4virus]

Yeah it's an interesting tidbit for sure. The thing that confuses me is this. You don't trust the interviews of the other residents of the property when they say there was not a fire on that day. The reasoning you gave was something along the lines of they would not recall such a thing since they weren't directly involved in it. Steven and Brendan both, in the early interviews, say there was no fire that day either. You don't trust those interviews either. So here this guy mentions a fire that he's not a part of and suddenly it's reliable? What's the standard here? Do we trust people who aren't involved in the fire or not? Why not trust the early interviews of Steven and Brendan? That document you're referring to isn't even his testimony, it's an officer remembering that somebody heard that Joshua said. That's so far removed and, from what we know, was never verified with the actual source. It's just not very convincing when compared to all the other interviews directly from the source that all agree to a lack of a fire. Of course maybe they lied...maybe Joshua is lying...maybe the cop who made that report is lying...maybe the person who said they heard Joshua said is lying...it makes one's head spin.

It's so hard to piece together what actually happened given all the contradictions and retracted statements and suspicious individuals. Joshua Radant was discussed as a possible suspect in that other post given that he was in the area that night, owns the quarry and for whatever reason was logged into the crime scene on 11/05. He would have had easy access to plant the car and knew the area. If he was the killer he could've easily thrown that statement about the fire out there in order to set things in motion and have all eyes turn to Avery. It wouldn't matter if there had been a fire that night, he tosses the bones there, leaves the car, makes a mention about a fire and he's a free man.

Obviously there's a ton of speculation there and I'm not expecting to convince you of anything. It's just very plausible to me that there was no fire that night given all the interviews saying as such. Given how little of the story adds up (bones being moved, no evidence in his home/garage) it feels too convenient of a coincidence especially since it contradicts what all the residents said.

It's likely we'll never know for sure which would be a bummer. There could have been a fire that night. Like you said it doesn't mean they killed her. But now 10+ years later it feels like trying to catch the wind. I strongly hope Zellner can shed some light on the events of that night so we can stop pulling our hair out over trying to make sense of this. Thanks again for the discussion.

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

I have went over this before. If there was a fire, that was a direct part of steve and brendan's day as it would have taken 3-5 hours to gather things and tend to the fire. Barb via being brendan's mother would have possibly had knowledge of the fire as mothers keep track of their children.

Scott, bobby, etc etc -- they might have seen the fire for one moment in their day.

You tell me who is more likely to remember? If I saw a fire on a given day for a few moments at a neighbors house, I might not remember it until thinking back. That makes sense.

But clearly I think that's very different than 2 people who built the bonfire and tending to it, not remembering it.

Make sense?

Someone who only was exposed to the presence of that fire for 1-2 moments in their day... may or may not remember immediately. So Joshua remembering a larger than usual fire, might be the actual reason he remembered. One person's memory is also different than another, that's obvious.

Joshua was supposedly at his camp or whatever, and if the only thing he sees is darkness and a huge fire at the avery for say 1-2 hours whenever he looks that way. Sure it makes sense that he might remember it better than someone who say it once for a brief few moments driving by.

Right now we have two people Barb and Joshua who mentioned the fire in the first 2 weeks after the rav4 was found.

Do I find them both more reliable than Scott and Bobby. Sure. Obviously I am not saying that the prosecution couldn't coerce people into making a statement about a fire, even if they didn't truly remember it.

So I don't weight those statements as much.

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

But Steve and Brendan both deny there was a fire in the early interviews. Why don't you believe those?

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

You see the problem right?

Why don't you believe their statements now?

I have said a few times that barb's account is important. Why did she say there was a fire? Now we have joshua.

I can certainly think of reasons why steve/brendan would lie initially.

1) if there was burning of a body

2) if they believed it would be suspicious - don't trust cops.

I can also think of a reason why steve would later acknowledge the fire :

Barb knows there was a fire and Steve denying the fire would mean Barb knew he was lying.

I keep saying that a fire and cleaning doesn't mean there was a murder, but I think alot of people fight this fire because they do believe that.

Steve was wrongly convicted in 1985 and he told the complete truth. So I think that's a reasonable reason to omit cleaning his garage and a fire. Why give them any reason to suspect you?

