CASO deputy John Dedering, far right, directly behind Steven Avery
UPDATE NOVEMBER 1, 2017: Kathleen Zellner filed a supplement to her "motion for reconsideration" (with exhibits).
Key points in the supplement:
(1) Barb and Mr. Tadych recently made admissions that Ms. Halbach left the Avery property before her disappearance.
Taped phone call from Steven to Barb and Scott. Barb falsely claims that she didn't have internet access then, when her computer clearly shows browser activity. Barb admits that Bobby told her that "she [Ms. Halbach] left."
(2) Barb's Statements on Facebook on October 30, 2017, directly contradict Bobby's trial testimony.
Bobby only saw Teresa pull in.
(3) The State's theory that Mr. Avery initiated the appointment with Ms. Halbach on October 31, 2005, is refuted by Bryan's affidavit and the corroborating statements of his brothers, Blaine and Brendan.
New corroborated affidavit states, it was Barb who made the arrangements for the appointment.
(4) Mr. Avery has discovered new evidence that Barb attempted to remove evidence from her computer before it was seized by police on April 21, 2006.
Brad's new affidavit shows Barb stated she hired someone to "reformat" her home computer.
(5) Further evidence impeaching Bobby's trial testimony.
Bobby testified he got home from work and slept until 2:30 p.m., but computer forensics show activity throughout the day, when only he was home.
(6) In addition to the other evidence cited in Mr. Avery's prior motions, the evidence presented in this supplement requires an evidentiary hearing.
The evidence was discovered after conviction, the defendant was not negligent in its discovery, and the evidence is material.
Bobby told investigators that on October 31, 2005 he went to bed when he arrived home around 6 a.m. after working third shift. He said that he woke up about 2 or 2:15 p.m.
However, a forensic examination of the family's computer revealed that someone accessed the internet at 6:01 a.m., 6:28 a.m., 6:31 a.m., 7:00 a.m., 9:33 a.m., 10:09 a.m., 1:08 p.m., and 1:51 p.m. on October 31, 2005 (page 41).
Bobby was the only person home in the Dassey household from 6 a.m. until 3:45 p.m. on October 31, 2005.
Teresa called the Dasseys and left a message on their home answering machine at 11:43 a.m. on October 31, 2005. She explained that she would be arriving for the photo shoot around 2 p.m.
Steven told investigators on November 6th that he had spoken to Bobby around noon on October 31, 2005.
Also from Steven Avery's November 14, 2017 sworn affidavit (Exhibit D, page 89):
However, a forensic examination of the family's computer revealed that someone accessed the internet at 6:01 a.m., 6:28 a.m., 6:31 a.m., 7:00 a.m., 9:33 a.m., 10:09 a.m., 1:08 p.m., and 1:51 p.m. on October 31, 2005 (page 41).
Bobby was the only person home in the Dassey household from 6 a.m. until 3:45 p.m. on October 31, 2005.
Teresa called the Dasseys and left a message on their home answering machine at 11:43 a.m. on October 31, 2005. She explained that she would be arriving for the photo shoot around 2 p.m.
Steven told investigators on November 6th that he had spoken to Bobby around noon on October 31, 2005.
O’NEILL: Who else was home at Barb's house when she came, do you know?
AVERY: Bobby was.
O’NEILL: Bobby?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Ok. Anybody else that was home, that you know of? Bryan? was that your other —
AVERY: No, Bryan was working.
O’NEILL: So Bobby was home.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Where's Barb at?
AVERY: Barb was working too.
O’NEILL: So, Bobby was at the house.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: How do you, how do you know he was there?
AVERY: After, after I went over there, then—
O’NEILL: So, later after you got done with her—
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Then you went over to Barb's, you said?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Who was at Barb's when you were over?
AVERY: Well, he was.
O’NEILL: And nobody else?
AVERY: No, nobody else was—
O’NEILL: And why did, why did you stop at Barb's?
AVERY: I don't know. I mostly just walk right over there.
O’NEILL: Pardon?
AVERY: I just mostly walk right over there.
O’NEILL: So after she leaves, you put the Auto Trader magazine in your house.
AVERY: Yeah, and I went over there.
O’NEILL: And you walked right over, right away?
AVERY: Yeah. Well, he was gone. He'd just left.
O’NEILL: Bobby did?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Ok. So you walk over to Barb's though, right?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Who's there?
AVERY: After she left, when I walked over there, he—he left.
SKORLINSKI: Did you see him leave?
AVERY: No.
SKORLINSKI: So he was already gone.
AVERY: Yeah. He just left.
O’NEILL: So nobody was at Barb's then?
AVERY: No. But the first time, when I come home or before that, I went over there and I talked to Bobby.
O’NEILL: 11 o’clock?
AVERY: Yeah, somewhere in there.
O’NEILL: Ok.
AVERY: Uh, or it was after—it was 12 o’clock, because I was outside for a while.
O’NEILL: Ok.
AVERY: Because I went in the house.
SKORLINSKI: Barb's already gone?
AVERY: Yeah.
SKORLINSKI: Ok.
AVERY: I know I talked to him somewhere in there, I, I can't remember.
O’NEILL: But before she came, you talked to Bobby?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: And then after she left, you went over by Barb's. Bobby left.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: What'd Bobby leave—what, what did he drive somewhere or take—
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: What'd he drive?
AVERY: Yeah, he took his Blazer.
O’NEILL: Do you know where he went?
AVERY: No.
O’NEILL: Ok. So when you're there at 11 o’clock, sometime after 11 o’clock, you actually talk to Bobby?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: And then, you go back to your place?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: And then, when the lady comes at two o’clock you talk to her. Then you get done with her and you go back over to Barb's but Bobby's gone because the Blazer's gone?
AVERY: Yeah.
Also from Steven Avery's November 14, 2017 sworn affidavit (Exhibit D, page 89):
I distinctly remember that every time Teresa Halbach came to our property to photograph vehicles, Bobby would always say, "I see that your girlfriend was over yesterday," the following day.UPDATE OCTOBER 24, 2017: Kathleen Zellner filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" with 20 new exhibits on October 23, 2017, and in it she revealed that Bryan Dassey told DCI agents on November 6, 2005 that Bobby Dassey saw Teresa leave the Avery property on October 31, 2005 (image below).
The following image is from Byran's affidavit attached as Exhibit G to Zellner's October 23, 2017 motion.
Bobby Dassey's testimony was essential to the State's claim that Teresa Halbach, a photographer for Auto Trader magazine, was last seen alive at the Avery Salvage Yard. Bobby Dassey testified that he last saw Teresa heading in the direction of Avery's trailer, and did not see her or her car leave the property before he left to go hunting that afternoon.
However, according to Zellner's motion, Bobby and Brendan's older brother Bryan Dassey told Department of Justice officials in November 2005 that Bobby had told him that he did see Teresa leave the property that day. Bryan Dassey recently doubled down on his recollection, signing an affidavit stating, "I distinctly remember Bobby telling me, 'Steven could not have killed her because I saw her leave the property on October 31, 2005.'"
Bobby could have left the property in his truck and Teresa could have pulled out behind him. If so, this means Bobby would have seen her in his rear view mirror as both of them were driving down Avery Road. He said he turned right onto highway 147 from Avery Road and Steven said he saw Teresa signaling to turn left (and that Bobby's truck was gone when he saw Teresa at the intersection of highway 147 and Avery Road).
However, according to Zellner's motion, Bobby and Brendan's older brother Bryan Dassey told Department of Justice officials in November 2005 that Bobby had told him that he did see Teresa leave the property that day. Bryan Dassey recently doubled down on his recollection, signing an affidavit stating, "I distinctly remember Bobby telling me, 'Steven could not have killed her because I saw her leave the property on October 31, 2005.'"
Bobby could have left the property in his truck and Teresa could have pulled out behind him. If so, this means Bobby would have seen her in his rear view mirror as both of them were driving down Avery Road. He said he turned right onto highway 147 from Avery Road and Steven said he saw Teresa signaling to turn left (and that Bobby's truck was gone when he saw Teresa at the intersection of highway 147 and Avery Road).
Zellner alleges that new forensic testing performed on the Dassey family computer recovered "images of Teresa Halbach, many images of violent pornography involving young females being raped and tortured, and images of injuries to females, including a decapitated head, bloodied torso, a bloody head injury and a mutilated body."
