lol you've written quite a lot there... I'll respond to the points in order;
1.>
At that time (March 1st), the cause of death - or the gunshot wound to the head weren't necessarily known about, along with the information Brendan provides around her being shot in the garage - they actually use the information from that interview (the gunshot to the head in the garage) to get a warrant to perform a thorough search of Steven Avery's garage - where they later discover the bullet fragment under his compressor.
Whilst it's true that Dr Eisenberg examined the bones, she actually sent them to a different person (Kenneth Olson) who examined them for bullet residue - which didn't happen until February 2006, and further fragments were also examined in November 2006, so it's difficult to know for sure whether Fassbender actually knew about this before Brendan confessed - Fassbender says he didn't know at the time in his interview with Dateline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYUjEyO55gc (3:45 onwards)
I suppose you either believe him or you don't, I think Fassbender is telling the truth. Unless we know the date that Fassbender actually received the results of the forensic examinations we can't be sure.
(Page 224, skull fragment examination Feb 06)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...af0bfc5a9741/1452485288899/dassey_4_17_07.pdf
2.>
But which is the most reasonable and likely explanation?
Avery cut himself (he did have a deepish cut) during the murder, which is a reasonable explanation as to how his blood got on her Rav 4
OR
The blood was planted, which is a terrible place to advance an argument from - because there's no evidence for it, and extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence, there simply is no evidence at all, of foul play regarding how the blood got there - the defence tried it with the blood vial, but they were made to look very silly indeed.
Put your yourself in the shoes of the Jury
3.>
First of all - it's impossible to know exactly how much blood there would have been, a fatal stab wound can produce hardly any blood at all - or a victim can bleed out externally in 30 seconds, or it might be an internal haemorrhage, we just cannot say how much blood there should have been, so I think it's irrelevant to pursue that any further without knowing - all we can do is speculate.
Nobody can explain some of the differences (number of gunshots, stabs or the exact location of each act) that are present in Brendan's statements, it could be that the experience messed up his mind quite significantly, perhaps PTSD or some form of mental issues that arose from being involved in such a traumatic event, that affected his ability to recollect.
For me, the amount of detail he provides (for someone of his intelligence) puts it beyond a reasonable doubt that he was there, was involved and crucially that Steven Avery was the main perpetrator. You also have to remember that he did admit to being there and did admit to taking part in the killing during a phone conversation with his own mother, so whilst people might argue the police coerced his confession (which I don't agree with) to also think he lied to his own mother in a phone call, is stretching it too far in my opinion.
4>
I think relying on time lines is going to result in massive amounts of variation - essentially we're dealing with a bunch of total cretins in a junk yard who are barely educated at all, I'd be surprised if any of them actually knew or could remember the time, and I imagine a lot of times are just made up and are totally meaningless. Essentially - there's very little we can do to corroborate the times here, other than look at the phone records for then Steven called Teresa.
I also suspect (I can't prove it) that other members of the Avery and Dassey family were involved somehow, perhaps Bobby - but also others, it's just speculation on my part. Especially when you consider other people were in and around when this happened and nobody other than Steven and Brendan knew, (with the exception of eyewitnesses mentioning fires)
But again - if the competing theory is that everything was moved, evidence planted, everything faked to frame Avery - that would also need to be done without anybody seeing, which is to me is so unlikely it can be outright ruled out.
5>
It's not the most convincing story, but it just adds to the amount of detail Brendan has volunteered - you can rule it out as being a lie in isolation, but taken with everything else he says - it adds up to a lot of *stuff*
In my mind, regardless of who said what first - it seems pretty clear, Brendan agrees with Fassbender that he opened the hood, when they swab the latch they find Avery's DNA (probably skin cells)
And again - what alternative theory is there to go with? that somebody planted Steven Avery's skin cells on the latch, along with all the other evidence, to frame him? It's too far out, too complicated, too risky - and the only people capable of pulling it off would be the police, as the level of forensic, technical and stealth expertise required, rules out the average person by a long shot.
