i feel like there must be something missing, some piece of evidence that the prosecution presented that was omitted from the documentary that will make this easier to understand. it's possible that it was all in the editing, but i have some questions/comments as to his guilt:
(1) his blood was in the car, but no fingerprints?
(2) the key had only his DNA on it, but not the victim - it was her car. and it was only found on subsequent searches by a cop who was not supposed to be there. same with the bullet. that's some horseshit.
(3) no blood in the garage where the prosecutor told the jury she was killed? no chance in hell he could have cleaned all that junk of any blood spatter.
(4) his blood sample at the police evidence locker had clearly been accessed and appeared to have been taken by syringe and the test for EBT or whatever should not have been allowed.
I could go on, like how brendan's brother lied about when he got home and then later changed his story while on the stand. someone deleted her voicemails after she died - for what purpose?
Now, Steve may have killed her, but i have a lot of questions, and with those questions comes my opinion that the prosecution did not prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that he was guilty. Unless I'm missing key answers to my questions and concerns, i think the jury made a mistake.
as to brendan, i don't know enough about trials and appeals but how in the hell could he not be granted a new trial? his own attorney had some PI interrogate him and make him confess and make him draw pictures and then prosecution used those drawings (at least i think that was the same drawings) against him in closing arguments. that attorney should be disbarred for his behavior. the murder absolutely, 100% did not happen the way he confessed it, by way of coercion of an obviously mentally disabled young man. brendan's conviction is a gross miscarriage of justice.
that being said, i think he saw something and i think he knew something and i think the guilt of whatever he saw or knew was what allowed the police to convince him he was as guilty as whoever killed her. i think he knew she was killed on the property but didn't know how and they kept telling him he knew what happened and wouldn't let him leave so they fed him enough and he made up the rest and out came that story. hell, the kid thought he was going back to turn in his homework in 6th hour. jesus the poor bastard never had a chance.
my theory, if you made me guess as to what happened is that someone (either steve or brendan's brother) came on to her in the yard. she wasn't interested, this person got made, tried to kiss her or grope her and she fought back. this person injured her somehow, panicked and put her in the back of her own car where she bled. this person drove her off site to the quarry, shooting her and burning her body. i believe this person left the bones at that quarry. and drove her car back to the lot and left it near the crusher to be crushed later. I personally think it was brendan's brother, but it could have been steve just as easily. the dirty cops catch wind of this and illegally search his property, finding the car. they plant the blood, and move the bones back to make sure the evidence is overwhelming. brendan must have seen something, maybe the killer talking to her and then disappearing. he was so mentally challenged that fact alone made him feel guilty, or he was just totally manipulated by the police, i don't know.
but i'm sure i'm missing something. but mostly, no matter who killed her, neither of them should have been convicted, in my opinion, based on the evidence shown in the documentary.