The big issue with Zellner's contention about the internet searches for violent pornographic images is that the searches all were done on Sunday, September 18, 2005: on this day, most, if not all, of the Dassey brothers could have been home (exhibit 3, page 145, has a bar graph depicting times of day of the searches, and they're between 7-9 a.m. and then between 3-8 p.m.) and, potentially, Barb's husband, Tom Janda, and Scott Tadych, as well.None of the death-related internet searches were part of the table shown in the exhibit as performed on September 18th. These searches probably were around April 2006, at the same time the images of matching pictures were recovered. The computer was seized on April 21, 2006; the images found were from around April 19th.
In his original statement, which he dictated to Dedering on 11/5/05, Bobby didn't mention seeing Teresa leave the property.
Also, showering after, not before, he saw Teresa was not what Bobby said in his original statement. In his original statement, he said he got up about 2:15 or 2:30 PM, showered, looked out the window, saw Teresa arrive in her RAV4, watched her get out and take a picture of his mom's van, stopped watching to get his jacket and bow, went out to his truck and left to go hunting -- "about 3 or 4 minutes went by between the time he got his jacket and the time he got into his truck" (which means he showered BEFORE, not after, he saw Teresa arrive).
It was in his activity report for 2/27/06 that Dedering added the part about Bobby showering ("for approximately 10 minutes") AFTER he saw Teresa arrive. Dedering falsified Bobby's statement (writing that Bobby saw Teresa arrive "prior to getting into the shower") because the State needed to push the timeline forward 10 to 15 minutes -- they couldn't have Teresa at both Zipperer's and Avery's at 2:30 PM.
Bobby testified falsely to establish the State's timeline (page 36-41).
Bobby was willing to lie because the State most likely threatened to charge him as an accomplice in Teresa's murder (they could have framed him just as easily as they framed Avery). Plus, the State probably led Bobby to believe that Brendan would be exonerated if the family cooperated in testifying against Steven.
Bobby flubbed his lines during his testimony: Bobby testified that he saw Teresa arrive, took a shower for 10 minutes, and then left in his truck at 2:40 or 2:45 PM. However, if Bobby left at 2:40 or 2:45 PM, and this was 10 minutes after he saw Teresa arrive, this would mean that Teresa arrived at 2:30 PM. But 2:30 PM is the time that the State claims Teresa was leaving Zipperer's and heading to Avery's (a 15-minute drive).
Teresa can't be at two places, Avery's and Zipperer's, at the same time, 2:30 PM.
Bobby was supposed to testify that he saw Teresa arrive at the Avery property at 2:40 or 2:45 PM, but, instead, he testified that he left the Avery property at 2:40 or 2:45 PM.
Bobby flubbed the lines that Kratz had scripted and rehearsed with him: Bobby's testimony had Teresa arriving at 2:30 PM rather than 2:45 PM, and the defense team didn't catch this critical mistake.
The State's script for Bobby was: Bobby saw Teresa arrive at 2:45 PM. Then he took a 10-minute shower. Then he got dressed and got his jacket and bow. Then he went out to his truck. He saw Teresa's RAV4, but not Teresa, when he went outside and left the Avery property in his truck at 3 PM to go hunting.
Showering after, not before, he saw Teresa was not what Bobby said in his original statement, which he dictated to Dedering on 11/5/05. In his original statement, he said he got up about 2:15 or 2:30 PM, showered, looked out the window, saw Teresa arrive in her RAV4, watched her get out and take a picture of his mom's van, stopped watching to get his jacket and bow, went out to his truck and left to go hunting -- "about 3 or 4 minutes went by between the time he got his jacket and the time he got into his truck" (which means he showered BEFORE, not after, he saw Teresa arrive).
It was in his activity report for 2/27/06 that Dedering added the part about Bobby showering ("for approximately 10 minutes") AFTER he saw Teresa arrive.
Dedering falsified Bobby's statement (writing that Bobby saw Teresa arrive "prior to getting into the shower") because the State needed to push the timeline forward 10 to 15 minutes -- they couldn't have Teresa at both Zipperer's and Avery's at 2:30 PM.
Marinette County deputy Anthony O'Neill interviewed Steven Avery beginning around 2 PM on 11/5/05. Later that day, around 6 PM, Calumet County deputy John Dedering interviewed Bobby Dassey. During this initial interview with Bobby, Dedering told Bobby that Steven said Bobby was the last person to see Teresa. However, Steven didn't say that on 11/5/05.
The following is what Steven said to O'Neill on 11/5/05 about Bobby regarding Teresa:
O’NEILL: She's here for at most 15 minutes.On 11/5/05, Dedering was instructed to tell Bobby that Steven said Bobby was the last person to see Teresa. The State twisted Steven's words to turn the Dassey family against Steven and to manipulate Bobby into altering his recollection of events. Bobby eventually would say whatever they wanted him to say to get of out the line of fire.
AVERY: No, five minutes.
O’NEILL: Five minutes. And then she's gone. She pulls out of your driveway, right?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Which way does she go?
AVERY: And then she goes to Larrabee. Or, she goes back down this way, and this way, then this way. This all—this is all field, that's all cut down, so you can see the highway.
O’NEILL: So you can see. Ok. So she leaves here and goes this way, right?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Teresa?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Ok. And she wasn't with anybody at all?
AVERY: No. There was nobody in the truck.
O’NEILL: Ok. Did you—you didn't see her come in, which way she came in?
AVERY: No, no.
O’NEILL: All right.
AVERY: Well, she mostly goes that way, toward Larrabee.
[...]
O’NEILL Ok. And the contact you had with her only lasted for how many minutes?
AVERY: Within five minutes.
O’NEILL: And then from—after you’re done with her and she gives you the book, where do you go to?
AVERY: I go back in the house.
O’NEILL: Ok. So, at the time before you leave to get out of the house, that's where you've been for how long?
AVERY: Since 11 o'clock.
O’NEILL: Ok. So from 11 'til two. And then about 2:15, 2:30, whatever the case may be, right? And you're done with her, she leaves you go back into your house.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: And how long are you there for?
AVERY: Probably, I don't know—drop off the book, then I walked over by Barbara.
O’NEILL: By where?
AVERY: By Barbara, my sister.
O’NEILL: Ok.
AVERY: Wanted to see if Bobby was home but Bobby was already gone. He'd just left.
In his activity report for 11/5/05, Dedering wrote:
I advised him that we had learned that Steven indicated Bobby had seen this young lady after Steven had. He indicated that there was "No way, I was hunting." I asked Bobby if he would be interested in pursuing some sort of truth verification to show me that he was, in fact, being truthful and his response was "Yes." I asked him what he thought the results of this examination would show, and he indicated, "I'm telling the truth." I asked Mr. Dassey why Steven Avery would say that Bobby was the last one to see the photographer. Bobby responded, "Did he say that?" I then asked Bobby if it was true and his response was, 'No." I asked Bobby why Steven would say something like this and Bobby's response was "He'd stab ya in the back." Bobby indicated that Steven has done this to him before over "little stuff."Bobby must have confronted Steven after Dedering told Bobby on 11/5/05 that Steven said Bobby was the last person to see Teresa. When O'Neill interviewed Steven again the next day, 11/6/05, Steven somewhat adopted the State's twisted version of his first statement to O'Neill, that Bobby was the last person to see Teresa.
The following is what Steven said to O'Neill on 11/6/05 about Bobby regarding Teresa:
O’NEILL: Then she just leaves?Steven did clarify during this 11/6/05 interview that Bobby and Teresa left almost at the same time. When O'Neill followed up with, "Do you know where she's at," Steven could have been misinterpreting this question to mean, "Do you know where Teresa is right now," at the moment O'Neill was questioning him, rather than where Teresa was when he walked back outside again and saw that Bobby's truck was gone on October 31st.
AVERY: Yeah. She shuts the door and leaves.
O’NEILL: Is, is Bobby home then, or no?
AVERY: Yeah, Bobby's home.
O’NEILL: Ok. And, does he come out and, or anything? Or does he see you leave, or see her leave?
AVERY: I don't know. You'd have to ask him.
O’NEILL: But you know he's home?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Ok. Well, so —
AVERY: He's home at that point.
O’NEILL: When she leaves, he's home?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: And how far away from Bobby's vehicle are you, you think?
AVERY: Well, her — his vehicle was sitting by her [Barb's] garage. So that's only —
O’NEILL: Like from here to where? Where we're looking right here.
AVERY: Uh, from here?
O’NEILL: Yeah.
AVERY: Probably to the other side of the, the shop there.
O’NEILL: The other side of the blue shop?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: So probably about, that's about what, maybe, uh 80 feet? And, and you know he's home though, right?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: When she's leaving.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Ok.
AVERY: And just when I walked in the house, I come back and then he was gone.
O’NEILL: So just in that moment?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: Of you, you saying goodbye to Teresa—
AVERY: Yeah, and went in the house.
