"I had to think about it, if I had seen her or not, cuz that was like a week ago and I got a bad memory." - Brendan Dassey, November 6, 2005 (page 22)
Brendan Dassey's first interview was conducted three days after Steven Avery was first questioned (at 7 p.m. on November 3rd) about Teresa Halbach's visit to his property, which was three days earlier (at 3 p.m. on October 31st). Steven would have discussed with his family that Teresa was missing, and he would have shared with them the details of her visit that day. Reporters also interviewed Steven over the next few days, and Brendan would have seen the reports. Bobby Dassey also would have talked to his family about what he saw that day.
Brendan wasn't home from school when Teresa arrived and when she left on October 31st, but detectives were convinced Teresa arrived at the Avery property around 3:30 p.m. and not 2:30 p.m. or earlier. They also were convinced that Blaine and Brendan saw her when they got off the bus at 3:40 p.m. This is because the bus driver told law enforcement on November 5th that she saw Teresa taking pictures of a vehicle when she dropped off the boys by the mailboxes at 3:40 p.m. on October 31st.
The bus driver either confused the day she saw Teresa or she saw someone other than Teresa taking pictures on October 31st. On October 10th, Teresa had been at the Avery property taking pictures of a Grand Prix that Steven was selling, which may have been parked by the mailboxes, along with other vehicles for sale (this is where they parked the vehicles for sale), which included a red and black Blazer. Or, on October 31st, the bus driver saw a woman taking pictures of a vehicle for sale that was parked by the mailboxes, but it was someone interested in buying one of them, not Teresa. During Brendan's November 6th interview, when asked when did he first see Steven after October 31st, Brendan said he and Blaine saw Steven before they went to school on Tuesday: Brendan said Steven drove up by where they were (the school bus stop by the mailboxes) and told them the Blazer would be gone in the next few days because he sold it, which implies he got a call the day before or that morning from a potential buyer.
Brendan had no memory of seeing Teresa because he didn't see Teresa, but detectives didn't believe him when he told them this (there were three detectives that questioned him for about an hour on November 6th). Therefore, as they continued to question him over and over again, he made up a story based on what he had heard Steven and Bobby (and possible Earl Avery) say about what happened that day. And then he gave details about other events that happened during the weeks surrounding October 31st as if those events occurred that day, and he made up some details out of thin air. He did this because that's what seemed to please the detectives.
Brendan tried to tell detectives the truth, that he didn't see Teresa or her SUV when he got off the bus, but they didn't believe him, so he made up a story based on the memories of others and based on his own memories from other days surrounding the week of October 31st, plus he gave other details that may not have been true at all.
Brendan didn't know until three days after October 31st that Teresa had disappeared. Prior to that, he wouldn't have had any reason to be thinking about that day. He was not questioned until almost a week after Teresa went missing. Therefore, since six days had passed before he was questioned, Brendan's memory of that day would have been foggy.
Had Teresa been reported missing the day after she was last seen, everybody's memories would have been fresher. Had Brendan been questioned prior to the family discussing the events and the media reporting on it, his recollection would have been much better, and he wouldn't have been as susceptible to being coerced into giving a false account.
On November 6th, while Wiegert was waiting for school bus driver Lisa Buchner to arrive to get her statement on what she told police two days earlier, detectives Anthony O'Neill and Todd Baldwin were in Marinette County lying in wait for Brendan; and two DCI agents were at Blaine's boss's house in Francis Creek to interrogate him. They wanted the two boys to be without adult supervision. Had O'Neill knocked on Allan Avery's cabin door in Crivitz, he probably would not have permitted them to question Brendan alone (see below for an except of O'Neill's testimony at Brendan's trial). Detectives O'Neill and Baldwin saw Brendan leave the Crivitz cabin with his older brother Bryan, and they instructed Sgt. Degnitz to pull them over (they were on the way to the store to buy soda). They separated Brendan from Bryan and interrogated him.When Brendan told them that he "hadn't seen the girl before" and that he "hadn't seen her vehicle at all," and "never before or even now or anything like that" and that he "knew nothing at all," they didn't believe him. Detectives Baldwin and O'Neill and DCI Agent Skorlinski badgered Brendan until he told them what they wanted to hear. Brendan was asked the same questions over and over again in O'Neill's squad car for about an hour.
The following is a transcript of Brendan's November 6th interrogation.
MAY 22, 2006 PHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN BARB JANDA AND BRENDAN DASSEY
Question: "Don't you wonder what was said and done at the Fox Hills Resort? There had to be a reason they didn't tape it."
(by Nexious at Reddit)
One potentially interesting antidote that was never posted anywhere before is that Brendan did apparently tell Barb at one point that "they weren't taping at first" and they told him what happened or what to say. This is referenced in a May 22 phone call between the two, although Brendan first denies saying it before agreeing he did say it.
The following is a transcription of a phone conversation on May 22, 2006 between Brendan and his mother, Barb.
BARB: Yeah. And you tell them how you gave them statements. That's how you tell the jurors.
BRENDAN: Yeah. But he said that he listened to the -- the statement again and that it's really hard to believe that it was well ...
BARB: What did you tell me, Brendan? You tell me they weren't taping at first.
BRENDAN: Yeah.
BARB: And they told you what happened. Remember? Remember you telling me that?
BRENDAN: When did I tell you that?
BARB: Uh--
BRENDAN: I told you that I was nervous. And I had a lot of stuff on my mind. So I just said stuff.
BARB: Yeah.
BRENDAN: Yeah. That's what I told you.
BARB: No. You told me that they weren't taping at first.
BRENDAN: Yeah. They didn't. And --
BARB: And they more or less said, 'Well, isn't this what happened?'
BRENDAN: Yeah.
BARB: Remember you told me, well, blame it all on Mark?
BRENDAN: Yeah.
BARB: Yeah.
If Brendan was referring specifically to March 1st, and given the timeline of when they picked him up and actually started recording (if their noted times are accurate in all of their reports, that is), there wouldn't had been much of any time to speak to him unrecorded that day. If he instead was thinking of the Fox Hills Resort, then it is becomes more interesting as that one wasn't recorded and went on for an unknown amount of time from 10:50 p.m. onward, whereby many key details were first discussed (including the entire garage clean-up and about Avery's gun).
There are multiple moments during his March 1st interrogation where he magically seems to have "corrected" obvious errors that he repeated multiple times in his previously recorded interview (such as the color of her shirt which he insisted was blue over and over, but on March 1st immediately said correctly that it was white). Fassbender also treated him to pizza that evening during this private and off-the-record interview/interrogation. Fassbender alludes to conversations they had multiple times in the March 1st interrogation seemingly after Brendan deviates from what may had been discussed at that point or doesn't remember what Fassbender wants him to. Stuff like:
FASSBENDER: We talked about Monday night about, um, bad smells and stuff, do you remember any smells coming from that fire, after she was put on there?
BRENDAN: Just that it smelled bad [in his February 27th interrogation he said he didn't smell anything].
...
FASSBENDER: Monday [night] you mentioned, um, Steven getting some other things out of the garage. What were those things again?
BRENDAN: The clothes.
FASSBENDER: But I mean somethings that you might use to--
BRENDAN: Oh the shovel and the rake? (nods "yes")
FASSBENDER: Right. Did he get anything else like that outta the garage?
BRENDAN: (shakes head "no") No just them two.
It used to be a common practice to pre-interview witnesses and the accused off-camera before ever starting to record the actual 'confession' part. Lots of controversy surrounding that. In this case and the conversation above, Brendan could be referring to what he thought wasn't being recorded even if it were from March 1st, when they did essentially tell him all of the details of the case after they considered him to be lying about his own version. Not sure, but what is known is that the Fox Hills Resort interview was absolutely not recorded and was the first moment Brendan went from a possible witness to an accomplice of the crime.
The first interview at the school on February 27th already contained a "gruesome story," so-to-speak. After they led him to eventually agree that he saw her body in the fire, and after his tale of Steven tying Teresa up in her RAV4 and stabbing her to death with a knife.
That said, I feel that this excuse used to to deter her from sitting in with him is as transparent as their claim that they were transporting them to Fox Hills Resort "for their safety" when it was entirely done to keep them quarantined and so Fassbender and Tyson could get at him further that evening in an unrecorded conversation (at which point he miraculously learned the true color of Teresa's shirt that day, about Steven's .22, that the fire did smell putrid that day, and that the fluid he believed to be from a car may have been blood, etc).
Kratz also said he fully expected the March 1st interview was going to morph from a simple interview with a witness to an interrogation before it was over, thus why they read him his Miranda rights at the beginning. Good intuition, I guess.
Links to Transcript of Brendan Dassey's Interviews
| Date | Transcript | Video |
|---|---|---|
| February 27, 2006 (at Mishicot High School) | Transcript | N/A |
| February 27, 2006 (at the Two Rivers Police Dept.) | Transcript | Video |
| March 1, 2006 | Transcript (Part 1); Transcript (Part 2) | Video (Part 1); Video (Part 2); Video (Part 3) |
| May 13, 2006 | Transcript | Video (Part 1); Video (Part 2) |
Brendan's Interviews
November 6, 2005
Brendan's first interview was November 6. He was ambushed and abducted. He didn't stand a chance. Marinette County detectives Todd Baldwin and Anthony O'Neill (report filed by O'Neill but not Baldwin) badgered him to "tell them that truth," that he saw Teresa that day, etc. This interview was recorded:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zePg5OfvyU
Transcript of the interview through 53:34 minutes:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aueweivvn42tumg/Brendan%20Dassey%20Nov%206%202005%20transcript.pdf?dl=0
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Brendan-Dassey-Interview-Transcript-2005Nov06.pdf
The following is an excerpt from O'Neill's written report about the interview. Note that the police could have seized Steven's Grand Am when it was parked at Allan Avery's cabin, but they waited until Bryan and Brendan drove it off the property. The only reason for doing this was so that they could interrogate Brendan without the consent of his parents or grandparents and without them being present.
On Sunday November 6th 2005 at about 11:55 A.M. R/O along with Det. Baldwin and Wisconsin Department of Criminal Investigation Agent’s Kim Skorlinski and Deb (Unsure last name) met with Deputy Degnitz on Parkway Rd south of CTH X as he was directed to stop the Steven Avery vehicle, Wisconsin Registration 187JJF, 1993 Pontiac Grand Am 2D Blue in color owned by Steven Avery. The vehicle had previously been parked at the Avery property located at N9493 Highline Road in the Town of Stephenson. The Avery vehicle was now being operated by Steven Avery’s nephew Bryan J. Dassey M/W D.O.B. 07-15-85 with a passenger identified as the operators juvenile brother Brendan R. Dassey M/W D.O.B. 10-19- 89 . Both brothers reside with their mother at 12930 (#A) Avery Road in Two Rivers Wisconsin.Link to full report:
Agent Skorlinski had previously secured a search warrant relative to a Missing Person Investigation (Calumet County) for the seizure of the Avery Pontiac and subsequent to the stop by Deputy Degnitz, the Avery vehicle was towed by Witts Towing of Crivitz to the Marinette County Sheriff’s Department Impound and followed to the impound without incident by Deputy Degnitz.
Agent Skorlinski and Agent Deb had talked to the driver Bryan Dassey and Det. Baldwin and myself met with and spoke to Brendan Dassey. It was told to us that both Dassey’s had borrowed their uncle’s car so as to go to the convenience store to buy some soda.