It's one thing to poke holes in Brendan's statements, but there is no better alternative theory that makes sense, that explains what happened.
I've enjoyed these conversations, but honestly - I've spent so much time looking through this case that I haven't done any work, so I probably won't reply much more in here for a while as it just takes too much time rofl... However my final thoughts on it are;
In summary;
I think Steven Avery is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the forensic evidence and the fact that he was the last person to see Teresa that day, are enough to get it over the line. Any of the competing theories surrounding the planting of evidence are mostly ridiculous, or based on pseudoscience and are therefore ruled out.
Regarding Brendan.
Why do I think Brendan got a bad deal?
If you go back right to the start and look at Len Kachinsky, he was essentially ineffective counsel and he threw Brendan to the dogs and possibly allowed the Avery family to close ranks and dictate the shots to protect Steven Avery, rather than get the truth out of Brendan and use that in exchange as part of a plea deal. Len Kachinsky just did nothing - he should have literally forced Brendan to plead guilty and get a plea deal and pin Steven to the wall, (screw the family) that way he would be looking at 8 years in prison and actually have some life worth living.
Instead, by entering a not guilty plea, the situation was a total loss, Brendan was going into a full trial fighting nothing other than his own words - his own confession, for a crime he was almost certainly involved in, in some capacity or another. In my opinion it was needless - because whilst Brendan was almost certainly involved, there was evidence to suggest that he was terrified of Steven, had been physically and sexually abused by him (along with other people) which would help advance the argument of exploitation, all of which might have added up to some heavy mitigation in combination with a plea deal and more details to nail Avery.
In short, I think Brendan was let down - that doesn't make him innocent, but I do think he got a bad deal, and deep down - I don't think he's a bad kid, I think he got involved in some bad ****.
1.>
At that time (March 1st), the cause of death - or the gunshot wound to the head weren't necessarily known about, along with the information Brendan provides around her being shot in the garage - they actually use the information from that interview (the gunshot to the head in the garage) to get a warrant to perform a thorough search of Steven Avery's garage - where they later discover the bullet fragment under his compressor.
Whilst it's true that Dr Eisenberg examined the bones, she actually sent them to a different person (Kenneth Olson) who examined them for bullet residue - which didn't happen until February 2006, and further fragments were also examined in November 2006, so it's difficult to know for sure whether Fassbender actually knew about this before Brendan confessed - Fassbender says he didn't know at the time in his interview with Dateline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYUjEyO55gc (3:45 onwards)
I suppose you either believe him or you don't, I think Fassbender is telling the truth. Unless we know the date that Fassbender actually received the results of the forensic examinations we can't be sure.
(Page 224, skull fragment examination Feb 06)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...af0bfc5a9741/1452485288899/dassey_4_17_07.pdf
2.>
But which is the most reasonable and likely explanation?
Avery cut himself (he did have a deepish cut) during the murder, which is a reasonable explanation as to how his blood got on her Rav 4
OR
The blood was planted, which is a terrible place to advance an argument from - because there's no evidence for it, and extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence, there simply is no evidence at all, of foul play regarding how the blood got there - the defence tried it with the blood vial, but they were made to look very silly indeed.
Put your yourself in the shoes of the Jury
3.>
First of all - it's impossible to know exactly how much blood there would have been, a fatal stab wound can produce hardly any blood at all - or a victim can bleed out externally in 30 seconds, or it might be an internal haemorrhage, we just cannot say how much blood there should have been, so I think it's irrelevant to pursue that any further without knowing - all we can do is speculate.
Nobody can explain some of the differences (number of gunshots, stabs or the exact location of each act) that are present in Brendan's statements, it could be that the experience messed up his mind quite significantly, perhaps PTSD or some form of mental issues that arose from being involved in such a traumatic event, that affected his ability to recollect.
For me, the amount of detail he provides (for someone of his intelligence) puts it beyond a reasonable doubt that he was there, was involved and crucially that Steven Avery was the main perpetrator. You also have to remember that he did admit to being there and did admit to taking part in the killing during a phone conversation with his own mother, so whilst people might argue the police coerced his confession (which I don't agree with) to also think he lied to his own mother in a phone call, is stretching it too far in my opinion.