O’NEILL: Go into your house with the paper, and coming back, you notice that he's gone.
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: But while she's giving you that thing, he's still there?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: So he — Ok.
AVERY: Within, I don't know, that second. With her vehicle running, and his is quiet.
O’NEILL: Uh - huh.
AVERY: He probably, at the same time, almost.
O’NEILL: Ok. So, but, the time that it took you to walk from her vehicle to your place, drop off that thing—
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: And then to walk right back outside again?
AVERY: Yeah.
O’NEILL: He's gone.
AVERY: He's gone.
O’NEILL: Ok. Do you know where she's at?
AVERY: Who?
O’NEILL: Teresa.
AVERY: Oh, no.
Steven told O'Neill the day before, on 11/5/05, that he saw Teresa when he came back outside, and that she was signaling to go left from Avery Road onto highway 147, and that Bobby's truck was already gone at this point. Teresa was inside her vehicle when Bobby came outside to his truck, which was just a minute or so after Steven went inside his trailer, which is why Bobby saw Teresa's vehicle but not her when he got into his truck and drove off. Teresa left right after Bobby left. When Steven came back outside, he saw Teresa, in her vehicle, about to turn left from Avery Road onto HWY 147 but he didn't see Bobby's Blazer because Bobby had left the property moments before Teresa left.
On 11/9/05 deputies served a warrant on Bobby for a physical examination as well as the retrieval of Buccal swabs, palm prints and finger prints. This would have increased Bobby's paranoia and fear of being railroaded for the murder of Teresa Halbach like his Uncle Steven was railroaded for the sexual assault of P.B. in 1985. Dedering conducted a second interview of Bobby at this time, and Bobby offered details that he had not mentioned before or, more likely, Dedering falsified his report and misrepresented what Bobby said (this is why you should never talk to the police -- invoke your Fifith Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and consult an attorney!).
In his activity report for 11/9/05, Dedering wrote:
A synopsis of the taped interview is that once again Dassey stated he left home at approximately 1500 hours on 10/31/05 and he had observed a teal SUV, that he had never touched or gotten close to. He stated when he left the property there was no one in his immediate sight. He stated he did not talk with Steven Avery between 11:00 a.m. and noon on 10/31/05 indicating he was asleep and is a very sound sleeper. He stated he does not even hear the telephone when it rings.
Dassey indicated he has seen the Suzuki that we discussed with him parked at Steven's garage for about two weeks. He indicates the clutch is out and you have to push it to move it. He stated the Suzuki was parked in the garage the week before the girl went missing.
Dassey indicated that sometimes family members will burn the heads of deer but this is usually in the burn barrel. Dassey stated the only deer at the residence was the deer that is hanging in the garage currently.
Bobby Dassey states this is his first year bow hunting and he hunts approximately two and one-half miles away from his house.
Dassey stated Steven was mad at Barbara about something and he was not sure what but they patched it up last Wednesday. Dassey indicated he does not talk to Charles or Earl and has not spoken with Chris (ph) Avery in the past nine months.
Dassey indicated that on Tuesday or Wednesday he observed a burning in the area in a pit behind Steven's garage. He believed there was brush burning. Dassey stated he was home that night. Bobby Dassey states Steven sometimes burns tires in the pit and Steven usually burns tires at night so you cannot see the smoke. Dassey indicated Steven does not burn his tires anywhere else and he indicated he believed Steven was burning with Dassey's little brother, Brendan.
Bobby Dassey testifying at Steven Avery's trial
They tricked Bobby, telling him that Steven said Bobby saw Teresa last. They used fear and intimidation to manipulate Bobby. They served a warrant for his DNA, finger prints, palm prints and physical examination. By the time he was interviewed a third time, almost four months later (on the same day as Brendan's coerced false confession), Bobby had changed significant parts of his original statement to help the State frame Steven Avery. He lied because he knew law enforcement could frame him in the same way they framed Steven Avery for sexual assault in 1985.
On 2/27/06, almost four months after his first and second interviews with Bobby Dassey, and after Brendan Dassey's coerced false confession, Dedering interviewed Bobby again.
It is in Dedering's report of his third interview of Bobby that a fire on the property on October 31st is first mentioned [see There Wasn't a Fire in Avery's Pit on October 31, 2005].
Either Bobby changed his story or Dedering falsified his reports and misrepresented what Bobby said.
Also in Dedering's activity report for 02/27/06, he wrote that Bobby said he took a shower after he watched Teresa, not before, when he first woke up, and that at least 10 minutes passed by the time he stopped watching Teresa and the time he went out to his truck, rather than 3-4 minutes as Bobby dictated to Dedering in his original statement.
In his activity report for 2/27/06, Dedering wrote:
Special Agent Michael Sasse and I did locate Bobby Dassey at the residence of Duane Osmunson, 5017 Nuclear Rd. in the Mishicot area at 1955 hrs. Sasse and I asked Bobby Dassey if he had some time to speak with us and he indicated that he did. We then went out to the county vehicle, which I was operating, and Bobby Dassey did have a seat in the front passenger side and Special Agent Sasse climbed into the rear passenger side. Prior to asking Dassey any questions, he was advised that he was not under arrest, did not have to answer questions if he chose not to and was free to leave at anytime he so wished. I asked him to open the passenger front door of the vehicle in order to demonstrate to him that he was perfectly free to leave. He understood this and agreed to answer questions.Bobby Dassey's written statement, dictated to John Dedering at 7 p.m. on 11/05/05:
We went over his activities to the best of his recollection on Monday, 10/31/05. He stated that he arrived home from work at approximately 0630 hrs (it should be noted that Dassey was employed at Fisher Hamilton in Two Rivers at this time) and went to bed.
He stated that he got up between 1400 and 1430 hrs., got into the shower, and went bow hunting.
He stated he arrived home somewhere approximately 1730 hrs. and that it was dark out already. He stated he did not recall who was home when he arrived, but thought perhaps Brendan was. He stated that when he arrived home, he went straight to bed and did not eat ...
Bobby indicated that when he was leaving for work at approximately 2130 hrs., he noticed that Steven was having a bonfire. He estimated that the flames were five to six feet in height. He stated that it was a good-sized fire and that Steven has had fires there in the past. He stated that he could not say for sure that Steven was tending to the fire and he was further unsure whether Brendan was there or not. He stated that the view from his residence to the fire pit is somewhat blocked by the garage of Steven Avery. He stated that he worked from 2200 hrs. until 0600 hrs. the following day and when he arrived home, he noticed nothing unusual and that the fire was out ...
I asked Bobby if he could recall once again what he saw regarding Teresa Halbach and her vehicle. He stated that while he was preparing to go bow hunting on 10/31/05, he observed Teresa's vehicle pull in and he observed Teresa get out and take one or two photos of the maroon van, which his mother had for sale. Bobby said that this was prior to him getting into the shower. He stated that when he got out of the shower (approximately ten minutes later) he brought his bow out to the vehicle and Teresa's vehicle was still there but he did not see her.
He stated that she was wearing a black coat, black trousers and he cannot recall what color her top was. Dassey drew me a diagram indicating that the Halbach vehicle was pointed in a westerly direction almost directly across from the westernmost portion of the Barbara Janda circular driveway. Bobby stated that the vehicle was gone when he got back from hunting.
I asked Bobby about the position of the Suzuki Samurai. Bobby thought that, to his best recollection, the Suzuki was in the garage for a while, and he was unsure when Steven moved it out of the garage. He stated that he was never in the garage when the Suzuki was parked in the garage and he stated that he could no longer independently recall where the Suzuki was positioned when he left for hunting.
On Monday, 10/31/05 at about 2:15 - 2:30 p.m., I got up to go deer hunting. I took a shower. I got dressed for bow hunting & noticed someone coming down the driveway. She stopped in front of my mom's maroon van that Steve is trying to sell for my mom. I watched her take pictures of the van. She got done with that & started to walk toward Steven's house. I grabbed my bow, got into my Blazer, and left. I didn't see the lady who took the pictures when I left. The S.U.V, a teal colored, possibly a Honda, was there when I left to go hunting. She had shoulder length brown hair, it looked darker to me. She was wearing a dark waist length jacket. She was skinny. About 3 or 4 minutes went by between the time I got my jacket and the time I got into my truck. I dictated this statement to Investigator Dedering. I have read this statement and initialed all corrections. This statement is true and accurate. No promises or threats have been made to get this statement.To summarize, in his written statement dictated to Dedering on 11/05/05, Bobby said:
- He woke up between 2:00 and 2:30, showered, and got dressed.