I asked Brendan if he would sit and talk with Det. Baldwin and myself in my unmarked squad car. While in my car I informed Brendan that he was not under arrest and that he was free to leave at any time. Brendan agreed to talk to us.
During the interview Brendan told us that he lives with his mother on Avery Road next to his uncle Steven Avery. He told us that he had never seen Teresa Halbach nor her Toyota SUV at their property on Avery Rd. When I asked Brendan specifically about seeing either Halbach or her vehicle on Monday October 31 st 2005 he again told us that he had not seen either.
I had been informed by Agent Skorlinski that Law Enforcement also involved in this investigation had interviewed the school bus driver that would have dropped off Brendan and his brother Blaine at the end of their driveway in Two Rivers Wisconsin on Monday October 31 st 205 at about 3:45 P.M. and that the driver had reported seeing both Halbach and her vehicle on the Avery property and that she was taking photos of a vehicle for sale close to the road where the boy’s were dropped off (Steven Avery’s Blazer).
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Brendan-Dassey-Interview-Report-2005Nov06.pdf
This is his first interview that we know of. Brendan says Steve was going to have a bonfire Thursday night but it got cancelled. And he says Bobby was home at 3 p.m. and then he went hunting. So Bobby wasn't home when Brendan got home at 3:45 (there were 15 or 16 other kids on the bus) but he knows that he went goose hunting at 3 p.m. because "he always does that every day" at 3 p.m. He says Bobby went hunting with Mike Osmunson and his brothers. Baldwin and O'Neill tag team Brendan, who says he didn't see Teresa when he got off the bus, until he agrees with them that he saw her, and then he combines parts of the stories that Steve and Bobby had told the family (page 17).
Baldwin says that Green Bay was Teresa's next scheduled stop but she never made it there. [Her "missing" poster also suggests she planned to go to Green Bay after Manitowoc; Steven thinks the same thing when interviewed in Crivitz, (video, 9:46), maybe because he saw the missing person's poster.]
Brendan says he went over to Steven's at 7 or 8 p.m. because he needed help pushing a gray, hard-top jeep (the Suzuki) into the garage because he was fixing it for Grandpa, but others said it had been in there for two weeks. He said the jeep was right beside the garage, and Steven brought it home from Crivitz to fix it for grandpa. When asked if the Suzuki had always been there, right by the garage, Brendan didn't respond. So the story of the Suzuki being beside the garage started with Brendan, who said he helped Steven push it into the garage on Monday, between 7 or 8 p.m. (page 39). They turn the gray jeep (Suzuki) into the green jeep (Teresa's RAV4) and Brendan becomes confused. They're getting it all twisted.
Brendan says nobody was home at his house when he and Blaine got home.
Brendan is repeating what Steve and Bobby told everyone about that day, using parts of each of their stories. He's confusing dates and details. They keep asking him the same questions over and over, hoping eventually to get the answers they want.
O'Neill testified on day 4 of Brendan's trial (page 100). The following is an except of his testimony.
Q. I'd like to direct your attention to a particular day, and that would be, Sunday, November 6, 2005, shortly before noon. On that day, um, did you have occasion to assist the Calumet County Sheriff's Department, and the Wisconsin Department of Justice investigation involving the missing person of Teresa Halbach?November 10, 2005
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And, first of all, tell us how you became involved?
A. On the previous day, uh, our office was contacted by the Calumet County Sheriff's Department and asked to assist them in speaking to the Avery family. The family maintains a property in Town of Stephenson in Marinette County. Uh, our understanding was that the Avery family was at that property and, uh, Teresa Halbach would have been at the Avery property in Manitowoc County previous to coming up there, and she was reported as a missing person.
Q. All right. And, um, who, if anyone else, from your Department was involved in assisting the Department of Justice and Calumet County Sheriff?
A. Primarily myself. Uh, Detective Todd Baldwin, uh, Sergeant Michael Siegert (phonetic) and some patrol officers as well.
Q. All right. And, again, um, particularly with respect to the, um, late morning, almost noon hour, what role were you asked, to, um, fulfill by the Department of Justice and Calumet County Sheriff?
A. Uh, we had arrived at the Avery property a little earlier in the day, and, uh, completed some of the interviews that we started the day before. Um, we were also, in preparation of an or anticipating a search warrant for the, uh, two vehicles that were located at the Avery property.
Q. All right. Um, what were you asked to do?
A. Um, we were asked to stand by the Avery property in anticipation of a search warrant being completed.
Q. All right. And what kind of, um, What was being --What was the object of the search?
A. Uh, the seizure of, uh, Steven Avery's Pontiac Grand Am, I believe it was, and also the, uh, Avery Auto Salvage flatbed towing vehicle that was at that property in the town of Stephenson.
Q. All right. And, um, who else, um, in addition to members, of the Marinette Sheriff's Department, uh, were present to assist in the execution of the warrant?
A. Uh, also with us was a Department of Justice special agent, Kim Skorlinski.
Q. All right. Uh, did there come a time where you executed, um, the search warrant and seized the, um, vehicle in question?
A. Uh, yes. The vehicle actually left the premises with two occupants and, uh, we subsequently stopped the vehicle in anticipation of the search warrant and seized the vehicle.
Q. All right. And, um, who were the occupants of the vehicle at the time of your seizure?
A. Uh, the driver of the vehicle would have been, um, Bryan Dassey, and the passenger would have been Brendan Dassey.
Q. All right. And the passenger, Brendan Dassey, um, do you recognize him as being present in the courtroom today?
A. Uh, yes, I do.
Q. And would you briefly point out where he is seated for the benefit of, um, Court and jury?
A. Uh, Mr. Dassey's seated to the of your --of me, wearing a white, long-sleeved shirt, uh, pair of glasses, dark-colored pants, and I believe a pair of sneakers.
Q. All right.
ATTORNEY FALLON: The record reflect the witness has identified the accused?
THE COURT: So reflect. (By Attorney Fallon)
Q. What happened when you stopped the vehicle with the two, uh, passengers? The defendant and his brother?
A. When I approached the vehicle, I intro --introduced myself to the driver, and al, Mr. --also, Mr. Dassey. Um, stated for them we had a search warrant for the vehicle, and that we needed them to exit the vehicle, and that we would, uh, provide them a ride back to the Avery property.
Q. Now, at that particular point, did you, um, decide to interview either one of the occupants of the vehicle?
A. Um, yes.
Q. What did you do?
A. Uh, I asked Mr. Dassey if he'd be willing to talk to me in my vehicle, and he told me that he was not under arrest, free to leave at anytime. And, uh which –
ATTORNEY EDELSTEIN: Can we identify which --
THE COURT: Right.
ATTORNEY FALLON: We'll get there.
THE COURT: Well, have him identify which Mr. Dassey.
ATTORNEY FALLON: I was just about to do that.
THE COURT: Okay. (By Attorney Fallon)
Um, since there are two Dassey's here, if --if you would refer to them both by their first and last name, that would help, okay?
Q. Yes. um, did you, um, interview either one or both of them?
A. I interviewed Brendan Dassey.
Q. All right. And who, if anyone else, participated in the interview of Brendan Dassey.
A. Detective Todd Baldwin.
Q. All right. And, um, while you were interviewing Brendan Dassey, uh, what was going on with Bryan Dassey, if you know?
A. Uh, Bryan Dassey was being interviewed by Agent Skim (sic) Skorlinski and his partner.
Q. Um, where did the interview of the defendant, Brendan Dassey, take place?
A. In my unmarked police car.
Q. All right. Now, um, during the course of, uh, uh --Well, let's ask it this way. Approximately how long or how much time did you spend --you and/or Detect Baldwin spend --interviewing, uh, Brendan Dassey?
A. I believe it was just over --a little bit over an hour.
Q. And during the course of the interview, was there, uh, free give and take between the participants in the conversation?
A.Uh, yes, there was.
Q. All right. And at any point during the course of your conversation, your interview of the defendant, Brendan Dassey, did he ask you to, um --to leave?
A. No.
Missing report of interview, which could be in DCI file or Marinette Sheriff Department's file. Maybe this was entered into evidence at Brendan's trial? Was this before or after Scott's interview? We need to see this interview to compare with the interrogation four months later.
January 2006: Counselor Interview with Kayla
The two known statements she gave to counselors in January did not cite Brendan, with the blood in the concrete story actually coming from her father. There is no factual argument to any capacity that Brendan's interaction with Kayla during that birthday party was the start of Brendan confessing to the crime.
- Kayla went into the counselor's office and asked to speak to a counselor.
- Kayla said she was feeling scared because Steven Avery asked one of her unnamed cousins to help move a body and asked if blood can come up through concrete.
- This was the first time they had met Kayla and therefore had no perspective as to her normal demeanor or personality.
- After this short session, neither of the two counselors who listened to her found the information concerning enough to contact authorities. They only first contacted authorities to convey the information following Brendan's arrest in March.
No record or evidence exists of any kind that Kayla possessed any inside knowledge about Teresa's death, as allegedly conveyed to her by Brendan, at any point between November 2005 and Brendan's arrest on March 1, 2006.
- Kayla said that Steven scared her just by the way he looked at people.
- Kayla alleged improprieties of Steven toward her, such as pulling her arms up over her head and pinning her to the wall or elbowing her "in the boobs" while adding that he had not ever done anything sexual to her.
- At the tail end of the interview with Kayla and her family members, Kayla mentioned that Brendan was acting up at the birthday party and then shared the details described in the 'Birthday' section above.
- There was no mention during these conversations about anything Brendan had allegedly told her about Teresa's disappearance or Steven Avery during that party.
- Fassbender and Wiegert said they should re-interview Brendan as they believed he was withholding information based on his behavior at that party.
February 27, 2006
Interview with Fassbender and Wiegert.
Mishicot High School Conference Room (CASO report, page 439)
School Interview Audio/School Interview Transcript
12:30……...Brendan is taken out of class by Wiegert and Fassbender and interviewed in the conference room at the school.
Station Interview Video /Station Interview Transcript / Tyson Report
3:00………...Brendan meets with Wiegert and Fassbender in the conference room at school. Barb Janda is there.
3:05………....Brendan is transported to Mishicot Fire Department by Wiegert and Fassbender. Referenced in Tyson Report
3:21………....Interview begins.
???.............Fassbender and Wiegert arrange for Brendan and Barb to stay at Fox Hills Resort for the night.
10:50..........Fassbender and Wiegert arrive at Fox Hills Resort and conduct an unrecorded interrogation.
"After finishing the interview with BRENDAN, we did take BRENDAN back to the MISHICOT FIRE STATION where we met with several other detectives. We did make arrangements for BARBARA and BRENDAN to stay at FOX HILLS RESORT on the night of 02/27/06 for their safety."
Fox Hill's Resort is where Corey Avery, Chuck Avery's son and Brendan's cousin, who died in an auto accident on February 5, 1999, worked before his death.
February 28, 2006
Brendan and Barb leave Fox Hills in the morning.
March 1, 2006
Interview with Fassbender and Wiegert.
Manitowoc Sherrif's Department.
Interview Video
9:50……...........Wiegert and Fassbender say they contact Barb Janda ask permission to speak with Brendan.
10:05……........Brendan is removed from class and taken to Manitowoc Sheriff's Department.