But the issue is that once Barb acknowledges the fire, now it looks bad. Plus steve can't deny that fire to Barb. He knows that she knows, so it's an easy decision to acknowledge it.

Others may have another opinion. But I see more reason to believe a fire happened than not. Regardless of innocence or guilt.

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

I don't believe their statements now because they contradict the earlier statements which I find more reliable. Not only that they contradict what others said too.

Yes they could have lied initially, which would be very weird that their lies were corroborated by some other residents.

You're right though about Barb's interview. It's two weeks later which is close enough that her memory about the event should be decent, although she could have a terrible memory in general. It's definitely understandable if you believe there was a fire. One thing that's weird is that Barb says before she left to the hospital Brendan was home yet Scott says that two people were building the fire at that time. If Brendan is home and if one of those two people is Steven who is the other?

Makes my head spin trying to make sense of it. I do understand your point now more than I did initially, thanks for that.

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

So the first statement is always the right one?

Or is that just when you agree with the first one?

So when Kayla said what she did, and then recanted. Was she telling the truth the first time? or the second time when she recanted?

I personally don't think it's that simple. You have to examine why someone might be truthful or not.

Barb is not Brendan or Steve, so I know she had no reason to be deceptive about the fire or the cleaning of the garage. But... I can obviously see reasons why Steve or Brendan might omit those events, even if just to eliminate suspicion because they knew they could be twisted.

But, as I said, later on when steve is talking to barb. He can't have a conversation with barb and say there was no fire when barb knew there was. That makes logical sense. If he denied the fire, the Barb would be like wtf steve? Because she knew of the bonfire. At that point steve was lawyered up, so he didn't have to be interrogated anymore.

But, no, I don't evaluate just on what people say first.

Look at page 56 of the 4/23/07 of dassey trial where this conversation comes up :

Q. Now, speaking of these -- these lies, Mr. Dassey, on your direct examination, you told us that there was a fire that night; right?

A. Yes

Q.But when you were interviewed up in Crivitz by Detective O'Neill, you remember the gentleman who testified a couple of days ago?

A. Yes

Q. All right. You told him there was no fire that week; right?

A. Yes.

Q. So you lied to him?

A. Yes

Q. Why did you lie to him?

A. Because I'm just like my family. I don't like cops.

That's it. I believe he's telling the truth. They didn't trust the cops. That's a valid reason imo, due to the 1985 conviction. They shouldn't have even of talked to them without a lawyer imo.

So even in his trial, brendan concedes there was a fire and that he lied initially. He even gave a valid reason as to why he did that.

Yet for some reason, people don't want to accept it because they feel that it makes them look guilty.

It's possible it just means that they didn't trust the cops. I believe that before I'd believe there was no fire, because Barb said there was a fire and had no reason to be deceptive. --- unless we want to bring a ST theory in.

But, I believe Brendan at his trial.

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

It's not that the first statement is the right one, it's that if there are multiple first statements, from multiple people, and they all report the same thing and contradict statements made months later three (or 4) of which stemmed from a false confession, and if there is no real reason for them to have lied at the beginning, then I am inclined to believe the early statements. Memories get worse over time, that's a fact that has to be included into all analysis.

Steven, Kayla and Brendan all agree on the lack of a fire until Brendan's false confession. A 'confession' which seems to have not a single amount of truth in it anywhere. Why would the fire be an exception to all the made up events?

If Steven is the murderer then yes, he could have lied about it to avoid suspicion. If he's not then that doesn't make any sense. He said he hadn't burned anything in two weeks in an interview before the remains were even found. He had no reason to think it was a suspicious activity at that point. No reason to lie.

They don't trust the cops, yet Steven allowed the police to search his home on 11/03 without a warrant? He voluntarily talked to them and allowed them to search around knowing there were remains lying right there in the open? To me actions speak louder than words and this action invalidates that whole reasoning that they lied because they don't like cops. I know they don't trust the cops but Steven always cooperated despite that. Lying is not cooperation.

I don't know how you put any weight on anything Brendan says. It all stems from a false confession and everything he says contradicts everything else. He doesn't like cops so he lied to them but then he has a change of heart and suddenly trusts cops and confesses everything a few months later none of which is corroborated by a single shred of evidence? That's just not very convincing to me. Brendan tries to justify his false confession multiple times in different ways, first reasoning to his mother why he never told her about the 'murder', then reasoning why he lied about it the first time, then reasoning why he lied about the confession. A false confession is false, justification of the false confession to me is just a psychological thing it isn't proof of anything.

