What truly stands out to me in all of this about Brendon's so called "confession" is that at no point does he release a coherent storyline of events to his interrogators. I have only the snippets of the interviews from the documentary to go on, but it seems like every bit of information they got out of him was followed up by a whole lot of suggestion. "What happened to her head." and he never answers what they already knew, that she had been shot in the head. What he does say is that he punched her and slit her throat, at this point he's just guessing what they want to hear.

We've established that this kid has below average intelligence and the only time he was able to provide a coherent storyline of events was when he was writing the story of what happened in front of the investigator who wanted him to fill out the plea bargain. And his story only told about how he was playing video games after he got home and what his brothers were doing and how he helped SA with throwing junk on the fire. After reading his story the investigator said "This doesnt say anything about Teresa." Now this is just an opinion, but if this slow witted kid came up with this story of what "really" happened that day and Teresa isnt in the story, then he never actually saw her being assaulted and surely didnt partake in it himself. It may just be because the documentary had bias against the prosecution, but they never show Brendon sitting down with an investigator and telling them what he and SA did that day with TH in a coherent matter. For instance, "I went to SA's place, heard screaming, went in and saw her chained up," and so forth. Every response he gives to investigators about his involvement with the crime have been only been given after they set up the scene for him, and he had been silent for 10-20 seconds before saying anything. Each and every line they had to squeeze out of him, and even then the things he was saying weren't consistent with the evidence they had.

In fact one of the interviews with Faasbender or whatever his name was, they were trying to establish consistency with his story about the murder and how/where it was done and they couldn't get anything conclusive from him. So even in his confession he was saying things that never happened, happened.

The worst thing about all of this is how in the world they used his testimony to try him for this heinous deeds, but in SA's first trial they completely threw out the use of Brendon's "confession" and struck the 3 other counts from his patchy story off the list of charges. Still trying to wrap my head around how that shoddy confession was good enough to convict Brendon but not SA for the same things.