- He looked out the window and saw Teresa coming down the driveway (Blaine said the dogs would bark when vehicles came down the driveway, which could have prompted Bobby to look out the window).
- He watched Teresa take pictures of his mom's minivan and then he saw her walk toward Steven's house, at which time he stopped watching her.
- He stopped watching Teresa, grabbed his bow, got his jacket, got in his truck, and left (he first may have come outside with his bow, putting it in his truck, before going back inside to get his jacket and then coming back outside and driving off in his truck to go hunting).
- About 3 or 4 minutes went by between the time he stopped watching Teresa and the time he got his jacket and got into his truck.
Police Reports on Contact with Bobby Dassey (Misrepresentation by Law Enforcement in Falsified Reports or Compromised Statements):
1. When first questioned on 11/5/05, Bobby did not know what time he left home. Dedering wrote that Bobby said "Scott would be able to verify precisely" what time. By Bobby's second statement on 11/9/05, Dedering wrote that Bobby left home at approximately 1500 hours on 10/31/05 (Bobby would testify at Steven Avery's trial that he left home at 2:40 or 2:45 PM).
2. Dedering wrote of his second interview with Bobby on 11/9/05, that "on Tuesday or Wednesday, Bobby observed a burning in the area in a pit behind Steven's garage; he indicated he believed Steven was burning with Dassey's little brother, Brendan." During his first interview on 11/5/05, Bobby must not have volunteered information about a fire, or must not have been asked about a fire, because Dedering wrote nothing about a fire in Steven's pit (or barrel) in his activity report for 11/9/05.
3. Dedering wrote of his third interview with Bobby on 2/27/06 that Bobby showered after he stopped watching Teresa, clarifying in parenthesis that it took Bobby 10 minutes to shower. In his dictated statement to Dedering on 11/5/05, Bobby he said he got up, showered and got dressed, and that after he watched Teresa snap pictures of the van and walk toward Steven's trailer, it took 3-4 minutes for him to get his jacket and bow, go out to his truck, and leave.
4. In Bobby's dictated statement to Dedering on 11/5/05, he said he got up at about 2 to 2:15 PM; however, Dedering wrote in his 11/5/05 and 2/27/06 activity reports that Bobby said he got up between 2:00 and 2:30. Dedering consistently pushed Bobby's timeline forward by 15 minutes, probably so the State's timeline could put Teresa Halbach at Zipperer's before Avery's [see Here's Proof Teresa Halbach Went to Avery's Before Zipperer's].
Blaine Dassey testifying at Steven Avery's trial
You cannot believe any eyewitness testimony after initial interviews in this case because they are compromised. The only ones with any constancy are Steven and Blaine. Others appear to have said whatever someone wanted them to say, or made it up as they went along. Blaine too would eventually succumb and change his initial statements.
Respectfully decline to talk to law enforcement by invoking your Fifith Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and advise your friends and family to do the same. If law enforcement has anything against you, they will arrest you and charge you without first needing to interrogate you.
"On the advice of my lawyer, I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, which—according to the United States Supreme Court—protects everyone, even innocent people, from the need to answer questions if the truth might be used to help create the misleading impression that they were somehow involved in a crime that they did not commit."Contact a lawyer before communicating with law enforcement.
"It is very important that any communication you ever have with an investigating police officer takes place either through a lawyer or in the presence of a lawyer. Even things that you say on the phone to a police officer can in some cases be used in court against you. Sometimes a police officer will not even explain that coming into the station ‘for a chat’ can mean being interviewed under arrest by appointment. Never discuss anything to do with an allegation directly with a police officer without first having a lawyer there. In most cases, a lawyer of your choice can be provided on a legally-aided basis for free, and a police officer never will have reason to be surprised if they hear from your lawyer, and not you, at first." [Source]Keep your mouth shut. Don't answer any questions. You can be charged with a crime for lying to the police (police are allowed to lie to you, but if you lie to them they can charge you with a crime, such as obstruction of justice).
Remember, cops are trained to lie. They have taken this to mean that they are allowed to falsify evidence and reports, hide or destroy evidence, plant or fabricate evidence, threaten and intimidate witnesses to give false statements, and commit perjury themselves by giving false or questionable testimony. And seldom, if ever, do cops (or prosecutors) experience any repercussions or suffer any consequences for committing these crimes.
By the way, you have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public.
"You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" (James Duane)
Published on September 30, 2016
Law professor James Duane became a viral sensation in 2008 for a lively lecture that explained why people shouldn’t agree to answer questions from the police. In his new book, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, Duane expands on that presentation, offering a vigorous defense of every citizen’s constitutionally protected right to avoid self-incrimination. By using case histories of innocent persons who were wrongfully imprisoned because of information they gave to police, Duane debunks the claim that “if you haven’t done anything wrong, then you don’t have anything to worry about.
http://www.cato.org/events/you-have-right-remain-innocent
Don't Talk to the Police (Regent University School of Law)
Published on March 20, 2012
Regent Law Professor James Duane gives viewers startling reasons why they should always exercise their 5th Amendment rights when questioned by government officials. Download his article on the topic:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1998119
Other Excerpts of O'Neill's Interview with Steven Avery on 11/5/06
O’NEILL:
Ok. So, at the time before you leave to get out of the house, that's where you've been for how long?
AVERY:
Since 11 o'clock.
O’NEILL:
Ok. So from 11 'til two. And then about 2:15, 2:30, whatever the case may be, right? And you're done with her, she leaves you go back into your house.
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
And how long are you there for?
AVERY:
Probably, I don't know—drop off the book, then I walked over by Barbara.
O’NEILL:
By where?
AVERY:
By Barbara, my sister.
O’NEILL:
Ok.
AVERY:
Wanted to see if Bobby was home but Bobby was already gone. He'd just left.
O’NEILL:
And where'd you drop off the book?
AVERY:
Umm, my—by my computer.
O’NEILL:
At your house?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
Ok. So you drop off the book, then you walk from there over to your sister's home?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
Barbara. And to see if who's there?
AVERY:
Bobby.
O’NEILL:
Ok. Is Bobby there?
AVERY:
No, he's not.
[...]
O’NEILL:
And you called on that Monday.
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
They said—
AVERY:
In the morning.
O’NEILL:
They said they weren't certain if they could get someone out there that day, maybe next Monday?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
And then did you call them again, or did they call you?
AVERY:
I think I called 'em.
O’NEILL:
Ok. And, and they told you then that they'd have somebody come out.
AVERY:
Yeah. That she was gonna come out.
O’NEILL:
That Monday, as far as doing work in the shop or the garage or any part of the business. Did you do anything other than stay at your house and—that day?
AVERY:
Well, I worked up there in the morning. I helped them out. Uh—
O’NEILL:
From what time, to what time, do you think?
AVERY:
Eight o'clock. 'Til 11 o'clock.
O’NEILL:
Ok. And then from 11 o'clock you went back to your house—
AVERY:
Then I went home.
O’NEILL:
Up until a point of two o'clock—
AVERY:
Yeah. Yeah, two, two-thirty.
O’NEILL:
When the, her vehicle pulled up, right?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
15 minutes at the most you were with her? Or was it five?
AVERY:
Five minutes.
O’NEILL:
Five minutes. You're over by the van with her. She's copying down information. She takes her picture. You give her the 40 dollars. She doesn't give you a receipt?
AVERY:
Last two times I didn't get nothing.
O’NEILL:
Ok. And that was because you didn't want one?
AVERY:
Didn't need it.
O’NEILL:
Ok. But usually, you would.
AVERY:
Yeah—yeah them times before that I always did.
O’NEILL:
Did you ask her for one of those booklets?
AVERY:
No, she just gives them out.
O’NEILL:
So that's like every time that she comes by she'll give you a brand new book.
AVERY:
Yeah, yeah. Because it's a, a newer one. One that I ain't gotta buy.
O’NEILL:
Ok. And we, we talked about the idea that vehicle being at your place. You don't believe in coincidence, do you? What's, what do you think?
AVERY:
I can't believe it was there. It's, it's hard. I know shit does happen. But, I don't know. It's the honest to God truth. I don't know. That puzzles me myself.
O’NEILL:
Mm-hmm. Anybody else in your family that may have had anything to do with this that you're aware of?
AVERY:
No.
O’NEILL:
You have no ideas, no suspicions, no nothing like that?
AVERY:
No. Uh uh. No, we all get along good and everything is fine.
Other Excerpt of O'Neill's Interview with Steven Avery on 11/6/05
O’NEILL:
So Bobby was home.
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
Where's Barb at?
AVERY:
Barb was working too.
O’NEILL:
So, Bobby was at the house.
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
How do you, how do you know he was there?