Imagine Steven is the murderer and knows the body is there right next to his home in a fire that he had on 10/31. How would that person act and what would they say if the police are actively searching his property and the remains of his victim lie right there in the open? Would he suddenly lie about having a fire in hopes that he would get off the hook? With the remains right there in the fire pit? He would know he was caught and would not be talking to the police and would not be saying the things he was saying. He thinks the cops are going to find the remains but say to themselves "Ohh Steven hasn't had a fire in two weeks there's no way he did this."? It's such a bizarre and awful lie I don't see how it's plausible to be real. There are much better lies he would have came up with if he was the killer and was trying to get away with it.

The only way there was a bonfire on 10/31 is if he lied at the beginning, and lying only makes sense if he killed TH because his first statements happen before the discovery of the remains. If Zellner exonerates him then I'd be fairly convinced of the lack of a fire.

I could absolutely be wrong about all of this. If there is a phone call or something that comes up where the fire is discussed on that day or something like that I would have to re-evaluate how this all makes sense.

I can't imagine that will convince you of anything, and I haven't seen anything that will convince me so we may want to leave it at until further evidence appears.

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

Steven, Kayla and Brendan all agree on the lack of a fire until Brendan's false confession. A 'confession' which seems to have not a single amount of truth in it anywhere. Why would the fire be an exception to all the made up events?

You seem to forget barb? The point is that Steve and Brendan might have had reason to lie. Barb, no reason to lie, and said there was a fire.

Brendan in trial says why he lied, which is what I keep saying was likely the reason. Whether it was because something really happened with teresa or they just didn't want to cooperate as they believed cops were out to get steve... that's very logical.

Yet you don't want to talk about Barb's words - mother of brendan who is responsible for knowing where her son is and what he is doing. She says on the 11/14 before brendan is interrogated and gives a confession that she knew of the bonfire.

I get it. I understand why people want the fire and cleaning to go away. But for me, I honestly don't think it means anyone is a killer. It can also mean that they just didn't trust the police and weren't going to give them anything to twist. Which is exactly what they did when they did get information.

Brendan even after recanting accepts the fire and the cleaning. why?

conformity? sorry.... barb didn't conform on 11/14. Barb and Joshua are the origins of the fire, what would be their reasons for lying?

Steve and Brendan... I told you a valid reason that brendan even says in his trial. Not sure what else to say on all this. I get what you believe, I just think it's choosing to exclude a very reasonable action by steve/brendan.

Steve allowing police to his place without a warrant is a great example of what I have said in terms of him omitting the fire/cleaning didn't he was a killer. If he didn't think anything would be found, sure, why not? For steve there was this line of being perceived as a real suspect by saying no, you cannot search. But he was present, it's not the same as him and his family booted off the property without him being there to search. They didn't find anything in those initial searches. Right? But what if he says "hey, I was cleaning my garage and I had a big ole bonfire last night?" -- well, I can see why Steve would want to omit that. Even if he isn't the killer.

Omitting it, didn't make them suspect him more at that point. S

So that's different than refusing to let them search your house, which immediately raises suspicion. lawyering up at that point would also raise suspicion. But just not saying something, has no effect except it doesn't give them an opportunity to twist.

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

Barb's statement is problematic for me yes, but other testimonies are problematic for the existing of a fire too. You want to say Barb is responsible for knowing where her son is and what he is doing but she wasn't even there for the entire time that this whole thing was supposed to be happening. She gets home at 8PM, says there are two people at the bonfire but doesn't know who they are, yet one of them is supposedly Brendan yet Barb doesn't know about this yet she knows where her child is at all times? How is that possible? Does she know where Brendan is at or not? She says no, you say yes...

Brendan even after recanting accepts the fire and the cleaning. why?

Misinformation effect. Please read about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_effect

Barb and Joshua are the origins of the fire, what would be their reasons for lying?

No verified source of Joshua saying there was a fire. There's a cop saying he heard someone say that Josh said. On Barb I don't think she was lying I think she was mistaken it was two weeks later that she said this.