10:18-10:21..They stop by Brendan’s home to pick up his jeans, nobody is home.
10:43…….......They arrive at Manitowoc Sherrif's Dept.
2:00...............Barb has divorce hearing about divorce from Janda.
" Brendan’s March 1 confession was the culmination of four rounds of police questioning that occurred over a period of fewer than 48 hours. " Laura Nirider.
March 1, 2006, 9:50 a.m. - At Mishicot High School with Wiegert and Fassbender (CASO report, page 525) until school lets out.
March 1, 2006 - Interrogation at Sheboygan County Sheriff's Office, Wiegert and Fassbender (CASO file) at 3:21 p.m.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65sr1ZjrQi0
March 2, 2006
Brendan is charged and taken into custody.
Bullet "discovered" in Steve's garage.
Ken Kratz gives Second Press Conference
Criminal Complaint
March 2006
After Brendan is arrested, the school counselor contacts police to tell them that Kayla had come to them in January and says she's scared to go to the shop, can blood come up through concrete and maybe one of her cousins was maybe asked to move a body.
March 7, 2006: Kayla's Follow-up Interview and Written Statement
Kayla's Statement
"Five days after Kratz's press conference, Kayla suddenly and for the first time states that Brendan told her that they burned the body parts in the fire pit, that Brendan heard screams, that Teresa was pinned to the bed, etc. Her details match exactly with the items laid out by Kratz in the press conference the previous week, beginning with Brendan getting the mail and hearing the screams." - Nexious at Reddit
"Kayla was interviewed by the case’s main investigators, Mark Wiegert and Tom Fassbender, shortly after Avery’s arrest. These two sure have a thing about interrogating kids, huh? After coercing a confession out of Brendan, Wiegert and Fassbender reinterviewed Kayla, and this time, confused and under pressure, she told them Brendan had confessed to her that he and Steven murdered Halbach. Well, during Brendan’s trial, Kayla had the guts to admit in front of the entire courtroom that she had lied to the police that day. Obviously, telling the lie in the first place wasn’t a great idea, but given what we’ve seen about Wiegert and Fassbender’s use of what’s called the Reid technique, it’s no wonder she crumbled. But unlike the parade of grown ass adult law enforcement officers who took the stand and lied their asses off, Kayla actually had the humility and honor to admit what she had done." [Source]
May 5, 2006
Email: Kachinsky to Wiegert
In which Kachinsky says that O'Kelly has gotten new information from Brendan's family.
May 9, 2006
Email: O'Kelly to Kachinsky
In which "Evil Incarnate" O'Kelly says he would like to record Brendan's "confession" and states that the entire family should be destroyed. Also, notable backstabbing from Kachinsky, in which he tells O'Kelly that he has an appointment with Brendan on the 12th, but can find something better to do so that O'Kelly is free to destroy his client.
May 12, 2006
Sheboygan County Juvenile Detention Facility.
Interview with O'Kelly.
Interview with O’Kelly Transcript
Email: Kachinsky to Fassbender
In which Brendan’s Lawyer tells the Investigator that he is free to interrogate his Client, Brendan alone the next day.
May 13, 2006
Sheboygan County Juvenile Detention Facility.
Interview with Fassbender and Wiegert
Interview Video
Brendan and Barb's Phone Call
Defendants Memo on Brendan Dassey Statements Including Opinions of Dr. Lawrence White, Expert on False Confessions.
May 30, 2006
Withdrawal of Council
April 25, 2007
Brendan is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, mutilation of a corpse and second-degree sexual assault.
August 2, 2007
Brendan is sentenced to life in prison.
Perhaps the best way to form an opinion on Brendan's confessions is to read the transcripts and listen to the audio yourself. Links to all of the documentation of his confessions can be found on the Source Documents page. His interrogations are also available on YouTube:
November 7, 2005 Interview
Interrogation Part #1
Interrogation Part #2
Interrogation Part #3
May 13, 2006 Interview Part 1
May 13, 2006 Interview Part 2
http://stevenaverycase.com/brendan-dasseys-involvement/
October 20, 2014
Laura Nirider files Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of Brendan Dassey.
August 12, 2016
Brendan's Conviction is Overturned.
http://georgezipperer.blogspot.com/2016/08/brendan-dasseys-2007-conviction-has.html
Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin.
Habeas Corpus Decision and Order
Judgement in Civil Action
"Barb declined their offer to be present for the interview..." Here's the other side of that claim. (self.TickTockManitowoc)
By Nexious
[–]MrDoradus The state is now pretending the first three interrogations of BD didn't take place. Brad Schimel was referring exclusively to the March 1st interrogation in these motions of his. It's easy to deduce that the March 1st interrogation as nothing more than pre-rehersed righting of the legal wrongs they did in previous interrogations, that's why they focus only on that one. And not only did BJ not know about the first interrogation in the school, BD was never read the full Miranda warnings during those interrogations, not to mention one of them wasn't even recorded in any shape or form.
It's quite despicable how absolutely staged the March 1st interrogation feels: they knew they could get Brendan to say anything by then and they made sure they did everything by the books so it would look like a "proper procedure" at first glance. Let's hope the 7th circuit doesn't decide to uphold the current abysmal status quo when it comes to confessions, because from the examples BS gave in his latest motion the factors for a confession to be considered admissible are quite laughably low and not to mention subjective as hell.
[–]anditurnedaround
I recognize it may not be fair for me to say about Barb, since I have no reason to say this other than speculation. I however question her reasoning ability and her capacity to make good choices for BD had she been in the room with him. We have seen her flounder with every story she was told. Not to mention the conversation indicating she had no idea what inconsistent meant. It makes me wonder if she would have been just as malleable as BD seemed to be.
So, be it Barb or another parent lacking the education, finances or mental capacity in some other way, I think there should be someone provided automatically to advocate for the child, not unlike an attorney if not an attorney.
[–]Mr_Slippery1
He was not under arrest she could have literally pulled him out of the room and said you cannot talk to my son again without a lawyer present.
But much like Brendan, they manipulated her as well.
[–]MMonroe54
Barb is both culpable and not, because she apparently had faith in LE. But why didn't the alarm go off for her when they said BD was going to tell a gruesome story that she couldn't handle? What could she have possibly thought he was going to say? At that point I would have (I think) insisted that it all come to a full stop until I knew more, or called someone....like a lawyer.
[–]Mr_Slippery1
You are right, however, it is never as easy as it seems on paper, initially they likely assured her they were just talking to him, nothing to worry about.
Reality is, she should have known better considering LE already railroaded SA in the past.
Lesson for everyone, guilty or innocent, never talk to a cop about something without a lawyer present.
[–]MMonroe54
My guess is it was twofold: I think they may have used subtle pressure on her -- the marijuana charge -- and may also have reassured her that they "just wanted to talk to BD". I'm sure she also had no money for a lawyer and so decided to trust them. I don't think she ever had any idea that BD was going to be charged with rape and murder; it's why she was so bitter and angry later.
[-]magiclougie
Barb was told after her marijuana arrest on November 6th that she didn't qualify for a public defender because she owned a home. She may have taken this to mean that she couldn't get a public defender for Brendan either because he was her dependent. They lied to her so that she would agree to have her children interviewed without an attorney present. She couldn't afford an attorney and was told that she couldn't have a public defender.
From the transcript of Brendan's March 1st interrogation:
BARB JANDA: I don't know. I do not know. (pause) Do I have ta get some him an attorney, or will they do it for me?
FASSBENDER: The court will assign one for him or the state will pay for his attorney if he can't pay for it, but obviously you have a right at any time to try and get him one or get him one.
BARB JANDA: I tried for a public defender not too long ago and I couldn't get cuz I've got a house.
FASSBENDER: Well there's different, different ways that they determine, you know, based on, on what you've been arrested for and stuff like that; there's different levels of, of money that you need, you need, they, they will determine and I don't know what that is or how they determine that. (pause)
[–]dark-dare
But still, her mom and dad were telling her NOT to speak with LE, and on the recording from jail SA told her the same thing. They did have the pot charge to influence her, but she did not listen to any of the advise she got.
[–]bennybaku
I wondered this as well, one thing it could have been, all she thought Brendan would tell them is not what he participated in but what he witnessed. A fire, a body in the pit stuff like that. I think by that time she had believed SA was guilty and Brendan was helping them by giving them information on a clean up, a fire stuff like that. Maybe?
[–]MMonroe54
You're right; if she wasn't surprised by "a gruesome story" she may have decided SA was guilty. That, alone, is interesting....because we don't know if LE had convinced her of that or if she came to that idea through her own volition....knowing her brother as she did.
[–]bennybaku
They were playing some mind games with the family. Mostly saying things like, SA is pointing the finger at you. I think these were attempts to get them to say something about Steve, that would implicate him.
I do think they knew how to handle Barb. One thing is for sure, they didn't want her in the room. They picked times when to interview him when she wasn't readily available.
[-]magiclougie
Scott told Dedering on March 30, 2006 that Steven had pretty much lost support from all the family members with the exception of Steven's mother, Dolores, and Steven's fiance, Jodi.
[–]iolouthief
It really burns me they took a child to a hotel and sequestered him to feed him information. That should be illegal. They basically kidnapped him and his Mom and sibling. Unlawful detainment. He was entitled to a lawyer. Anything after that Feb 27 interview should be inadmissible and his rights were violated so that 27th interview is inadmissible too.
[–]Canuck64
ReplyDeleteFrom arrest to trial to an overturned conviction, there is never the presumption of innocence.
[–]thed0ngs0ng
supposedly that is a foundation of our justice system.. sad it isn't the case.
[–]BigBankHank
I thought that was like an urban legend.
I recently had my first introduction to the justice system at age 39, and I can tell you that once you're arrested you lose your rights and there is a de facto, if not explicit, presumption of guilt.
Pre-conviction punishment is near-universal as far as I can tell. Bail is imposed almost universally despite clear language prohibiting bail unless the defendant is a flight risk or danger to the community.
My "conditions of pretrial release" (a euphemism for "pre-conviction punishment") included having to expose my genitals to strange men, for one thing.
What I learned was that the law doesn't really apply in US courthouses. Eg., I wasn't allowed to speak to an attorney before my arraignment, I was arraigned despite the fact that no arrest report was filed until 10 days after my arrest, when it became available it was rife with nonsense and transparent lies (I had been searched illegally), it offered a different justification for the search than the one that was written on my citation at the time of arrest, they called it an inventory search despite the fact that they never inventoried my vehicle or secured my valuables or met any of the other very clearly established criteria for such a search, the cops showed up to lie under oath evidently unconcerned that they would be caught lying or face consequences if they were, the judge saved them from having their perjury exposed by threatening me with indefinite jail time, and therefore never got a look at the valid prescription they charged me with 5 felonies for possessing, they coerced me into taking a CWOF and thereby admitting they had sufficient evidence to find me guilty despite the very obvious, verifiable fact that I hadn't committed a crime, then made me swear I hadn't been coerced in front of the very man who had coerced me just minutes beforehand. The judge knew the search was illegal and that the cops were lying, as that information was submitted as part of my motion to suppress, which he had read.