AVERY:
After, after I went over there, then—
O’NEILL:
So, later after you got done with her—
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
Then you went over to Barb's, you said?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
Who was at Barb's when you were over?
AVERY:
Well, he was.
O’NEILL:
And nobody else?
AVERY:
No, nobody else was—
O’NEILL:
And why did, why did you stop at Barb's?
AVERY:
I don't know. I mostly just walk right over there.
O’NEILL:
Pardon?
AVERY:
I just mostly walk right over there.
O’NEILL:
So after she leaves, you put the Auto Trader magazine in your house.
AVERY:
Yeah, and I went over there.
O’NEILL:
And you walked right over, right away?
AVERY:
Yeah. Well, he was gone. He'd just left.
O’NEILL:
Bobby did?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
Ok. So you walk over to Barb's though, right?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
Who's there?
AVERY:
After she left, when I walked over there, he—he left.
SKORLINSKI:
Did you see him leave?
AVERY:
No.
SKORLINSKI:
So he was already gone.
AVERY:
Yeah. He just left.
O’NEILL:
So nobody was at Barb's then?
AVERY:
No. But the first time, when I come home or before that, I went over there and I talked to Bobby.
O’NEILL: 11 O’clock?
AVERY:
Yeah, somewhere in there.
O’NEILL:
Ok.
AVERY:
Uh, or it was after—it was 12 O’clock, because I was outside for a while.
O’NEILL:
Ok.
AVERY:
Because I went in the house.
SKORLINSKI:
Barb's already gone?
AVERY:
Yeah.
SKORLINSKI:
Ok.
AVERY:
I know I talked to him somewhere in there, I, I can't remember.
O’NEILL:
But before she came, you talked to Bobby?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
And then after she left, you went over by Barb's. Bobby left.
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
What'd Bobby leave—what, what did he drive somewhere or take—
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
What'd he drive?
AVERY:
Yeah, he took his Blazer.
O’NEILL:
Do you know where he went?
AVERY:
No.
O’NEILL:
Ok. So when you're there at 11 O’clock, sometime after 11 O’clock, you actually talk to Bobby?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
And then, you go back to your place?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
And then, when the lady comes at two o’clock you talk to her. Then you get done with her and you go back over to Barb's but Bobby's gone because the Blazer's gone?
AVERY:
Yeah.
O’NEILL:
Did you go inside there at all?
AVERY:
No, no.
O’NEILL:
Ok. Where'd you go from there?
AVERY:
Went back home.
O’NEILL:
Ok. And you stayed there up until supper time?
AVERY:
Probably somewhere in there.
Steven Avery's sketch of the Avery property and where Teresa parked her "grn SUV" (O'Neill wrote the descriptions for the items in the sketch)
Steven Avery's sketch of the cul-de-sac on Kuss Road and Radandt's quarry (O'Neill wrote the descriptions for the items in the sketch)
The Avery property, the field (left of Avery Road), and the intersection of Avery Road and highway 147
Transcriptions by Nexious:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/5b8nt0/transcripts_steven_averys_police_and_media/
CASO Reports About Bobby Dassey
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf
PAGE 90
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Bobby A. Dassey
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/05/05
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. John Dedering
DOCUMENTS GENERATED: One Page Written Statement
On Saturday, 11/05/05 at 1753 hrs., I (DEDERING) in the company of Manitowoc Co. Det. DENNIS JACOBS did interview the following individual at a roadblock situated at the intersection of STH 747 and Jambo Creek Rd. in the Town of Gibson. Manitowoc Countv: BOBBY A. DASSEY DOB r0/18/86 N12930 Avery Rd. Two Rivers, WI Phone 920-755-8715 Prior to asking BOBBY A. DASSEY any questions, he was advised that he was free to leave, was not under anest and did not have to answer any questions at anytime. I did have BOBBY DASSEY open his door to prove to him that the door was not locked and that he was, in fact, free to go.
BOBBY advised me that his father is PETER DASSEY and that his mother is BARB JANDA. He stated he does live with his mother at the Avery Rd. address. He stated that he lived on Avery Rd. since 2001 and prior to that he lived on Preston Rd. in Whitelaw for approximately eight years. BOBBY states he works third shift at HAMILTON MANUFACTURING in Two Rivers and is normally home by 6:30 a.m. in the moming.
BOBBY indicated that on Monday, 10/31/05, he woke up between 1400 and 1430 hrs. He stated that he looked out his family's mobile home window and observed a "little SUV" which he described as being either teal or blue in color. He stated he obserued the vehicle stop and a female exit the unit and photograph a maroon van, which his mother is attempting to sell. He stated that after the photographer had finished photographing the van, he observed her walking towards the residence of STEVEN AVERY. This residence is located immediately west of DASSEY's home. He stated that she was seen walking "towards the porch." He stated the photographer spent approximately five minutes photographing the vehicle. BOBBY stated that he left for deer bow hunting at approximately 1445 to 1500 hrs. He stated that the teal vehicle was still there when he left.
He stated that he arrived home at dark or shortly thereafter. He did estimate the time at 1645 hrs. He stated that when he arrived home, the blue or teal colored SUV was gone.
BOBBY was asked to describe the female who he saw walking towards STEVE's porch. He described her as being skinny with "brownish hair," and wearing a dark colored, waist length coat. He indicated he did not know if she was wearing glasses and did not know what kind of trousers she was wearing.
BOBBY indicated when he came out of his residence to go to his truck, he did not see the lady.
BOBBY stated it was his understanding that the lady had been to the AVERY property four to five different times in the past twelve months to photograph units that STEVE wished to sell in the AUTO TRADER magazine. BOBBY indicated he was never in the teal or blue colored SUV and had never touched the vehicle.
BOBBY stated that his vantage point of the vehicle and the young lady was from his mother's mobile home, which he estimated to be approximately 60 yards away from where the van is parked.
BOBBY indicates that Monday,10/31/05, was the first time he had seen the female photographer.
BOBBY indicated that as he was traveling on STH 147 towards the property he hunts deer on, he did observe an individual known to him as SCOTT TADYCH. BOBBY indicated that SCOTT would be able to verify precisely what time he had seen BOBBY. BOBBY stated that no one was in his vehicle with him.
BOBBY was asked once again, whether his prints would be in or on the RAV4 and he indicated, "No, no way at all."
BOBBY DASSEY indicated that he believed STEVE AVERY was at home alone during the time the photographer was in the vicinity. BOBBY indicated he was unsure who might have been at the AVERY'S AUTO SALVAGE shop. BOBBY denied having any sort of contact with the lady.
I advised him that we had learned that STEVEN indicated BOBBY had seen this young lady after STEVEN had. He indicated that there was "No way, I was hunting." I asked BOBBY if he would be interested in pursuing some sort of truth verification to show me that he was, in fact, being truthful and his response was "Yes." I asked him what he thought the results of this examination would show, and he indicated, "I'm telling the truth."
I asked Mr. DASSEY why STEVEN AVERY would say that BOBBY was the last one to see the photographer. BOBBY responded, "Did he say that?" I then asked BOBBY if it was true and his response was, 'No." I asked BOBBY why STEVEN would say something like this and BOBBY's response was "He'd stab ya in the back." BOBBY indicated that STEVEN has done this to him before over "little stuff."
BOBBY DASSEY did indicate that he was concerned for an eight-week-old Labrador puppy, which he stated, was in his mother's residence. He, very respectfully, asked Det. JACOBS and me if there was anyway possible he could retrieve the Labrador. I advised Mr. DASSEY that I would think about this and we ultimately made the decision to go into the BARB JANDA residence with BOBBY's permission to retrieve the dog. He indicated that we would find the doors to the residence unlocked.
At 1831 hrs., Det. JACOBS and I did retrieve a black Laborador puppy from the far west bedroom and we left the residence at 1834 hrs. At 1844 hrs., the Labrador puppy was tumed over to BOBBY DASSEY and BOBBY DASSEY did provide us with a written staternent at that time.
BOBBY DASSEY did dictate the following one page written statement to me:
On Monday, 10/31/05 at about 2:15 - 2:30 pm, I got up to go deer hunting. I took a shower. I got dressed for bow hunting & noticed someone coming down the driveway. She stopped in front of my mom's maroon van that Steve is trying to sell for my mom. I watched her take pictures of the van. She got done with that & started to walk toward Steven's house. I grabbed my bow, got into my Blazer, and left. I didn't see the lady who took the pictures when I left. The S.U.V, a teal colored, possibly a Honda, was there when I left to go hunting. She had shoulder length brown hair, it looked darker to me. She was wearing a dark waist length jacket. She was skinny. About 3 or 4 minutes went by between the time I got my jacket and the time I got into my truck. I dictated this statement to Investigator Dedering. I have read this statement and initialed all corrections. This statement is true and accurate. No promises or threats have been made to get this statement."My contact with BOBBY DASSEY ended at 1902 hrs.