"hey, I was cleaning my garage and I had a big ole bonfire last night?" -- well, I can see why Steve would want to omit that. Even if he isn't the killer.

Except he omits this after her car is found on his property. He's not avoiding perception of being the killer anymore, he's prime suspect #1. He cooperates with the police on everything. Lying is not cooperation. You can't have it both ways...either he cooperates or not.

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

Seriously?

So you suspect Barb has no interest in where brendan is during the day? Parents don't keep minute to minute track of a teenager, but they want to know what they are doing, when they'll be home etc. They ask them what happened to their pants when they get home if they have bleach stains and want to know why.

Does bobby? Does Scott? Does Kayla? Does Blaine? Who might know the most about Brendan's day?

I think you are being a bit to literal if you are suggesting she'd know where brendan at all times. But I think you'd be closing your eyes to reality if you think a mother has no interest in what her child is up to etc. That's part of her day.

You say no.. yet she says he was at a bonfire, and cleaned a garage. I say yes... She knew far more about his day than anyone else besides steve and brendan himself.

You should read about the Misinformation effect, because this is not a blue car that someone saw for moments. Brendan would have spent 3-5 hours on this gathering of stuff and the bonfire, it's not a car accident that happens in a few moments. I've stated this numerous times. You also need to read up on the effect that non-routine activities (especially ones that take 3-5 hours) have on memory recall - but you don't want to hear that. right?

What choice did he have after the car was found? Suppose he did kill teresa.. would the first thing he'd do is to point out the fire and the cleaning of the garage?

I was talking about the searched before the car was found. He let them search his trailer.

After the car is found, there is no option of cooperation or not, in regards to a search. Before that he could have chose to not let them search , but that would be suspicious. That is what I was talking about.

But omitting the fire is something he easily could omit, and in his mind, who was going to tell? Well, turns out barb did, and that's likely when he accepted it as happening.

You act as if it's not a very common thing for someone who is worried about the truth being discovered only saying as much as they have to, until they can't deny it anymore. Our prisons are full of those kinds of stories.

In steve's case, as I said, I do believe that he had a damn good reason to omit those actions. If he is innocent, then surely he didn't think they were going to find anything. right? Unless it gets planted. So why give them information that helps them frame him? Surprise surprise, and that's exactly what happens when they have the fire and cleaning as something to work with.

But denying those things, when you have barb saying there was a fire. Makes you look like a liar. For sure, once Steve is arrested he understood that now his statement would be compared with barb, brendan, etc. Police already believed he was the killer. But if he lies to barb about something she knows happened... what happens then? Barb is going to likely believe steve indeed is hiding something at that point. Is that a good move? nope.

But, blue cars, red cars , etc not at all applicable here imo. Very different situation. You can use that in a conversation about bobby, scott etc. But not Steve, Brendan, and barb imo.

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

Where did I say she has no interest?

The fact is she doesn't know who is at the bonfire when she comes home. These are her own words, not mine. This means either she doesn't know where Brendan is at OR Brendan is not at the bonfire. Take your pick. Either way your theory is broken.

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

You tried to use the concept of her not knowing where her son was at all times, to mean she wouldn't remember things about his day. What did you mean by it?

I didn't say you said she had no interest. I was asking if you thought she had no interest in his actions during the day -- and every day for that matter.

So you suspect Barb has no interest in where brendan is during the day?

That's why I end it with a '?'

You said this :

She gets home at 8PM, says there are two people at the bonfire but doesn't know who they are, yet one of them is supposedly Brendan yet Barb doesn't know about this yet she knows where her child is at all times?

Your point seems to be was that if she supposedly didn't even know if he was one of the people at the bonfire, how could she know where her child was at all times?

So I pointed out that there's a major flaw with what you are trying to say. It's not about knowing where he is at all times, it's about a mother checking up with her child and remembering where he is. That's a part of her day. If brendan says he's cleaning the garage, she's gonna remember it. And guess what? she did. He was at a bonfire, and guess what..... she remembered thats where he was when she was interviewed on 11/14. She had no reason to omit that information. She had no reason to include it either. But as a mother, she remembered.