A lot of people find it hard to believe that cops, prosecutors, and judges would do such things, or that I never had an opportunity to be heard throughout the entire process, but it was clear to me that this is how it works as a matter of course. This was in MA, so I suspect it's a hell of a lot worse elsewhere.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5dh7gs/is_this_true_seventh_circuit_orders_brendan/
Brendan's confession & sources of his information (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 22 hours ago * by Canuck64
I have arranged the March 1st statement into a storyline format citing where Brendan got the information from. Unless otherwise indicated, the quotes are from March 1st by Fassbender and Wiegert. Almost the entire "confession" came from investigators.
At the Avery trial, Kratz told the jury during closing arguments that Avery shot TH inside the garage. He then backed the RAV4 into the garage and placed TH’s body in the cargo area. Next he went outside and placed a white garbage bag containing the electronics into a lit burn barrel between 3:45 and 3:50pm. Kratz says that this is what Blaine witnessed when he saw Steve placing the white garbage bag in the lit burn barrel.
Moving to the Dassey trial, Blaine testified that he saw Steve walking towards the burn barrel with a plastic bag in hand and putting something into the burning burn barrel. However, Brendan did not see Steve or anything burning in the burn barrel. But Brendan said he saw the RAV4 inside Steve’s garage [1] which Blaine did not see.
Both Blaine and Brendan went into their house and Blaine used the phone for about 30 minutes. When he was done, Brendan used the phone to call Travis with whom he spoke to for about 15 minutes.
After the call with Travis, Brendan got on his bicycle to get the mail [2]. He found mail belonging to Steve in his mailbox. Brendan then returned down the lane towards his home. When he reached the white trailer just past the half-way point he could hear the screaming of a girl coming from Steve’s trailer [3]. At this point he was over a hundred yards from Steve’s residence. Brendan stated that Bryan was in their garage working on his car, but Bryan could not hear the screaming because he was listening to a radio.
As Brendan got closer he noticed that there was garbage burning in Steve’s burn barrel [4]. Ignoring the screams coming from Steve’s trailer he decides for no apparent reason to rummage through the burning garbage barrel. He lifts the top garbage bag to look inside and sees a cell phone, a camera and a purse [5].
Brendan than knocked three times on Steve’s door and waited and waited and waited [6]. While he was waiting he also noticed that there was a fire burning behind Steve’s garage which was not there when they came home from school [7]. It took Steve 5 minutes to answer the door. Finally Steve answered looking all sweaty and invited Brendan inside. As Brendan entered he looked down the hall and saw a naked girl restrained to Steve’s bed [8]. Steve offered Brendan a soda which Brendan accepted and drank.
Steven then told Brendan that “Teresa Halback was back there, that she was on the bed naked with she was chained up ta the bed”. Steve told him that he had raped the girl [9] and asked him if he wanted some [10]. Brendan told him he was not of age.
Steve coaxed Brendan until Brendan decided he wanted some [11]. They both entered the bedroom where Teresa was chained up [11a]. Brendan undressed and then placed his penis into her vagina and held it there for five minutes. [12] Teresa asks him not to do it [13]. After 5 minutes he took it out, he said he did not ejaculate. Brendan then gets dressed and both him and Steve go the living room and watch television for about 5 to 15 minutes. Steven tells Brendan he did good and that he is now going to burn her.
CONTINUED...
Brendan then tells Steve that he needs to leave because he has to call Travis. But instead Steve has Brendan return with him to the bedroom [14] and stabs Teresa with a knife about three inches into her stomach, sort of in the ribs [14a]. Brendan than cuts her throat from ear to ear about a half inch deep [15]. Steve then jumped on top of TH [15a] and choked her for three minutes [15b], cuts off three inches of her hair [15c] and punches her in the head [15d]. After this he washed his hands in the sink drying his hands with the same paper towel he will use to clean the crime scene. Steve returns to the bedroom and grabs a rope from the side of the bed and jumps on her again and starts tying her up with Brendan’s help [16]. While he is doing this he tells Teresa that he is going to kill her [17].
ReplyDeleteThey then carry her nude to the garage. She does not say anything. Steve then places her in the back of the RAV4 because he was going to throw her in the pond but then remembers he was going to burn her in the fire he already had going behind the garage, so he immediately removes her from the vehicle and places her on the garage floor [18]. He goes to the trailer to get his rifle. When he returns he shoots her three times, once to the stomach, once to the chest and once to the head. Later he would say Steve shot her three times in the left side of the head [19] and later 10 times [20].
It was “still light out” or getting a “bit dark”, when they carried her body on a mechanic’s creeper to the fire. Official sunset time that day was 4:43pm. They cover her with the tires and branches and then go back into the house for a little bit [21].
Somewhere during this time Jodi calls Steve on his cell phone and they talk for a while. Ten minutes later Jodi calls again [22].
They then drive the RAV4 down to the pit directly past Chucky’s place. Once there, Brendan helps Steve place the rambler hood ON TOP of the RAV4 [23]. Steve then goes under the hood of the RAV4 [24]. Brendan believes Steve may have cut his finger when he went under the hood [25]. He would get a band aid later when he gets the bleach. Steve also removes the licence plates [26]. Brendan states that Steve left the knife and the 22 rifle inside the RAV4 [27].
They walk back to Steve’s trailer by going the long way, past Chucky’s place. Steve hides the RAV4 key in his trailer [28]. Steve hides the license plates in his trailer [29]. They than watched television until Barb called Steve at 9:30pm. At 9:50pm, they burned the bed sheets. Also at 9:50pm, the wipe up the blood in the garage using Teresa’s clothes, gas, paint thinner and bleach [30]. And last they burned Teresa’s button down shirt and jeans [31]. Brendan said he was home by 9:30pm.
During closing arguments Fallon moved the time of the sexual assault, murder and mutilation from taking place before 5:00pm as stated in the March 1st confession to sometime after 5:30pm telling jurors that Steve and Brendan placing the body on the fire under the cover of darkness thereby bypassing Brendan’s alibi witnesses. He was basing his closing arguments on the May 13 confession which the jury did not hear. Unfortunately, thus is the version most people believe, and not the evidence he presented at court.
Below are all first mentions and leading questions;
[1] ("Was her car still in there when you went in there? Tell us the truth [Feb 27 high school].");
(“I have a problem with the car sittin’ out front “); (“That cars sittin’ out front other people er at would have seen that car”);
[2] SA 54 (“I think you went over to [Avery’s] house and then he asked [you] to get his mail.”);
[3] (“Were they Screaming? ”); (what could you hear [while riding his bike]);
[4] ("was there a fire burning out in front of the house in the bum barrel? [Feb 27 high school]"); (“Was it burning? [burn barrel]);
CONTINUED...
[5] ("I imagine a woman would have a purse, she probably had her cell phone, a camera to take pictures. [Feb 27 high school] "); (“If you know what happened to a cell phone or a camera or her purse, you need to tell us”); (details had been widely publicized for months before the interrogation.)
ReplyDelete[6] SA 54 (“You went inside, didn’t you?”);
[7] SA 36 (“We know the fire was going [when you arrived]”);
[8] (“OK and where was she?”);
[9] (“Did he try to have sex with her” [Feb 27 high school]);
("Did he say anything about sexual assault with, with her or having sex with her [Feb 27, police station]"); (“Do you know what sexual assault means?);
[10] ("We know. He asks you doesn’t he? [have sex with her]"]);
[11] SA 60 (“Does he ask you to rape [Halbach]?”); SA 61 (“He asked if you want some, right?...If you want some pussy?”);
[11a] [Details of handcuffs and leg irons were widely publicized for months before the interrogation]
[12] (“And you had intercourse with her? ”); ("What does intercourse mean to you?");
[13] SA 65 (“Did she ask you not to do this to her?”);
[14] SA 67 (“You were there when she died and we know that”); SA 61 (“You went back in that room…we know you were back there.”);
[14a] ("Was it the chest or the stomach?");
[15] SA 74 (“He made you do somethin’ to her, didn’t he? So he would feel better about not bein’ the only person, right?”);
[15a] ("Was he on top of her?")
[15b] ("We know he did something else to her, what else did he do to her?")
[15c] ("Tell us,and what else did you do? Come on. Something with the head. Brendan?")
[15d] ("What else was done to her head?")
[16] SA 73 (“What else did you do? Come on. Something with the head.”); ("You helped to tie her up though, didn’t you?")
[17] ("Is he telling her that he’s gonna kill her,")
[18] ("Did he tell you where he put her in the truck?, [Feb 27 high school] "); SA 84 (“We know that some things happened in that garage, and in that car, we know that”); (" Again, we have, w-we know that some things happened in that garage") (" you took her in the garage?") (No, I mean where, in the garage [was she shot]");
[19] SA 76 (“Who shot her in the head?”). [Brendan says left side, but one shot was directly into the middle lower back of the skull (occipital bone), the second behind and above the ear (parietal bone)]
CONTINUED...
[20] The ten shell casings were found in the garage had been widely publicized for months before the interrogation.
ReplyDelete[21] (“Brendan, we know that, that Halloween and stuff you were with him and, and helped him tend to a fire [Feb 27 high school]"); (did you put that seat on the fire or him? [Feb 27]); ("Did you help put that body in the fire?[Feb 27 high school]"); [Details of body parts found in the fire were widely publicized for months before the interrogation] .
[22] (“Were you there when his girlfriend called, Jodi?”)
[23] Details had been widely publicized for months before the interrogation. Brendan incorrectly states that he and Steve placed to hood ON TOP of the RAV4.
[24] SA 92 (“Did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to the car?”);
[25] ("We heard that he cut himself during the…. [Feb 27 high school]"); ("Anytime during this, did he get injured?)"); ("Did Steve have any blood on him at that time?"); [Details of Steve's cut had been widely publicized for months before the interrogation] ;
[26] ("Did he tell you if he did anything with the license plates? [Feb 27 high school]");
SA 90-91 (“[T]he license plates were taken off the car, who did that?”); [Details had been widely publicized for months before the interrogation] ;
[27] No knife or rifle were found in the RAV4. There is a center console between the seats, a knife could not be placed there.
[28] ("What about the key?[Feb 27 high school]"); (“Whose got the key for the vehicle at that time?”); (“OK, where do you go when you get back up by his house, where do you go?”); (“And what does he do with the key?”; [Details had been widely publicized for months before the interrogation]
[29] License plates were not found in the Steven’s trailer.
[30] (“When do you clean the place up? “); (“, I already know you were in the garage and stuff apparently cleaning up and stuff so tell us about that.”); (“You told me that you thought thinking back now there was blood. It was red in color” [Fassbender asked Brendan Feb. 27 if it could look like blood); (“when you get the bleach on you, let’s talk about that, [Barb said on Feb 27 Brendan came home with bleach stains] “)
[31] ("They were girl clothes weren't they. [Feb 27 high school]");
("Was it a button up shirt? [Feb 27 high school]");
("Were they blue jean pants? [Feb 27 high school]");
("When did he put the clothes on the fire? [Feb 27 high school]"); (“Was it a button down shirt? Remember what kind of pants were they blue jean pants or. .”);
Blaine testified that he was home with Brendan from the time they got home until he left at 5:20pm. Bryan stated that Brendan was home until he left between 6:30 and 7:00pm. Barb was home during the time the confession states they were burning a body. Rob F, Bobby and Scott all testified at the Avery trial that there was no fire behind the garage at the time the confession has them burning a body. Blaine had consistently maintained there was no fire in the burn barrel until he was yelled at by investigators on November 15, 2005.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5dzygs/brendans_confession_sources_of_his_information/
The following video explains what went on between Barb, her son Brendan, and the corrupt justice system.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgHDc3rOoYE
[–]proudfootz
Actually, you can observe police grooming Brendan on Nov 6, 2005.