Investigation continues.
PAGE 187
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Supplemental Report
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/09/05
REPORTING OFFICER: Sgt. Bill Tyson
On Wednesday, 11/09/05, I (Sgt. BILL TYSON of the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT) was requested by Inv. WIEGERT to attend a briefing meeting that was going to be held at an offsite location. During the meeting, it was determined that STEVEN AVERY, DOLORES AVERY, BARBARA JANDA, CHARLES AVERY, EARL AVERY and BOBBY DASSEY would be taken into custody on a Search Warrant and transported to the AURORA MEDICAL CENTER in Two Rivers for a physical examination as well as the retrieval of Buccal swabs and all persons would be requested to submit their palm prints and fingerprints. SHERIFF JERRY PAGEL did call the CALUMET COUNTY JAIL and did request correctional officers to respond to the command post to meet with me to discuss this procedure and then set up the appropriate fingerprint equipment at AURORA MEDICAL CENTER.
PAGE 190
Continuation of Sgt. Bill Tyson's Supplemental Report
EARL AVERY was then taken to the examination room for the retrieval of his palm prints and fingerprints. After that process was completed, Correctional Officer SCHROEDER did turn those prints over to me at 1613 hours.
I was informed that BOBBY DASSEY was in an examination room awaiting his physical examination. Upon entering into that room, I did make contact with the two investigators and was introduced to BOBBY DASSEY. FAY FRITSCH and Dr. VOGEL-SCHWARTZ came into the room and did begin the physical examination at 1628 hours. The physical examination ended at 1638 hours. All markings on BOBBY DASSEY were photographed. FAY FRITSCH did the Buccal swabs on BOBBY DASSEY at 1639 hours. The Buccal swabs were placed in an envelope and sealed and that envelope was turned over to me by FAY FRITSCH at 1640 hours.
At approximately 1540 hours, I was notified by Special Agent JOSEPH KAPITANY the WI STATE CRIME LAB wanted the palm prints and fingerprints of STEVEN AVERY as soon as possible. I did turn over the FBI fingerprint card containing STEVEN AVERY's fingerprints as well as the left and right palm prints to JOSEPH KAPITANY. JOSEPH KAPITANY did sign the evidence document stating he did receive those items for transport to the WI STATE CRIME LAB.
All other items were transported to the CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and secured in the evidence room. All photographs taken were taken from the Calumet County investigators' digital camera. That camera was turned over to Inv. JOHN DEDERING.
PAGE 195
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Bobby Dassey
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 11/09/05
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. John Dedering
DOCUMENTS GENERATED: Miranda warning and two cassette tapes
On Wednesday, 11/09/05, DCI Special Agent KEVIN HEIMERL and I (DEDERING) were given the assignment of serving a Warrant on BOBBY J. DASSEY for his finger and palm prints and a DNA swab. We received the assignment in the morning and spent the majority of the moming and a good part of the afternoon attempting to contact Mr. DASSEY. We ultimately made contact with BOBBY DASSEY and he agreed to meet us at AURORA MEDICAL CENTER located between Manitowoc and Two Rivers on SRH 42. At 1444 hours on 11/09/05, I (DEDERING) did serve the Warrant on BOBBY DASSEY. At this point, I explained to him that he was not in custody, but was not technically free to leave either until we had executed the Warant.
At 1447 hours, I (DEDERING) did review BOBBY DASSEY's Miranda Warning from a form. The form was initialed in the proper areas by DASSEY, was signed by BOBBY DASSEY and witnessed by Special Agent HEIMERL and me. We advised BOBBY DASSEY we were going to be recording the interview and he indicated he had no problem with this.
A synopsis of the taped interview is that once again DASSEY stated he left home at approximately 1500 hours on 10/31/05 and he had observed a teal SUV, that he had never touched or gotten close to. He stated when he left the property there was no one in his immediate sight. He stated he did not talk with STEVEN AVERY between 11:00 a.m. and noon on 10/31/05 indicating he was asleep and is a very sound sleeper. He stated he does not even hear the telephone when it rings.
DASSEY indicated he stayed home until 2330 hours on 10/31/05 and then left for work at HAMILTON MANUFACTURING. DASSEY states only STEVEN AVERY has keys to STEVEN's house. DASSEY states he knew nothing about a family dinner at Grandma AVERY's on 10/31/05.
DASSEY indicated he has seen the Suzuki that we discussed with him parked at STEVEN's garage for about two weeks. He indicates the clutch is out and you have to push it to move it. He stated the Suzuki was parked in the garage the week before the girl went missing.
DASSEY indicated that sometimes family members will burn the heads of deer but this is usually in the burn barrel. DASSEY stated the only deer at the residence was the deer that is hanging in the garage currently. BOBBY DASSEY states this is his first year bow hunting and he hunts approximately two and one-half miles away from his house.
DASSEY stated STEVEN was mad at BARBARA about something and he was not sure what but they patched it up last Wednesday. DASSEY indicated he does not talk to CHARLES or EARL and has not spoken with CHRIS (ph) AVERY in the past nine months.
DASSEY indicated that on Tuesday or Wednesday, he observed a burning in the area in a pit behind STEVEN's garage. He believed there was brush burning. DASSEY stated he was home that night. BOBBY DASSEY states STEVEN sometimes burns tires in the pit and STEVEN usually burns tires at night so you cannot see the smoke. DASSEY indicated STEVEN does not burn his tires anywhere else and he indicated he believed STEVEN was burning with DASSEY's little brother, BRENDAN.
At 1618 hours, (by my watch) BOBBY DASSEY's palm prints and fingerprints were taken by Correctional Officers SCHROEDER and FLEMING. At 1631 hours, (by my watch) there was a physical examination of BOBBY DASSEY by FAY L. FRITSCH an exam nurse at AURORA MEDICAL CENTER.
At 1636 hours, I did question BOBBY DASSEY regarding scratches on his back. He stated these were due to his week old Labrador puppy jumping on his back. He stated he was bent down to put on his shoes when the dog jumped up and scratched him. I did examine DASSEY's shirt and could find no obvious holes or tears. The exam ended at 1643 hours (by my watch). I did speak with Dr. VOGEL-SCHWARTZ who indicates the scratches appear to be fairly recent but possibly could be a little older. She stated it was not likely they were over a week old. She stated it is her opinion that the scratches were fairly recent. The scratches to BOBBY DASSEY's back were photographed.
At 1648 hours, we did escort DASSEY from the hospital, he was released and I observed him speaking with his mother in the parking lot.
Investigation continues.
PAGE 518
TYPE OF ACTIVITY: Interview of Bobby Dassey
DATE OF ACTIVITY: 02/27/06
REPORTING OFFICER: Inv. John Dedering
On Monday, 02/27/06 at 1126 hrs., various members of the WISCONSIN DEPT. OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION and the CALUMET CO. SHERIFF's DEPT. did meet at MISHICOT FIRE DEPT. The purpose of our meeting was to view a videotaped interview done by Special Agent TOM FASSBENDER and Inv. MARK WIEGERT on a subject named BRENDAN R. DASSEY on 02/27/06. According to information I had obtained from WIEGERT, DASSEY had made some statements with regard to STEVEN AVERY's disposal of TERESA HALBACH, as well as who was responsible for her death. While waiting for other members of the interview team to arrive, I did assist Inv. BALDWN with an interview of BARBARA JANDA. For details of this, please see the report of Inv. BALDWIN.
Special Agent MICHAEL SASSE and I did locate BOBBY DASSEY at the residence of DUANE OSMUNSON, 5017 Nuclear Rd. in the Mishicot area at 1955 hrs. SASSE and I asked BOBBY DASSEY if he had some time to speak with us and he indicated that he did. We then went out to the county vehicle, which I was operating, and BOBBY DASSEY did have a seat in the front passenger side and Special Agent SASSE climbed into the rear passenger side. Prior to asking DASSEY any questions, he was advised that he was not under arrest, did not have to answer questions if he chose not to and was free to leave at anytime he so wished. I asked him to open the passenger front door of the vehicle in order to demonstrate to him that he was perfectly free to leave. He understood this and agreed to answer questions.