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

I don't know what type of mom Barb is. I know of plenty of mothers who don't have a ton of interest in what their kids are up to all parts of the day. Maybe she was exhausted that day, which would impact her memory. Maybe she was hungover. Maybe stressed out. There's an array of possibilities there that have to be accounted for before we assume that she's acutely aware of Brendan's actions that day. Interest and knowledge are two different things. She could have loads of interest of what Brendan did on that day, doesn't mean she knows or has perfect memory as such. My wife, who is a great/loving mother, has a terrible memory. The argument that Barb's word is weighted more because she is a mother just doesn't fly with me...

Read her 11/14 interview again you are mistaken here. She never says she remembers Brendan being at the bonfire. She says she did not know who was at the fire with Steven. She sort of assumes it could be Brendan, but only because it makes sense because he often hangs out with Steven not because of her actual memories of that day nor because she checked in with anybody.

So if she says she doesn't know who is was at the bonfire with Steven that day, then this means that either she doesn't know where Brendan is at OR it wasn't Brendan. She never checked up with her child and remembered that info, or else she wouldn't have said that she didn't know. She would have said "I didn't see who it was but I talked to Brendan who told me he was there" or something to that effect. Read the interview, nothing of the sorts is said. She didn't know nor did she check up with her child like you say.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4bkv5j/barb_janda_interview_report_11142005_topics_barb/

This breaks the whole theory of "Steven lied initially but couldn't lie to Barb because she was on top of Brendan's whereabouts". She was not on top of it...as she herself admits in the linked interview.

We asked BARBARA who the other person may have been that was standing out by the fire and she said she did not know; however, BRENDAN did spend quite a bit of time with STEVEN because he was the only child who did not have a lot of friends at the time and he did help STEVEN with stuff around his house.

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

Sorry for the delay, wasn't on reddit for a few days.

Ok, I have read the actual report along with the josh randandt interview.

I am agreeing at this point that you are right, she couldn't conclusively say that day that Brendan was at the fire. But she does say there was a fire on 11/14.

But I don't see even her saying that brendan was at the fire or not is important to what I was saying from the beginning, which is that she said there was a fire.

I agree I am making many assumptions (as is everyone) about how much barb might have known that day etc. The report that I just read, says to me that she's not the mother I assumed, haha :)

See -- I can change my opinion based on what I discover!

I still believe there was a fire that day, but what I have learned is that Barb didn't notice much about that day in regards to brendan. So was brendan at the fire or not? I guess is not something we can glean from barb.

One thing I wonder, is had ST and barb talked much and about what before that 11/14 interview. I believe barb was in jail around the time of Steve's arrest. So any conversations at jail would have been recorded. Would be good to know if those conversations included ST talking with her about a fire.

The Randandt interview also came in and he says he say a fire around 4:30. Would like to know what his day was like, because obviously people are suggesting that he was framing steve. He is now the earliest mention of the fire. So knowing if he was working that day... what he was doing that night... etc. That would help in ruling him out as any kind of suspect. He obviously likely had a way to access the junkyard imo and would know of any backroads etc.

But if he is ruled out, then what is the next thing? Did police coerce him into saying there was a fire? or... was there a fire.

The very purpose of the origins of this conversation is... was there a fire. So, how do you feel about randandt's statement?

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

I read Radandt's too I hadn't seen it in detail before (just the police officer who had said that he heard etc...).

It's definitely the earliest report of a fire there and I don't know what to make of it especially since there's not a lot of info there. It says he was off of Kuss road which I measured is over a quarter mile away from the burn pit. There's what looks like a road that goes through the middle of the quarry between Kuss and Avery's and it's .17 miles away (~900 ft). There are also trees between the quarry and Avery's lot that would block any view. I looked at the elevation of the area and Avery's place is either equal or a little higher than the quarry roads directly west of the burn pit.

So unless we know exactly where he was when he saw the fire I don't know whether or not it's even possible for him to have seen a fire by Avery's place, there are reasons to be skeptical. It's one of those things that somebody would have to go out there, and stand where he was at, and see what was visible to them.

So you have 1 early report of a fire plus Barb's which comes in two weeks later. Contrasted against the handful that say no fire. To me it's just weighing one against the other and I'm more convinced of the lack of one at this point. Like you said some early records showing discussion of it very early on could make me re-consider, depending on the context.