Brendan truthfully says he didn't see Teresa or her car when he got off the school bus on October 31st.
Police reject his witness statement that Teresa wasn't there and her RAV4 wasn't there, and proceed to tell him he must 'remember' seeing her because the bus driver and everyone else on the bus saw her.
The grooming of Brendan the witness to lie begins on page 16 of this transcript:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Brendan-Dassey-Interview-Transcript-2005Nov06.pdf
"You remember that girl taking that picture."
Crooked cops telling witnesses what they do or don't remember isn't how taking witness statements is supposed to work.
[–]What_a_Jem
I think he got all the facts right apart from one. It's unlikely there were going after Brendan on the 6th, but simply used that interview at a later date, to know that they could manipulate Brendan.
O'Neill had been told the bus driver had seen Teresa on the Monday, when Brendan was dropped off from school. How that came about is not clear, but we now know the bus driver couldn't have seen Teresa that day. When Brendan was asked if he had seen her, he said no. That was the truth. O'Neill, based on the information he had, believed Brendan was lying and told him so.
Now, if he had spoken to Brendan first, then the bus driver, would he have called the bus driver a liar, because Brendan had already said he hadn't seen Teresa. Probably not. If O'Neill had any intelligence or integrity, he would have simply memorialised that Brendan said he hadn't seen her, then waited for the bus driver's account to be verified. He didn't do that, he just called Brendan a liar, which under pressure, Brendan then changed his first honest account, that he hadn't see her, to lying to O'Neill, saying he had.
So I don't think that was a plan of O'Neill's, but it did show the prosecution that Brendan can be made to lie, to agree with their version of events.
I think it was a criminal act, but doubt anyone will ever pay the price!
There were other interrogation rooms, they took him to the hotel to brainwash him without prying eyes.
ReplyDeleteThey took Brendan to Fox Hills Resort not for protection but for sequestering, that's the word. They did it to manipulate and isolate him. Why weren;t all conversations, audio and video, recorded?
Forget about how clear it is that BD has cognitive or other disabilities, this is just so wrong on so many levels. The way they questioned him: from not having an adult with him to questioning him in a car with that damn blinker going constantly is beyond cruel. I could go on but those of us know the countless things that happened to this kid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgHDc3rOoYE
They interrogated Brendan during the school day and workday, when they could pull him out of class without Barb's knowledge to speak to him, and when Barb wouldn't be with him because she was at work and his was at school, and then on March 1st, they coerced his confession when she was in court for her divorce.
[–]Canuck64
ReplyDeleteTo me it also seems obvious they secluded them at the hotel so that they could interview all the family members over again using Brendan's admission of seeing a body in the fire as leverage. Barb was surprisingly naive throughout this. Or maybe not so surprisingly when you consider none of the Dassey boys had ever been in trouble with the law before. Where was Brendan's dad throughout this??
[–]MMonroe54
Barb's behavior throughout is puzzling. Either she was very naïve or she was lied to, or, probably, both. I think she thought they were going to use BD as a witness to nail SA and had convinced her SA was guilty. She had no idea they were going to make BD a defendant.
[–]Canuck64
They read him his Miranda Warnings at the police station on February 27 as well.
At the high school Fassbender had twice threatened Brendan with prosecution if he did not tell them the truth. So in my mind he was already a suspect then, but he wasn't read his Miranda Warnings. As a result Wiegert went to some lengths reminding the court that he was only a "witness" on February 27 and did not become a suspect until March 1st. Brendan allegedly admitted to seeing body parts, so even based on that how can he not be a suspect on February 27?
[–]Nexious
No doubt that by definition every single one of these occurrences from 2/27 onward were flat-out interrogations no matter how they spin it. An information gathering interview does not consist of repeatedly telling the possible witness "I know you saw something. We know you saw something. We know you saw some flesh!" after Brendan repeatedly denied seeing anything.
[–]bennybaku[S]
Along with every time they did interview BD, Barb had to be somewhere else, work or divorce court.
Don't you wonder what was said and done at the Fox Hills Resort? There had to be a reason they didn't tape it.
Kratz intuition, the interview would become an interrogation, Brendan and Barb didn't see it coming.
[–]bennybaku[S]
Along with every time they did interview BD, she had to be somewhere else, work or divorce court.
Don't you wonder what was said and done at the Fox Hills Resort? There had to be a reason they didn't tape it.
Kratz intuition, the interview would become an interrogation, Brendan and Barb didn't see it coming.
[–]MMonroe54
The taking BD et al to Fox Hills is, itself, questionable. It clearly was not for their safety, as claimed, since they returned them to their home the next morning. I think somebody in authority -- maybe Executive Officers of both counties -- said, when they knew what was planned: "do that off site, not on official county property." Or maybe W&F just knew "off site" was a safer idea.
[–]Lolabird61
I read somewhere (???) that when LE had secured ASY, BJ was on her way some from work and got nailed in possession for weed a short distance from her home. Sorry I have no documentation.
[–]bennybaku[S]
That does sound familiar. I wonder if they had started the searches on the homes?
[–]SBRH33
The weed was planted in Barb's car.... and the potential charge used to manipulate the hell out of her.
Happens all of the time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5fqxj0/a_gruesome_story/?st=iw6diivu&sh=d5bebec9
Below is an excerpt from an article from Milwaukee magazine May 1, 2006.
ReplyDeletelink - https://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/
Throughout the investigation, Avery, 43, maintained his innocence. In interviews with the press, he claimed to be set up by conspirators who wanted to foil his $36 million wrongful conviction lawsuit against the County of Manitowoc, its former sheriff and former district attorney.
“I’m still trying to figure it out, and I can’t,” Avery said in a telephone interview from his cell block in mid-February. “The only thing I can come up with is the sheriff and some of them cops. I don’t know why they would’ve wanted to go this far.”
The case was fraught with contradictions: How could a man erroneously imprisoned for 18 years risk his hard-fought freedom by committing such a vicious crime?
Avery’s family united behind him, and his two lawyers pressed ahead with his civil lawsuit, settling with Manitowoc County for $400,000. But then, in early March, in a terrible twist of events, Avery’s 16-year-old nephew, Brendan Dassey, told police he had helped Avery rape, torture, murder and burn the body of Teresa Halbach.
The confession jolted the public’s sensibilities. Legislators vowed to fight for a state death penalty law. Talk show hosts called for the repeal of bipartisan reforms that were passed to protect the innocent after Avery’s wrongful imprisonment.
Even Avery’s family turned against him. The stark and explicit nature of Dassey’s confession convinced his own siblings that Halbach met her end in Avery’s trailer.
“At first I had my doubts,” said his brother, Chuck, sitting in the salvage company’s office. “The way the evidence was coming in, it wasn’t adding up.”
“I got the same feelings,” said the younger brother, Earl. “Now… he’s no longer my brother. He can rot in hell.”
[–]pattyo975 18 points 2 days ago
I think they went after Dassey because many in the community believed SA and thought they framed him (the scene in MaM at the bar). They had to have a gruesome story to sway the public-enter Brendan. They also needed to eliminate him as a witness FOR the defense.
[–]dark-dare 5 points 2 days ago
Yes, it was all ready being talked about, that, LE had moved the Rav onto ASY. Tammy W had heard it from someone as related by LE. SA said this in his Nov 9th interview. So LE in neighboring counties WERE talking about him being framed by LE
[–]Lucyeylesbarrow 1 point 2 hours ago
That's true, but remember that BD's confession was probably what convicted SA. I think they needed that confession to tip the scales their way, people did seem to be leaning SA's way so they had to turn things around. Which is exactly what KK did in his press conference, after that I think neither of them stood a chance. They already been tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty. For me what happened to BD is the most tragic part of this whole thing, he makes me think of my older son who has similar issues.
CONTINUED...
[–]iolouthief 5 points 2 days ago
ReplyDeleteBrendan was used to get another search warrant to plant more evidence. And soley so KK could have a confession on record and press conference to taint the jury. I predict that If they had coerced a confession from SA then BD would not be in prison.
[–]Rossj83 10 points 2 days ago
Brendan's confession was used to get a search warrant so a bullet could be found.
Brendan's confession was also used to provide narrative to the murder of TH.
I think if F&W just wanted to remove Brendan as Stevens alibi they could of made Brendan say he was with his mother. (tell Brendan he will get dragged into the case if continues to alibi Steven and says he was at home that night)
Or tell Brendan that Steven really killed TH and Blaine's alibi isn't strong enough and Blaine might get dragged in. (Brendan could help Blaine and himself if they vouched for each other)
Or both (make Brendan look like a dishonest liar or a nice kid who wants just want to help everyone)
I think it's just narrative and search warrant to get at Steven, Brendan is just collateral damage in the prosecutions eyes.
[–]seekingtruthforgood 14 points 2 days ago
I think Brendan was used to not only change public perception, he was used to anchor the belief in Avery's guilt by other law enforcement, judicial officials and state personnel. Imagine this case against Avery without Brendan's confession. Many in LE's circle would have questioned the legitimacy of the (lacking) crime scene evidence in Steven Avery's place. In fact, I would bet outsiders/LE peers may have considered, investigated and questioned the allegations of corruption and planting much more seriously had Brendan not confessed.
[–]JLWhitaker 4 points 1 day ago
And even then the jury was something like 7-5 acquit until that evening. I'd give a year's wage to find out what happened to result in a unanimous guilty verdict - was it the 'oh it was so horrible' reminder about that press conference? Was it Pagel's presence? Did he armtwist or just casually drop in a few reminders himself? Did he or someone else on the jury with connections to LE say something about you can't let "murderers" like SA on the street again? I just don't know, but I can imagine any of those things as possible and probable.
[–]seekingtruthforgood 3 points 1 day ago*
It's just so sad. It was 1 or 2 people influenced this jury. Something happened.
CONTINUED...
[–]_MaM_throwaway 8 points 2 days ago
ReplyDeleteKeeping in line with Buting's reasoning that planting of evidence probably occurred because the officers truly believed Avery was guilty, they knew Brendan was home at the same time as Steven. Being the only two on the premises, either Brendan saw Steven (and therefore at least saw evidence of the murder) or Brendan did not see Steven at all, and possibly saw no evidence of the murder.
So when Brendan acknowledged he had seen Steven, these officers, who truly believe Avery to be guilty, must now suspect Brendan as well. Brendan saw Steven on the night a grisly murder was committed. He must have seen blood; he must have seen her go in the trailer; he must have seen something!
So they did their routine, to which Brendan was most susceptible. They told him they'd take care of him, that he'd be able to go back to school. They told him he wasn't telling the truth, and what they thought the truth was. And then he told them their version.
The tragedy of Brendan is that he was in the right place at the wrong time. He was just home. He just saw his uncle who lived next door. Officers didn't maliciously target Brendan, though their method is still wrong (in that it produced an unreliable and false confession and cost this boy at least a decade). They just had nowhere else to go as long as they believed Steven was guilty.
[–]MMonroe54 5 points 2 days ago
This is reasonable and fits....with some caveats. I think they did believe SA was guilty and then, instead of following the evidence, they began trying to prove it -- through witnesses, namely a family member, and then through evidence, some of which they manipulated. They leaned on everybody; BD was just the most vulnerable and malleable.