4>
I think relying on time lines is going to result in massive amounts of variation - essentially we're dealing with a bunch of total cretins in a junk yard who are barely educated at all, I'd be surprised if any of them actually knew or could remember the time, and I imagine a lot of times are just made up and are totally meaningless. Essentially - there's very little we can do to corroborate the times here, other than look at the phone records for then Steven called Teresa.
I also suspect (I can't prove it) that other members of the Avery and Dassey family were involved somehow, perhaps Bobby - but also others, it's just speculation on my part. Especially when you consider other people were in and around when this happened and nobody other than Steven and Brendan knew, (with the exception of eyewitnesses mentioning fires)
But again - if the competing theory is that everything was moved, evidence planted, everything faked to frame Avery - that would also need to be done without anybody seeing, which is to me is so unlikely it can be outright ruled out.
5>
It's not the most convincing story, but it just adds to the amount of detail Brendan has volunteered - you can rule it out as being a lie in isolation, but taken with everything else he says - it adds up to a lot of *stuff*
In my mind, regardless of who said what first - it seems pretty clear, Brendan agrees with Fassbender that he opened the hood, when they swab the latch they find Avery's DNA (probably skin cells)
And again - what alternative theory is there to go with? that somebody planted Steven Avery's skin cells on the latch, along with all the other evidence, to frame him? It's too far out, too complicated, too risky - and the only people capable of pulling it off would be the police, as the level of forensic, technical and stealth expertise required, rules out the average person by a long shot.
It's one thing to poke holes in Brendan's statements, but there is no better alternative theory that makes sense, that explains what happened.
I've enjoyed these conversations, but honestly - I've spent so much time looking through this case that I haven't done any work, so I probably won't reply much more in here for a while as it just takes too much time rofl... However my final thoughts on it are;
In summary;
I think Steven Avery is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the forensic evidence and the fact that he was the last person to see Teresa that day, are enough to get it over the line. Any of the competing theories surrounding the planting of evidence are mostly ridiculous, or based on pseudoscience and are therefore ruled out.
Regarding Brendan.
- I think Brendan was there
- I think Brendan volunteers too much detail for it to be all made up, when you consider just how much there is
- I think Brendan is probably a decent person in a terrible situation
- I suspect that when Brendan encountered the screaming coming from the trailer and went to investigate, Steven got him to rape her so that Brendan would now be involved and therefore help cover up the crime and cover up for Steven, essentially exploitation.
- I think Brendan got a bad deal.
Why do I think Brendan got a bad deal?
If you go back right to the start and look at Len Kachinsky, he was essentially ineffective counsel and he threw Brendan to the dogs and possibly allowed the Avery family to close ranks and dictate the shots to protect Steven Avery, rather than get the truth out of Brendan and use that in exchange as part of a plea deal. Len Kachinsky just did nothing - he should have literally forced Brendan to plead guilty and get a plea deal and pin Steven to the wall, (screw the family) that way he would be looking at 8 years in prison and actually have some life worth living.
Instead, by entering a not guilty plea, the situation was a total loss, Brendan was going into a full trial fighting nothing other than his own words - his own confession, for a crime he was almost certainly involved in, in some capacity or another. In my opinion it was needless - because whilst Brendan was almost certainly involved, there was evidence to suggest that he was terrified of Steven, had been physically and sexually abused by him (along with other people) which would help advance the argument of exploitation, all of which might have added up to some heavy mitigation in combination with a plea deal and more details to nail Avery.
In short, I think Brendan was let down - that doesn't make him innocent, but I do think he got a bad deal, and deep down - I don't think he's a bad kid, I think he got involved in some bad ****.
I'm not drawing a conclusion either way.
I like the way people are so quick to judge the filmmakers, conveniently forgetting that they've probably spent years, in big research teams, with oversight from Netflix's lawyers etc. making the damn series.