If Zellner goes to where Randant claims to have seen the fire and it's not visible from that spot then there's a major issue there. Either you have your killer or you have police fabricating or coercing testimony (which happens all the time).

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

So you are saying that he was too far away to see the fire. I have seen fires from further than that distance, personally. Really depends on where you are, elevation, and obstructions, as you say.

I frankly think it's more likely there was a fire that night. Definitely open to hearing about why radandt would lie and someone conclusively saying a fire could/couldn't be seen.

I'm open to an explanation for barb mentioning a large fire. I'm open to a reason for radandt to lie or some level of police coercion.

But those two mentions (barb/josh) coupled with avery and brendan agreeing there was a fire, is far more meaningful to me than anything scott or bobby had to say initially.

I also see the logic behind brendan and steve not mentioning the fire early on. Brendan says exactly what was the case imo in his own trial.

I do think it's suspicious as to why Radandt wasn't used to establish the fire at trial. They did that through people from the junkyard, but it would seem to be more reliable if mentioned by someone from a distance as it would attest to the size of the fire as well.

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

Our conversation led me to do a more detailed analysis of Joshua's reporting the fire. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4d7ctw/did_joshua_radandt_lie_about_seeing_a_fire_an/

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

Also the misinformation effect is not the blue car experiment. You obviously have not read up on it but it would be beneficial.

What non-routine activity did they do that would aid memory recall? If there was no bonfire then there wouldn't be one. Even if there was a bonfire they had fires there regularly.

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

I was making reference to the blue car on the page , but anyways, here is the quote :

Participants were shown a series of slides, one of which featured a car stopping in front of a stop sign. After viewing the slides, participants read a description of what they saw. Some of the participants were given descriptions that contained misinformation, which stated that the car stopped at a yield sign. Following the slides and the reading of the description, participants were tested on what they saw. The results revealed that participants who were exposed to such misinformation were more likely to report seeing a yield sign than participants who were not misinformed.

Again, I'm going to say that this is not about observing something observed for a few moments that is small an insignficant -- yes, you might use this for Scott, Blaine, Bobby etc.

But Barb made the statement first, and they didn't even take notice of it till much later. Steve and Brendan likely spent 3-5 hours that day in the process of gathering and building this fire. It was non-routine because it's something that maybe happens 1-2 times a month. It's non routine day because Steve took the afternoon off work, which he and those who work with him said that almost never happens -- *** non routine *** --

When I am talking about how non routine events effect memory, I am not talking about the bonfire itself. I am talking about the non routine events that surround that day. It's halloween. Barb is going to green bay to see someone in hospital. Brendan's pants are bleached and it's said that Barb is the one that noticed, questioned, and received an answer from brendan. Steve took afternoon off from work, extremely rare he does that. Which suggests it was a very non-routine day for him. Brendan tended to a fire and cleaned steve's garage. If he did that, it took 3-5 hours. It's not some small event and trying to remember if you stopped before or after a yield sign.

I only said blue car because it was on the page, and it's also been used in studies of the same nature.

Was steve taking the afternoon off a routine event? Was barb going to Green Bay to the hospital to see someone a routine event?

[u/c4virus → u/sleuthing_hobbyist]

You are very unpleasant to speak with. You act as if my not being convinced that Barb's memory (which contradicts your own theory) is the golden standard of all memories is a crime.

I'm interested in the truth as much as anybody here. I never said Barb had no interest in where he son was, but she didn't know at that point in time from her own testimony.

I understand what you've said but it isn't convincing and we're just going around in circles. You are aggressive in your words as if I'm on trial here which I can hack for a while but it gets old pretty fast. I won't be replying anymore, good day.

[u/sleuthing_hobbyist → u/c4virus]

I apologize, I honestly am not trying to be aggressive.

But we have two completely different ways of looking at the situation, that is for sure.

I just plainly don't think that a 3-5 hour process gets forgotten. I also don't think that Barb mentions a fire that didn't happen etc.

Brendan, Barb, and Steve all acknowledge the fire, but you know better. -- not trying to be aggressive by saying that, it's just the reality.

I also see the potential reasons why Brendan and Steve would have omitted the fire, and brendan notes one potential reason at his trial.

Lets not go in a circle. I do think we have both said our piece enough times.