[–]_MaM_throwaway 4 points 2 days ago
Absolutely, they followed their hopes rather than the evidence. But Brendan wasn't just the most vulnerable and malleable; he was the only one who was actually there along with Steven. Or at least in close proximity. So if you believe SA must be guilty, then Brendan was either oblivious or an accomplice. By his own admission, he wasn't oblivious to Steven's whereabouts and doings that evening, so he became an unfortunately vulnerable and malleable suspect.
But this is all based on Buting's very charitable assessment of the officers' motives. If they didn't actually believe Steven to be guilty of the crime, then they were just waging war on the hated Averys and "cutting down the family tree."
[–]iolouthief 3 points 1 day ago
They tried similar manipulative interrogation techniques on SA but because he is wise to the system he did not fall for it. (In the original interrogation interviews) If he confessed or was coerced into it back in Nov 05 then they never would have gone after BD. There would have been a sweaty KK press conference with just SA involved and case closed.
[–]JLWhitaker 3 points 1 day ago
So why pick Brendan when others were also home? That's what I don't understand.
I think your logic is sound about how the LE could have thought about the investigation at the time. They needed a witness. The evidence was too suspect (mobile from anywhere, the multiple locations of the bones, the illogical DNA, the LACK of blood). They needed a more complete narrative for the case to stick. Instead of looking for alternative theories and suspects, they were stuck with the one they had. BD was their insurance AND by putting him as a co-accused, they nullified him as an alibi.
But why not the other brothers who were also home?
CONTINUED...
[–]stateurname 2 points 1 day ago
ReplyDeletethe others were off site for larger periods of time with solid alibis (even MC/CC DAs would not be able to work around). Brendan was malleable.
[–]Canuck64 7 points 2 days ago
They did start by coaching him as a state witness. I think it was after he went along with the sexual assault scenario Fassbender was prompting him to say and then guessing he cut her throat in trying to answer "what else happened to her head?" that they turned the tables on him.
At this point they had a decision to make, admit Brendan has no knowledge of the crime or charge him with the sexual assault and murder. Instead of humiliation, they decided to go for the glory and Brendan became collateral damage.
I am still having difficulty deciding if they are incredibly gullible and incompetent or if they are pure evil? Maybe they are both? I don't know.
[–]Canuck64 3 points 2 days ago
Do you think they actually believed what they prompted Brendan to say despite Brendan getting almost all the facts of the evidence wrong?
[–]bennybaku 5 points 2 days ago
A red flag, for me as far as their competence or just a drive to get anything is when Barb was going to go in on the second interview and they told her she might want to sit in the waiting room because Brendan was going to tell a gruesome story. How did they know it was going to get more gruesome than what they already had?
[–]bennybaku 4 points 1 day ago
Actually if BD's father could have been there while she was in court, it could have changed history as well. When you think about it, Barb was going through a lot of stress at that time. Juggling a job, going through the divorce, and LE that were laying for her son.
[–]JLWhitaker 1 point 1 day ago
Not to mention a drug possession charge.
[–]MMonroe54 4 points 1 day ago
I don't think it mattered to them that they believe it or that they needed to. I don't think they knew or particularly cared what was true; it was just a scenario that they thought fit the evidence or made sense to them. It was a story they essentially told Brendan because they needed a story back from him to explain what happened to TH.
[–]Canuck64 4 points 1 day ago
Only problem was was that it conflicted with the evidence and Kratz's belief that she was killed before Brendan arrived home. But as we know Kratz's solution was just to have two completely different theories for the same crime. Conviction comes first, truth and justice doesn't matter.
CONTINUED...
[–]MMonroe54 1 point 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteTheir "belief" about what happened seemed to change. As I said, I know only what I've read here or elsewhere about BD's trial. As you say, truth and justice is not primary, or often apparent, or even important, in a courtroom. The process is adversarial by design and it's about "convincing".....i.e. conviction.
[–]dvb05 5 points 2 days ago
You make a great point which then needs be attributed to the trials, why was BD ALMOST NEVER mentioned during the SA trial?
He was allegedly an eye witness to a rape, murder, mutilation and then aided in cremating a body on a bonfire.
You would think such a key witness would be used in the prime accused's trial would you not, if not why not, apparently their lead witness was not credible enough for the main trial of the whole murder case.
What a fucking joke
[–]ConvictedForMurder[S] 6 points 2 days ago
The whole Ken "Let Me Drink Your Sweat" Kratz narrative is Brendan's confession. He apparently wasn't reliable as a witness, because his testimony was impeachable, but it was strong enough to convict him for both rape and murder.
You spoke words that will never be truer; "What a fucking joke."
[–]dark-dare 5 points 1 day ago
That is a HUGE point, they knew DS and JB were ready to tear the confession apart, then they would lose SA and BD. Oh the slimy snakes.
[–]JLWhitaker 4 points 1 day ago
I think it was because of the long game. The state knew there would be appeals. They knew there were gaps in their SA case and that BD was his alibi. They had to discredit him and couldn't let it go even after SA was found guilty because of appeals and post conviction relief on possible basis of ineffective assistance of counsel at a minimum (which is part of KZ's argument anyway). So they went all in on Brendan as well to discredit anything he might say in the future if SA were retried.
Now that BD's confession is thrown out, the dominos have started to topple. It's just going to take time. At least BD will be (cross fingers and toes) out one day. And (cross fingers and toes) justice for SA to get due process and a fair trial will result with BD as his alibi as he was supposed to be in the first place, not to mention the debunking of the faux "evidence" in SA's first trial.
[–]tempestlefavre 3 points 1 day ago
Pointing you in the direction of the Serial podcast about Adnan Syed case for comparison, Brendan Dassey (MaM) and Jay Wilds (Serial) were both alibi witnesses for the defence, what better way for the State to get rid of an alibi: create an unwitting accomplice.
CONTINUED...
[–]MnAtty 16 points 2 days ago*
ReplyDeleteIf I could point out—it might make more sense if you take into account that Dassey became tied to the crime by a full confession. No one would argue that the method of obtaining the confession was unfair, and in fact, we now know it was later thrown out by Duffin.
At the time of the investigation, though, and all the way through the trial, Dassey was regarded as someone who had no negotiating options—he had nothing to bargain with.
Also, the confession was something he couldn’t escape. When the evidence against someone includes a full confession, most juries have few reservations about returning a guilty verdict. There’s almost this attitude that “he’s beyond our help, if he’s going to confess to everything.” I think it makes juries feel absolved of responsibility for an unfair situation.
Then, on the prosecution side, they also regard the defendant as being more culpable because of the strength of having a confession included in the evidence. Maybe because they are more certain of the defendant’s post-conviction standing (as a guilty man), they begin the process of objectifying him—of withdrawing sympathy, because there is no longer any possibility that he will be found innocent.
This is what I’ve seen in these cases. There isn’t a lot of empathy for defendants generally, and when the case is solid, there is even less empathy.
We have the advantage, years later, of watching the documentary, then reading through most of the files and documentation, and then taking time to discuss the case in great detail. We are very aware of the unfairness, and we can clearly see the elements (such as Dassey’s youth, lack of comprehension, etc.) that create an imbalance of power. Dassey’s vulnerability is obvious to us.
At the time leading up to the trial, though, Kratz’s press conference and his other tactics had whipped the public into a lynch mob frenzy. Dassey had been dehumanized and demonized. People were given permission to despise him. Dassey is probably lucky there was no death penalty.
[–]not_a_sloppy_joe 10 points 2 days ago
I love your stuff, but this one makes me very sad, hits close to home so to speak.
Dassey had been dehumanized and demonized. People were given permission to despise him
I know some of those people, some of those people are my family. Over the holiday weekend, I broached the subject for the first time and was met with a stone cold wall of silence. They just don't want to hear any of this, in their minds, saying that Brendan and Steven are innocent is like the Pope saying, Jesus Schmeesus.
[–]MnAtty 9 points 2 days ago
Yep—it’s a tough situation. However, I’ve had many years of practice being non-judgmental, as my work requires. Also, people here on TTM have taken the time to learn about the criminal justice system. You and I are both somewhat enlightened, and we can talk about these things.
For the average person, I would expect there to be little understanding. They must experience something like a scene in a horror movie, when they think about this case. It’s shocking and upsetting, and they’ve been told terrible things.
I am glad that there are good attorneys involved in both the Dassey and Avery cases. These are the people who are going to make the difference.
I think the non-attorneys are starting to realize how daunting this work can be, when, after eleven months, the cases have scarcely moved. It’s such a complex situation, it practically collapses under its own weight.
Don’t be too disappointed in your family and friends. They only know what they see on Fox news. Meanwhile, you have developed a level of expertise.
It’s usually better to leave things as they are, but if you have to speak up, consider this a chance to hone your diplomacy skills. You have an unpleasant topic and a non-receptive audience. I improved my own communication techniques this same way. ;o)
CONTINUED...
[–]JLWhitaker 5 points 1 day ago
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing this out about how to deal with the entrenched. I haven't developed that skill and find that I only get high(er) blood pressure. So I duck instead. Situations like this (cough cough) where people are on opposite sides of a fence really require mediators who have managed to set aside the emotion and look at things more objectively or from a 'teaching' view for both sides.
In a discussion group I attend, we can suggest topics. I suggested the different forms of judicial systems because I was deep into this and other cases where people in other places were raising alternatives to the adversarial system. I don't think many people know (I didn't!) that there were other ways to run a justice system besides the Perry Mason type. The US system is just one of a few others.
The Pistorius case in South Africa showed me another, with a lead judge and the two 'off-siders', sort of a bench trial. I don't know if they use juries in SA at all, or if it is just for major crimes that they don't. And others have mentioned a true(r) approach to justice where all the parties, the judge and ALL the lawyers focus on the justice, safety of the testimony, and all the decisions taken, to be assured of a reliable outcome and not just "winning". I don't remember the country where this happens, but it seemed much better than the head-to-head in the US. These last two take the 'mob' of public opinion out of the equation, at least as far as humans involved can.
[–]Canuck64 4 points 2 days ago
The search warrant for the garage had already been prepared before the March 1st interrogation. The search warrant was based on the information they got from Barb Monday night.
[–]Canuck64 3 points 1 day ago
I wish I knew at what point the bullet fragments were added.
[–]dark-dare 3 points 2 days ago
Wonder what Barb told them, for them to include bullet fragments in the warrant???
[–]MMonroe54 5 points 1 day ago
The evidence LE released to the media included handcuffs and porn found in the bedroom, previous sexual assault investigation in 2004, 22 rifle found in Steven's bedroom, seven areas of blood found in the garage as well as 10 shell casings.
Very likely spot on. The problem is the leg irons and handcuffs were easy release sex toys, the blood was all Steven's, the shell casings were found upon first entering the garage but weren't enough of a clue that they looked then and found the bullets, the .22 was not even confiscated at first, and the porn means nothing. It was Eisenberg's testimony about the "defects" in the skull that made bullets -- and the .22 -- important, and made it necessary that BD talk about shooting.
CONTINUED...
[–]Rossj83 6 points 2 days ago
ReplyDeleteBarbs search warrant was destroyed and a new one made.
Page 638 CASO
[–]Canuck64 8 points 2 days ago
That is because they added the trailer. Wiegert testified to this at the Dassey trial. At 12:10pm he called Kratz and told him "Do not sign do not serve, do not sign do not serve". It can be heard during the interview.
