I think you're being a little bit too fair to the police and a little bit too unfair to Brendan, tbh.
He (Brendan) is clearly learning disabled with an intellectual age far below that of his chronological age. He clearly had no idea of the seriousness of the situation he was in...as evidenced by his heartbreaking assumption he could be back at school in time to hand in a project that afternoon.
Police officers are trained to build rapport and one way of doing this is to suggest that everything will be OK if you just tell us the truth...we're here to help you, etc. We know you're a good kid really and this is all bad Uncle Steven. If we don't accept your answer as "the truth" we'll just say that we think you're lying and keep asking and asking and asking until you tell us what we want to hear. Once that happens, we'll call you a good boy and be your friend.
This is a tough thing for an intelligent, functioning adult.....but for a vulnerable 16 year old who just wants to go home? He stood no chance in that room. None.
We know that Theresa was not murdered in the place that Brendan said she was. We know this. Her throat was not cut on that mattress.
Therefore, we have an untrue "confession" - and this should always, always give everybody pause, although it rarely seems to.
If you are going to confess to a crime, why do it with a lie? If you confess it's either because the evidence is so compelling against you that you have no choice or your conscience is bothering you. (Clearly, the former is more common). Why would it make sense to confess to be involved in a rape and murder, but lie about how and where it happened? This makes no sense whatsoever.
None of Brendan's confession originated with him. He volunteered nothing. He simply agreed with the scenario the police laid out for him. "You heard screams when you approached the trailer, didn't you? Didn't you? Didn't you?"....etc. Why did he do this? Because this big little boy just wanted to go home and he thought he could once he told a "truth" that the police officers were willing to accept.
Regarding the bleached jeans....well, we know the garage floor wasn't bleached. And if it was cleaned at all then it was done in such a way that it left Steven Avery's DNA in place, but cleaned up Brendan's and Theresa's....which is patently ridiculous.
So, whatever the reason for splashes on Brendan's jeans, it was not from bleaching the garage floor. So it cannot point to his guilt regarding cleaning up the garage after the murder since this never happened.
Assuming the the conversation between him and his mother actually happened as reported, and has not been lost in translation or anything, then who knows the explanation? Perhaps his mother (like many) got particularly cross about damaged & ruined clothing so he did what may teenage boys did and fibbed. "It was Uncle Steve's fault...I was helping him clean in the garage". Maybe such an event happened in the past and he reached for that explanation to get him out of an uncomfortable conversation with his Mum. Who knows?
The handcuffs and leg irons were, I believe, found in Steven's bedroom, not in the burn barrel. Millions and millions of adults have such sex toys tucked away. Unless they could be specifically linked to Theresa or the murder then I consider this a complete dead end. The fact of them being there is not suspicious on it's own.
And, I don't understand the issue of B Janda and Steven apparently making Theresa uncomfortable in the past. She must have recognised the address so if this was a problem why leave a cheery message making an appointment and then show up there on her own? Did Steven know he'd behaved so badly and made her so uncomfortable that the only way to get her there was to give a false (or misleading) name even though the address was the same? Makes no sense to me.
Sorry for the essay. Me and him indoors binged this on Christmas Eve!
Alot here, and some of it is addressed in my other posts.
You said "well, we know the garage floor wasn't bleached." - exactly how do we know that ?
You said ". And if it was cleaned at all then it was done in such a way that it left Steven Avery's DNA in place, but cleaned up Brendan's and Theresa's....which is patently ridiculous."
Well, why is that ridiculous if teresa's dna was in one area, that they cleaned, and steve's blood was in areas where they didn't clean ? If you think they had to clean the entire floor to clean up blood in one spot, then I'll say I disagree.
You say brendan, but if brendan wasn't bleeding, how would his blood be there ? not clear what you mean there.
You are bring up some things like the mattress, that I don't even believe are true. I think that's part of the confusing part for some talking to me. They assume that I believe everything the prosecution is saying. I don't. I have also pointed out areas of the defense that I suggest could have happened a certain way and made their assertions irrelevant.
There is a part of me that believes it's possible that teresa was indeed killed in that Rav4 or somewhere else then in the process of moving the body and going into the garage, maybe a certain amount of blood from stephen or maybe a knife dripped on the floor and that is what steven and brendan actually cleaned. Not a massive display of bloodspatter and a huge pool of blood. Maybe the body was in the garage for a few moments - if the exchange from the rav4 to something to move the body to the fire happened and some blood dripped there. I really don't know, but I can't just say I think Barb was lying or that brendan was just blowing smoke to his mom -- don't get me wrong, that could be true. It's plausible. But should I just accept that ? nope. make sense ?
Cuffs and leg irons -- again, I don't know that they have anything to do with all this. I think you are right, they were found in the house, but I have seen reports in media that said in burn barrel, however were likely incorrect. I agree with you on that I think that police knew they could be used to sway people, and they are dramatic in nature if presented to a jury. But lets not forget that Steve Avery did make an attempt to abduct someone before the rape case that he was convicted for back in 1985. So that coupled with something used to restrain someone is not "nothing". I can't say they were used, but I know that he used a gun in the past to try to control someone into getting into his car. So let's not get too far away from that unflattering fact and give him too much credit for not being capable of holding someone against their will - whether it's using handcuffs and restraints or not.
Let me ask you clearly here. the burning of the cat. The borderline abduction where he pulled a gun on a relative. -- do you think these are at all reason to at least consider he might have a side to him that is dangerous ?
I am not dismissing either of those situations. He served time for both of those, don't forget it. Yes, he served 18 years, but some of that time was from pulling that gun on someone. Doesn't mean he his guilty, but it does mean that he has done things that are disturbing in nature. Just like Earl, Chuck, and Tadych, we can't dismiss these things from our memory as relevant.
The auto trader thing. I think it just purely shows that he summoned her there and that it's possible that he was deceptive. Someone at auto trader supposedly said she was uncomfortable around him. Neither means he did anything. But again, I'm not making a huge deal out of them, but they are what they are. I think the fact that teresa felt uncomfortable is not nothing. People sometimes feel uncomfortable for good reason. But I think that those that want to just forget the detail exists, maybe aren't open to the idea that it could be a clue. I think it's something to keep in mind, but it's not in itself damning.
Suppose he made an advance on her, and she reacted in a way he didn't like? Does the rage from the borderline abduction surface again ? Violent people can react in violent ways at times. He says in letters to his wife from prison that he will kill her. What do you think of that ? do you think we should just dismiss it as even relevant ? Again.. doesn't mean he'd actually kill someone, but there's many people that would never say something like that. It's called a threat. Should it be dismissed as nothing in your mind ? or seen as a red flag in terms of him potentially being enraged to the point of saying/doing something irrational ?
Me personally, I'm not dismissing any of the negative things about Avery as being irrelevant. It wouldn't be the reason I'd say he's guilty, but it's relevant to the type of person he is and what he could potentially be capable of. Yes, I'm not viewing him as just an average guy. you ?