We went over his activities to the best of his recollection on Monday, 10/31/05. He stated that he arrived home from work at approximately 0630 hrs (It should be noted that DASSEY was employed at FISHER HAMILTON in Two Rivers at this time) and went to bed. He stated that he got up between 1400 and 1430 hrs., got into the shower and went bow hunting. He stated he arrived home somewhere approximately 1730 hrs. and that it was dark out already. He stated he did not recall who was home when he arrived, but thought perhaps BRENDAN was. He stated that when he arrived home, he went straight to bed and did not eat. He stated he got up at approximately 2100 hrs., got ready for work and once again did not eat. He stated that to the best of his recollection, BLAINE was home and possibly BRENDAN as well. He stated that his other brother BRYAN was not at home and was possibly at his girlfriend's residence.
BOBBY indicated that when he was leaving for work at approximately 2130 hrs., he noticed that STEVEN was having a bonfire. He estimated that the flames were five to six feet in height. He stated that it was a good-sized fire and that STEVEN has had fires there in the past. He stated that he could not say for sure that STEVEN was tending to the fire and he was further unsure whether BRENDAN was there or not. He stated that the view from his residence to the fire pit is somewhat blocked by the garage of STEVEN AVERY. He stated that he worked from 2200 hrs. until 0600 hrs. the following day and when he arrived home, he noticed nothing unusual and that the fire was out.
I asked BOBBY if his brother, BRENDAN, was one to lie about things and he stated that BRENDAN would possibly lie about little things. I asked him if BRENDAN would lie about anything concerning the HALBACH murder investigation, and he stated that he would not lie about this. I asked BOBBY if he has noticed any changes in BRENDAN and his response was "not really." When I asked him if BRENDAN has been depressed recently, he stated that he was a little depressed. BOBBY indicated that BRENDAN has not discussed anything regarding what he may have seen in the fire pit on 10/31/05 or what STEVEN may have told BRENDAN. BOBBY indicated that his brother, BRENDAN, likes to play basketball games and racing games on their Playstation 2. He states that he does not play with others, but prefers to compete by himself on the machine.
I asked BOBBY if he could recall once again what he saw regarding TERESA HALBACH and her vehicle. He stated that while he was preparing to go bow hunting on 10/31/05, he observed TERESA's vehicle pull in and he observed TERESA get out and take one or two photos of the maroon van, which his mother had for sale. BOBBY said that this was prior to him getting into the shower. He stated that when he got out of the shower (approximately ten minutes later) he brought his bow out to the vehicle and TERESA's vehicle was still there but he did not see her. He stated that she was wearing a black coat, black trousers and he cannot recall what color her top was. DASSEY drew me a diagram indicating that the HALBACH vehicle was pointed in a westerly direction almost directly across from the westernmost portion of the BARBARA JANDA circular driveway. BOBBY stated that the vehicle was gone when he got back from hunting.
I asked BOBBY about the position of the Suzuki Samurai. BOBBY thought that to his best recollection, the Suzuki was in the garage for a while, and he was unsure when STEVEN moved it out of the garage. He stated that he was never in the garage when the Suzuki was parked in the garage and he stated that he could no longer independently recall where the Suzuki was positioned when he left for hunting.
I asked BOBBY DASSEY who his brother, BRENDAN, might confide in and he indicated the only person he could think of was BRENDAN's friend, TRAVIS FABIAN, whose father, ROBERT FABIAN, is a friend of EARL AVERY.
I asked BOBBY if he could recall the burn barrel in front of STEVEN's residence burning when he left for hunting, and he stated he could not independently recall this. Agent SASSE asked BOBBY DASSEY if he could ever recall STEVEN AVERY shooting a .22 at the burn barrel or anything else in the immediate vicinity of STEVEN AVERY's residence. BOBBY indicated he could not recall anything like this except for one occasion. SASSE asked DASSEY if he could recall STEVEN AVERY in possession of a buck knife or a leatherman and BOBBY DASSEY could not recall that.
BOBBY DASSEY indicated that he doesn't recall BRENDAN or STEVEN acting any differently after the October 31st. incident. He further indicated he could not recall any sort of injury to STEVEN's arms or hands on October 31st.
Investigation continues.
Law enforcement are actually trained to deceive you to get you to admit to things. It’s that kind of attitude that makes people confess to crimes they didn’t even commit just because they are so scared of what the police can do to them.
ReplyDeleteAnother lie that they will tell you is that, “Oh, this is off the record. What you are telling me is off the record.” That’s also a lie. They are just telling you that they are going to use whatever you say against you later.
They will say, “Okay. Go ahead and tell me what happened. This is just between me and you. Tell me did you commit this crime? I’m not really looking for you. I’m looking for somebody else but I need to know.” They are just lying to you to get you to admit to the crime and they are going to use every single thing you say against you in court.
One of the biggest deceptions police use is when they will pretend that they have some ability to impact what happens on your case. They may say, “We’ll put a good word in for you with the judge.”
Most likely they need you to talk to prove their case. If you listen to what the police officer is saying that they have got your partner in the next room and he is confessing, then why do they need you, why would they be asking you to admit to any crimes if they have already got your partner confessing?
If you just use a little common sense, you can see right through their lies. Police don’t have any code of ethics like a lawyer or a judge that says that they can’t trick you into confessing. They are trained to do that, and they will do it.
Are You Ever Allowed To Lie To The Police?
Well, you shouldn’t be talking to the police in the first place, but if you’re talking, you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing. As far as whether you can lie to the police, you can always be charged with obstruction. That’s why you’re always best to just not say anything at all.
http://www.copleyroth.com/criminal-defense/why-can-police-lie-to-you-but-you-cant-lie-to-them/
Can police lie?
ReplyDeleteIt's not just lying about being a cop, by the way. ... Let's repeat that: The police are allowed to lie to you… about anything. The most common example of this is police interrogation. The cops are allowed to use any deception they like, in order to get a confession.
Can police lie about evidence?
A confession or evidence that results from coercive tactics is inadmissible at trial. ... The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect.
Is it against the law to lie to the police?
Yes, it is illegal to lie to the police. It's called obstruction of justice and while it's rarely prosecuted in most jurisdictions, they can arrest you can bind you over for a trial if they believe that you are actively impeding an investigation.
Is falsifying information a felony?
“Falsifying documents” is a type of white collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document for the purpose of deceiving another person. It can also involve the passing along of copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.
What is the charge of lying to a police officer?
Lying to the police about a friend's crime can also lead to charges of obstruction of justice, also known as obstructing a law-enforcement officer. People commit obstruction of justice when they do anything to hinder, delay, or obstruct law enforcement officials in the performance of their official duties.
Can you go to jail for lying to a police officer?
It is one of the few types of speech that is not constitutionally protected. Lying to a law enforcement officer can result in a criminal conviction. Depending on where you live and the extent of the deception, the criminal charge of filing a false police report can either be a misdemeanor or a felony.
Is it a felony to give false information to a police officer?
In Florida, it is a criminal offense for a person to knowingly give false information to law enforcement concerning the commission of a crime. The offense may carry misdemeanor or felony penalties, depending on the number of prior convictions and the subject matter of the information given.
Can the police lie to me regarding evidence, etc. when my attorney is present?
Yes he can, outside a court, deposition or other proceedings, people who lie, will lie. However, if the officer was under oath, he is not allowed to lie. Some people do lie still, but if found guilty of lying under oath (a statement made in court or other proceeding) then it's perjury, and they will be penalized if perjury is proven. False statements made outside of official proceedings are not perjury. For example, if a witness lies to a lawyer who is taking notes in order to draft an affidavit, the witness has not committed perjury (unless she later signs the affidavit under oath with the false statement in it). Sworn, written statements submitted to courts or government agencies are statements made in a proceeding and subject to perjury laws.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/perjury.htm
What to do if police officer lied on police report??
QUESTION: What do I do against those statements to defend myself and prove everything she said and done was falsified in her reports??
The police report is not admissible evidence and the state cannot use that against you at trial. Instead, the state will have the officer testify on the stand as to what she observed. And yes, the cop is allowed to lie to you. In any event, if the cop lies on the stand, what your lawyer (and you definitely should have one) will need to do is try to impeach the cop's credibility. But without independent evidence (i.e. something other than your own self-serving testimony) that won't be easy.
7 Rules for Recording Police
ReplyDeleteCourts are expanding rights but cops are cracking down. Find out how to keep your footage, and yourself, out of trouble.
April 5, 2012
Last week the City of Boston agreed to pay Simon Glik $170,000 in damages and legal fees to settle a civil rights lawsuit stemming from his 2007 felony arrest for videotaping police roughing up a suspect. Prior to the settlement, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Glik had a “constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public.” The Boston Police Department now explicitly instructs its officers not to arrest citizens openly recording them in public.