Also at the May 4, 2006 Motion hearing, Wiegert testified that they knew how and where TH was killed and that she had been sexually assaulted before meeting with Brendan on March 1st.
Anyways, that was Wiegert's testimony.
[–]Canuck64 4 points 1 day ago
No expert testified as to the suspected calibre of bullet fired into the skull.
Both shots were basically into the back and back left of the skull.
[–]MMonroe54 1 point 1 day ago
Well, but the .22 was what they had, hanging in SA's bedroom.
[–]Canuck64 1 point 1 day ago
What relevance is the 22 found in Steve's bedroom if she were shot with a .223?
Kucharski found a .223 shell casing during the November search of the garage. A loaded .223 assault rifle with three rounds remaining in the magazine was found in the Janda home.
So the calibre of bullet fired into the skull is important. I'm thinking it probably may not have been possible, so it is unknown what type of weapon was used to kill her.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5fopmt/question_that_has_bothered_me_since_i_researched/?st=iw85ei8x&sh=947cc004
[–]ptrbtr
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% about memory's and how good they are even within hours of something happening. It usually needs to be something very significant happening and even then it can create problems if it is a very traumatic event.
I don't want to highjack this thread but I will tell a story that happened many years ago in WI at a small ski resort/area where I lived. The ski area only had rope tows and a young girl got her scarf tangled in the rope, it dragged her into the air and strangled her to death. Her and her parents had been warned a couple of times not to have the scarf hanging out and to remove them, they must have just tucked them in so the ski patrol couldn't see them.
One of my friends (I'll call him Jim) was the ski hill operations manager. This happened on a Friday night around 5:00pm. The news hit town fast, it was shocking to everyone. I was bartending helping with the fish fry Friday crowd, I got done at 11:00pm sat on the other side of the bar to have a beer or two.
Jim walked in. He was never a bar fly but considering the day he had I figured he needed to have a couple for sure. He sat right down next to me. He said "I suppose everyone knows what happened?" I said well we've heard but we don't know. He said he really didn't want to talk about it right then. I told him that I understood but that he might want to listen to what I had to say.
I asked the bar owner to bring me a pad of paper and a pen. I then told Jim that he needed to tell me EVERYTHING he could remember about the day, from the time he woke up. He asked "why?" I told him that you never know in the future if there is a law suit how they will eat you alive on your memory of not just the accident but the entire day. He agreed to let me write down what he could remember.
We went through everything from what time he woke up, what he had for breakfast, what vehicle he drove to work, what he had for lunch (this turned out to be very important) and on and on.
Three years later a wrongful death suit finally got to court. The owners of the ski hill and Jim were named. A couple of weeks prior to the trial his attorney contacted me, asked if I had written the days events down as Jim told them to me and if it was done on the date on the bottom of the pages with my name on them and would I be willing to testify to it. Of course and I did.
What happened was the attorneys for the girl went after Jim hard, trying to question everything and prove his memory wasn't good about what happened. Then questioned if he had used any drugs or alcohol that day or the previous day. When they got to the question about what he had for lunch Jim had to tell them that he went to a small country bar, right down the road from the ski hill to have a Friday fish fry. Oh boy did they ever try and get him to look like he may have been drinking. Problem was, was that the night that Jim allowed me to write everything down for him, I pointed out to him that he better go back to the bar and make sure that they knew he wasn't drinking. Also had him find his receipt for the meal, lucky that he had used a credit card and had kept the receipt, it had everything on it that he had ordered, including two Ginger Ale.
The little diary that we wrote that night actually got put in as evidence once I testified that I had written it that night as Jim answered the questions I asked. He attorney was so happy that someone had directed him to do this because it is all to often the case that people's memories fade and change over the course of time, but with it written down within hours of happening you have a better chance if you are ever in a situation like my friend ended up in.
They were all found not liable for the girls death. Like many cases, there really was no winner, but at least there was not another or more victims of the legal system.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5jh9yx/theres_a_huge_difference_between_lying_and/
Brendan, after many changes, said Steven's mail (1piece) got mixed in their mail so he brought it over to Steven.
ReplyDelete[–]Canuck64 3 points 8 months ago
That's what Brendan thought they wanted him to say at the start of the March 1st interview. Finally Fassbender told him that he did not see Teresa or her vehicle when he got off the bus. He also suggested to Brendan that he didn't get the mail until between 4:00-4:15pm in order to allow Steve to build the large bonfire behind the garage which Brendan would see when he knocks on Steve's door.
Fassbender made him change the first story they told him which had him saying he saw Teresa and her car because Blaine continued to maintain that he did not see Teresa, the RAV4 or anything burning.
........
BRENDAN: I seen him talkin’ to her on his porch and that and I seen her, her jeep there and I walked in the house.
.....
WIEGERT: So she’s standing on his porch?
BRENDAN: Uh huh. (nods “yes”)
.....
FASSBENDER: This last year? On the front porch the area?
BRENDAN: (nods “yes”)Yeah.
......
FASSBENDER: So then what happened, you saw her and him on the porch and they were what? (Brendan nods “yes”)
BRENDAN: They were talking.
......
FASSBENDER: OK, did you really see those two talking on the on the porch?
BRENDAN: Yeah, (nods “yes”)
......
FASSBENDER: You did? (Brendan nods “yes”) You’re 100% on that?
BRENDAN: (nods “yes”) Yeah.
FASSBENDER: OK.
.....
FASSBENDER: OK, and you said you walked down th the road to your house, (Brendan nods “yes”) and you said that you saw Steven on the porch.
BRENDAN: (nods “yes”) uh huh
.....
FASSBENDER: Again, er, whether Blaine saw it or not, the time periods aren’t adding up. They’re not equaling out We know when Teresa got there. (Brendan nods “yes”) Urn, and, and I know I guarantee ya Teresa’s not standing on that porch when you come home from school. I just don’t see that...............This is you know gettin’ serious here now, OK? (Brendan nods “yes”) Tell me what happened when you got home.
BRENDAN: I got off the bus. I walked down the road and when I got to that thing, ah, the other house I just sittin’ there for nothin’. I could see her jeep in the garage just sittin’ there and I didn’t see Steven and her on the the porch.
WIEGERT: You, you did or you didn’t?
BRENDAN: I didn’t.
FASSBENDER: Did not, OK.
CONTINUED...
[–]sjj342 2 points 8 months ago
ReplyDeleteI don't buy the BD story at all...everything from the interrogations is inherently untrustworthy and either coerced or contaminated
Most likely, TH left SA's around 2, leaves GZ vm and arrives at Zipperer's around 2:30 (as JZ told Dedering), in the interim, Delores brings mail to SA, they discuss putting another vehicle up for sale, and then SA makes that call around 2:30 (not sure on exact time) while TH is at GZ's or ?
That entire scenario I believe is more or less corroborated by evidence that is more or less unassailable and of the utmost credibility by this case's standards
I was just pointing out that anachronistic anecdotal logic is not proof of anything
[–]Blackmambaano5 1 point 8 months ago
You know something that has been bothering me in regards to those "cassettes" is that when the reporter questions MH as to if he "watched" the confession he corrects himself when saying tapes to saying or "cd's" that he didn't watch them. No? Every interview MH gives and the state of his complexion and various breakouts that appear on his face. Stressed out much? The growing a conscience theme is building in this stage of the MaM process.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/4gc9vk/fassbender_sort_of_report/
Clip of Brendan being told he did not see Teresa when he arrived home. (youtu.be)
ReplyDeletesubmitted 22 hours ago by Canuck64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTZ4Do-dWY
[–]SnoBaby 19 points 21 hours ago
This is a prime example of how Brendan was told what happened and then agreed with what someone else said after a little (or a lot of) pressing. The only thing he actually said without prompting (and that he returned to whenever he wasn't under pressure) was that he arrived home and walked to his house and saw nothing (not a Rav4, not SA, not TH, and not a fire in the burn barrel).
The cop in Crivitz pushed him to accept changing stories. He said, "the bus driver saw her, the kids on the bus saw her. You saw her too, didn't you?" Only after that pressing does BD accept this changing narrative.
[–]Canuck64[S] 9 points 21 hours ago
And we know he made it up because unknown to O'Neil and Brendan, the bus driver said she saw the girl taking pictures of a vehicle at the bus stop, standing on the grass by the mailboxes. She was close enough to see the camera.
Brendan assumed she was referring to his mom's van and incorporated Bobby's story of seeing her through the kitchen window.
[–]bennybaku 5 points 16 hours ago
I have often wished O'Neil had not interfered with Brendan Dassey's statements. I also don't know why Blaine Dassey didn't get the same treatment. I suppose different cops, different approach, possibly?
[–]possibri 2 points 15 hours ago
They also may have recognized that his statements weren't as pliable as Brendan's.
[–]2much2know 12 points 21 hours ago
They knew it was a problem with Brendan saying he saw Teresa's Rav4 in the drive, which Blaine denies. The cops in Crivitz screwed this up for them so they were in damage control. Still doesn't make sense he says he saw it in the garage either. Why put the Rav in the garage if you're going to leave the door open?
I like how they say we can't tell you what to say but we can tell you that we don't believe you. You need to tell us the truth. They said this like 3 times knowing sooner or later Brendan would tell them a story they could eventually use against him.
[–]What_a_Jem 11 points 18 hours ago
"We can't tell you what to say." Well stop f'ing telling him what to say then! A confession should be a suspect telling the police what happened, not multiple choice answers for the prosecution to pick and choose whichever answers they fancy.
He was lying when his answers didn't fit THEIR narrative, but telling the truth when his answers did fit THEIR narrative. There is no way, that Fassbender and Wiegert didn't know they were obtaining a false confession, regardless of whether they thought Avery was guilty or not.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6ajjpv/clip_of_brendan_being_told_he_did_not_see_teresa/
[–]FlowerInMirror 4 points 15 hours ago*
ReplyDeleteWatch how quick, affirmative and confident he was when he DID know the answer: 0:16 - when he was asked if he was with Blaine. No hesitation.
But with the rest questions, he was just thinking and guessing, pausing before giving answers, while looking down on the floor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQTZ4Do-dWY
[–]Signterp1 4 points 15 hours ago
This! "I need YOU to tell ME what happened." In other words, Brendan, I can't make the false statement for you. I need you to utter the false statement for yourself. It's disgusting how they have absolutely NO fear how bad this RECORDING will look. It's just shows how high up this frame job went. If nothing else in this whole case tells us that this went all the way to the top, this is complete proof for me.
[–]What_a_Jem 1 point 9 hours ago
When Zellner proves Avery innocent, so by default Brendan as well, Fassbender and Wiegert will simply claim they were following orders. The person/s who gave the orders will deny that, so Fassbender and Wiegert will be accused of lying and will probably have to fall on their swords. There superiors will walk away tarnished but unpunished.
[–]What_a_Jem 2 points 9 hours ago
Regardless of what Fassbender claimed, they DID need Brendan. The only person who could really vouch for Avery was Brendan. No mention of a fire, then a fire appears as if by magic! So Kratz had the fire, as without that, Avery had to have been framed, which was never going to be option for the prosecution. One of their own framed someone? Never!
There was a BIG problem though. As investigators had told everyone they KNOW there was a fire that Monday night, Brendan believed the night he was with Steve helping him make a bonfire was on the Monday. But if Brendan was with him, how could Avery have burnt a body without Brendan knowing? Not only that, even though they had convinced Brendan the fire was Monday, he was actually Avery's alibi witness.
If he was called by the defense at trial, even though Brendan would have been a terrible witness, it certainty would have supported the defense's claim that Avery had been framed. So I have no doubt whatsoever, that Kratz planned and manipulated Brendan's false confession. What would he have told Fassbender and Weigert? Probably something like, that he KNOWS Avery murdered Teresa, Brendan was with him, so was definitely involved. Basically saying, that if Fassbender and Weigert were any good at their jobs, they will be able to get a confession from Brenda. But you're right, at some point they should have KNOWN, Brendan knew squat. Which would of course mean, nor did Avery!
[–]Canuck64[S] 2 points 14 hours ago
I will be posting a clip of how investigators prompted Brendan to say the RAV4 was in the garage.
[–]Michigannnnnn 3 points 13 hours ago
Hard to watch. The fact his lawyer wasn't there speaks volumes. They wanted to be done with the case...convict someone that they personally could careless about and be on their way. Protect and serve my ass.
[–]OzWatch 2 points 12 hours ago
It is heartbreaking to see thugs like these vultures pin a kid down and feed him their narrative, they are disgusting and on the wrong side of the prison bars....
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6ajjpv/clip_of_brendan_being_told_he_did_not_see_teresa/
[–]Canuck64 [score hidden] 8 hours ago*
ReplyDeleteActually the March 1st statement says that Brendan went over the Steven's after he got off the phone with Travis, about 4:30pm. He gets the mail and notices one belonging to Steve. Half way back down the frontage road by the white camper - 150 yards - he hears a girl screaming for help coming from Steven's trailer. Bryan is in his garage but doesn't hear the screaming because he is listening to the radio. As Brendan approaches Steven's trailer he notices garbage burning in Steven's burn barrel. As the screams continue he decides to rummage through the burning garbage. Beneath the flame resistant garbage bags he sees a cell phone, camera and purse through the flames and smoke.
He then knocks on Steven's door and waits 5 minutes as the screaming continues. While waiting he notices a fire behind the garage. Eventually Steve answers the door all sweaty looking and invites him in. Brendan notices a girl restrained to Steven's bed. Steve offers Brendan a soda which he drinks. They than go into the bedroom, Brendan removes all his clothes and sticks his penis in her vagina where he holds it for 5 minutes. During this time Teresa tells Brendan "not to do it and tell Steven to knock it off".
After Brendan gets dressed Steve tells him he did a good job and then they watch tv for 15 minutes. After that Steve returns to the bedroom and stabs her in the stomach. Brendan then cuts her throat after which Steve chokes her for two to three minutes. She starts screaming as he is washing his hands with paper towel so he tells her to shut up and punches her in the head Brendan than cuts some of her hair off. Steve then jumps on her and removes the handcuffs and leg irons and ties her up with a long rope. As they are doing this Steve tells Teresa that he is going to kill her.
10 minutes after he had cut her throat they carried her nude to the garage while it was still "light out". The RAV4 had already been backed into the garage with the front end sticking out with the big door wide open. Steve threw her in the back with the intention to throw her in the pond, but then remembered her had already started a fire behind the garage because they were expecting friends over that night for a bonfire party. So he removed her from the RAV4 and placed her on the garage floor. He then runs into the house grabs the rifle and shots her ten times to make sure she is dead. They then use the creeper to carry her to the fire. The throw her in the fire while it is still "light out", "bit dark" (5:00pm) and cover her with tires, branches and a van seat. They leave and move the RAV4 to the pit.
Steve hides the licence plates and key in his residence. Jodi calls at "five thirty, five" after TH had already been killed.
They watch tv until 9:50pm at which time Steve burns the bedsheets. Brendan describes a 12 inch diameter bloodstain on the bedsheets. Then at 9:50pm they clean the garage floor. At 9:30pm (not a typo), Brendan goes home.
Completely unbelievable and both the physical and witness evidence contradicts the statement.
At trial, Brendan testified that everything he said happened before 5 o'clock, the rape and murder, he had made up.
Q And what stuff didn't really happen?
A Where I was over there before 5:00, where helped, and kill her, and rape her and that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/6s5kxf/this_really_makes_no_sense/
Here is a video I made of the March 1st statement explaining how he was coerced and fed the information. The video starts at 1:00pm as they go over his statement for the last time before arresting him.
https://youtu.be/CWO5l7gVuK4
[–]HuNuWutWen 13 points 4 months ago
ReplyDeleteAround the time of this ridiculous miscarriage of "justice" unfolding, Brendan uttered 2 significant responses to questions asked of him...
...remember now, Brendan initially was not crystal clear on much regarding Oct 31 onward...
... he originally provided a vague account of his and his brother's after-school arrival at home, and a typical teenager dismissive, shoulder-shrugging mishmash of his usual activities, very normal for a teen, when adults get up in his business...
...and very normal for someone who had no knowledge of, or involvement with any alleged criminal act...
...again, this is Brendan we are talking about here...
...one word responses...."yeah", "yeah", getting this kid to elaborate was impossible...
...it would be months later...
...Weigert resorted to drawing pictures and diagrams, steering Brendan with visual aids, encouraging Brendan to participate, "fill in the blanks..."...no legal rep present...sounds legit huh? FUCK !
...O'Kelly did the same...absolute child abuse, assault, these fucking people are evil...
...they played multiple-choice word games with Brendan, steering him via "re-visiting" segments of their fabricated narrative which Brendan had not yet satisfactorily memorized ...
...but through all of it, Brendan remained a "follower"...
...Brendan NEVER preemptively offered any insights, he merely waited patiently while the narrative was hinted at, his "choices" provided...
...he then would regurgitate the story line which he thought they wanted to hear...we can all see how Brendan's "story" changes, evolves...like a child imagining a fairy tale...
...and then Brendan said to his mom...
...when mom asked why he was apparently saying all these terrible things about uncle Steve...
..."they got inside my head..." was the answer...
...no hesitation, there it was, Brendan had already asked himself this very question, obviously, and his resignation is evident in his reasoned response to his mother...
...so mom then asks Brendan, (paraphrase), "so, did Steve kill that girl ?..."...
..."not that I know of..." says Brendan to mom...excuse me?
...after all of the manipulation and coercion, Brendan is somehow able, in 10 words, to rationalize everything he has been subjected to, and all the damage his false confession has caused...
...in part profound, yet also glaringly naive, unquestionably honest...
... I don't believe Brendan has made public any subsequent statements other than short responses to questions from supporters, over the years of his wrongful incarceration...
...A day of reckoning approaches, I believe...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/6ar3fv/speculation_brendans_definitive_account/
Kachinsky made an extremely odd note under the heading "Dassey photo review 4/5/06" (PC Hearing Exhibit 359, page 8):
ReplyDelete"H1 and H2 - Pictures of body with measurements and of digsite (in salvage yard)."
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2010-PC-Hearing-Exhibit-359-Kachinsky-notes-on-Brendans-statements.pdf
Could this be related to Kratz's 3/24/06 email to LK:
Len:
A couple things on Dassey...
Finally, there are some items of physical evidence that are still "missing" in this case ... I know with all the stuff that's been recovered it's hard to believe there can be more. But, we speculate that Uncle Steve took some digital photos (during or after this series of crimes). Avery's digital camera has not been recovered . Obviously, if found, that would go a long way to ensuring your client may not have to testify. If he has information that is helpful to the recovery of other physical evidence, including a camera, I'd like to know. Please speak with him about that.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2010-PC-Hearing-Exhibit-343-Kratz-email-to-Kachinsky-3.24.06_Redacted.pdf
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5xtyy7/wisconsin_state_crime_laboratory_csru/?st=JRJAQMY9&sh=4528c43c
Post-Conviction Motion Hearing 1/15/2010
May 12, 2006 - Information Survey with Michael O'Kelly (Original Statement)
DeleteOn May 12, 2006, following the denial of Brendan's motion to suppress his confession, O'Kelly met with Brendan alone to conduct another interview. Part of this included Brendan filling out a "Self Interview & Information Survey" that O'Kelly produced. The top of the document offered Brendan only two options, to say he was sorry or not sorry for what he did. The introduction read:
We have developed inside information that you have not told us everything you know about this incident. This is now your chance to tell the real truth about what happened and write in detail everything you know.
We know everything that we need to know, except for two (2) of your reasons why this incident happened > when and why it did. Let us know IF you are sorry and if you can promise you will never to this again.
QUESTION: I, Brendan Dassey am now finally willing to tell you the real truth and will do what is right. I will explain what & why this happened. This is now my explanation with all my details. Start from the beginning and continue.
Brendan's original written response to this question was as follows:
I went to school on that day and got home at 3:45 and went to my mom's house and went in the house to play playstation until 5:00 p.m. till my mom came home then i called my freind at 5:30 p.m.
I watched T.V. till 6:00 and got a phone call at that time from blaine's boss. I told him that blaine went trick or treating with his friend. Then at 7:00 p.m. I got a phone call at 7:00 p.m. from steven and asked me to come over to the bombfire that night.
Then I helped him pick up the yard and picked up a vanseat, wood, a cabinet, and some tires. Then we threw them on the fire and we waited for the fire to go down and then go[t] a phone call at 9:00-9:30 and it was my mom and told steven that i was to be home at 10:00 p.m. and I was home at that time. Then I talked to my mom and then went to bed.
Addendum
After completing the written statement above, O'Kelly says to Brendan: "Is Teresa in that statement? [No.] Then it's missing. Then it's not a truthful statement..."
When Brendan continues to claim that he made up the confession and that he didn't do anything, O'Kelly says "If you want to stay in prison the rest of your life, then let's just take those words and say that's it. Is that what you want to do -- prison for the rest of your life? ... You and I both know that that is not the truth. It's missing information."
With Brendan shaking his head that he didn't want to go to prison for the rest of his life and at O'Kelly's persistence, Brendan adds on from the original statement:
I allso help clean up some redish-black stuff in the garage and that her body was in the fire that night. Then there was like some blue jeans that I used to clean the redish-black stuff up, and steven helped me clean it up, and steven stabed her in the stomach and shoot her but i didn't do it. Because i can't even gut out my own deer so I couldn't watch him do it, and that I did help him that day for some stuff i didn't want to do but I thought he was to strong for me to get away so I did the stuff he told me to do. Witch were to have sex with her and help him get rid of her in the garage that night, but we put her in the fire that night...
Brendan was also then instructed to draw Teresa tied up, to draw him having sex with her, to draw her being stabbed so on.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5xxu3e/10_written_statements_by_brendan_dassey_20062012/
Kachinsky/O’Kelly had Brendan draw pictures. Here is one of the pictures he drew:
Deletehttp://i.imgur.com/jzF91Z7.jpg
Maybe that is what H1 and H2 are.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5xtyy7/wisconsin_state_crime_laboratory_csru/?st=JRJAQMY9&sh=4528c43c
Kachinsky made an extremely odd note under the heading "Dassey photo review 4/5/06" (PC Hearing Exhibit 359, page 8):
"H1 and H2 - Pictures of body with measurements and of digsite (in salvage yard)."
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5xxu3e/10_written_statements_by_brendan_dassey_20062012/