Slowly but surely the courts are recognizing that recording on-duty police is a protected First Amendment activity. But in the meantime, police around the country continue to intimidate and arrest citizens for doing just that. So if you’re an aspiring cop watcher you must be uniquely prepared to deal with hostile cops.
If you choose to record the police you can reduce the risk of terrible legal consequences and video loss by understanding your state’s laws and carefully adhering to the following rules.
Rule #1: Know the Law (Wherever You Are)
Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police.
The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.
Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.
However, all but 2 of these states—Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7-rules-for-recording-police
BuzzFeed News reviewed 62 incidents of video footage contradicting an officer's statement in a police report or testimony. From traffic stops to fatal force, these cases reveal how cops are incentivized to lie — and why they get away with it.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/blue-lies-matter?utm_term=.wexMaKgky4#.wf5rz65dlM
Several former and current prosecutors acknowledged - "off the record" - that perjury and falsification are serious problems in law enforcement that, though not condoned, are ignored. The form this tolerance takes, however, is subtle, which makes accountability in this area especially difficult.
ReplyDeleteThe epidemic is conceded even among the highest ranks of law enforcement. For example, William F. Bratton, who has headed the police departments of New York City and Boston, has confirmed that "testilying" is a "real problem that needs to be addressed." He also placed some of the responsibility squarely at the feet of prosecutors:
When a prosecutor is really determined to win, the trial prep procedure may skirt along the edge of coercing or leading the police witness. In this way, some impressionable young cops learn to tailor their testimony to the requirements of the law.
Many judges who listen to or review police testimony on a regular basis privately agree with Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who publicly stated: "It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers," and that the reason for it is that "the exclusionary rule . . . sets up a great incentive for . . . police to lie to avoid letting someone they think is guilty, or they know is guilty, go free." Or, as Judge Irving Younger explained, "Every lawyer who practices in the criminal courts knows that police perjury is commonplace."
http://caught.net/testilying.htm
What can you do about a police officer lying on an arrest report?
Our legal system tilts heavily in favor of police. Finding hard evidence, meaning video, audio, or written documentation that contradicts the officer’s report would help. In addition, witnesses, reputable witnesses, especially upstanding members of the community, like small business owners, city council members, or religious leaders. If a trusted member of the community could vouch for you, it would be beneficial and likely cause the police to re-think pursuing charges against you. However, if you’re in a situation where it’s your word against their word, it is extremely difficult to pursue further action, unless this officer has a history of falsifying police reports.
If you are certain the officer is lying and are willing to take a polygraph or provide substantiation that the officer lied, you can file a formal complaint.
https://www.quora.com/What-can-you-do-about-a-police-officer-lying-on-an-arrest-report
Cops rarely punished when judges find testimony false, questionable
ReplyDeleteIn language that was unusually blunt even for Hooks, the veteran jurist railed against what some other judges and lawyers who work in Cook County's criminal justice system say occurs far too often: police officers shading the truth in subtle ways or outright lying from the witness stand. The result, they said, is that sometimes the innocent go to prison, the guilty go free and the criminal justice system is tarnished.
Lawmakers: Act now to save Chicago police misconduct records
Indeed, a Chicago Tribune investigation documented that troubling phenomenon, with more than a dozen examples over the past few years in which police officers, according to judges, gave false or questionable testimony — but experienced few, if any, repercussions.
It happened in court hearings that involved a $50,000 brick of cocaine and a $30 bag of heroin. It happened in gun cases in Cook County court and money-laundering hearings in federal court. It happened with big issues, such as whether the officers had witnessed a crime as it occurred, and with smaller details, such as the direction they were driving on patrol. And it happened with defendants who had a string of convictions and those who had no previous arrests.
Officers come to court well aware they have a built-in advantage because so many cases come down to their word against that of a defendant. As a result, they can testify with little fear of prosecution or discipline. The Chicago Police Department and the Cook County state's attorney's office almost never hold officers accountable in spite of claims they have a zero-tolerance policy for officers who do not tell the truth.
The issue so erodes trust in the criminal justice system that the U.S. Department of Justice, as part of its civil rights investigation into the Police Department, has asked the Cook County public defender's office to refer cases with evidence that officers testified falsely, the Tribune has learned.
Determining whether an officer lied on the witness stand or was simply mistaken can be difficult; a judge's ruling does not necessarily mean an officer intentionally testified falsely. Nonetheless, top police officials and prosecutors make little effort to get to the bottom of what some lawyers have come to call "testilying."
The exception: cases in which video undermines the testimony of the police officer. In those rare cases, prosecutors have acted.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-testimony-met-20160506-story.html
Tips for Recording Police Interactions
ReplyDeleteJuly 11, 2013
Anyone who has had a confrontation or other adversarial contact with police understands the frustration in dealing with this power imbalance. First, any refusal to cooperate completely with police orders (whether legal or not) can lead to an arrest or worse. Second, if there is ever a disagreement over the facts of such a confrontation, Courts will typically take the word of police officers over the word of a citizen/arrestee. Third, police agencies have complete control over the storage of recording equipment (such as in-car video) used in prosecutions and other legal proceeding.
In many cases where a criminal defendant claims that the police violated their constitutional rights, the in-car recordings of the arrest are destroyed (“per internal policies”) before a copy can be requested.
However, the spread of smartphones and other technology has armed citizens with a valuable tool to address this power imbalance. All citizens should be aware of their right to document interactions with law enforcement. In addition, anyone who is concerned about police abuses should have the basic technological know-how to create and preserve such a recording.
The Right to Record may be especially valuable in the context of a traffic stop where police often run a ‘warrant check’ against the stopped vehicle’s license plate number. Although this typically causes the citizen an excruciating delay in waiting for the officer to approach, it will provide ample time for the citizen to enable his or her device for recording if they choose.
The Law
For years, the legality of recording police conduct was unclear and varied from state to state. Several states had even passed laws that banned the practice altogether. Indeed, many websites and blogs still contain outdated and misleading information on the Right to Record. Fortunately, recent legal developments have clearly defined certain rights in this area.
First, several federal courts and the U.S. Department of Justice have affirmed that citizens have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public. Any law prohibiting this conduct is therefore unconstitutional. Only the U.S. Supreme Court can overturn this Right to Record and the current Supreme Court appears reluctant to do so. After a Federal Appeals Court last year overturned an Illinois law prohibiting audio recordings of police, the state of Illinois appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to revive the Illinois law by denying further review of the case. However, because the Court did not issue an opinion, this doesn’t necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court’s ruling.
Most of the notable cases dealing with this issue have involved the third parties (typically media) filming or photographing police interactions with other citizens. However, the law is clear that any citizen may openly record their own communications with police. Note: Citizens are also protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments from having their recording equipment illegally seized by police under these circumstances and can sue the police for damages under federal law.
Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether or not citizens may secretly record law enforcement acting in public. Several courts have explicitly held that individuals do have this right. Further, in a recent court filing (03/04/13), the U.S. Justice Department stated “[i]t is now settled law that the First Amendment protects individuals who photograph or otherwise record officers engaging in police activity in a public place.” This is a broad affirmation of the right to record public police conduct from the highest law enforcement agency in the country and could reasonably be relied on to justify secret police recordings.
CONTINUED...
To be clear, the current status of the law is as follows:
ReplyDeleteYou DO have the right to openly record official police conduct performed in public.
You MAY have the right to secretly record police conduct performed in public.
You DO NOT have the right to record the private conversations of police (or anyone else) without consent if you are not a party to the conversation.
The Recording
Most interactions with police are unplanned and uninvited. It is therefore important to understand (and practice) how to properly record video/audio from your smartphone or other device now.
General Considerations
1) Use a Passcode Lock. This is good practical advice for anyone as this protects your information in the event that your smartphone is lost or stolen. For the purposes of this post, if you are arrested, your recording is virtually useless if a cop seizes your phone and deletes your recording. Even if you do not record a police interaction, officers today often will ‘search’ an arrestees phone immediately and without a warrant if a Passcode is not enabled.
2) Always keep at least 500 MB of available storage on your phone. Again this is practical advice for any smartphone user, particularly if you ever need to record video in an emergency situation. An iPhone video uses approximately 80 MB per minute. 500 MB of available storage will therefore allow you to record only 5+ minutes of video before the recording is stopped. By contrast, the same amount of storage will allow more than 10 hours of audio.
3) Some audio recording apps have other additional advantages for this type of situation. For example, the paid app DropVox has the option of recording in the background and of automatically sending recordings to Dropbox (a free app which stores files in the cloud thus preventing easy deletion).
CONTINUED...
Practical Advice
ReplyDeleteI will use a standard iPhone as an example (though I invite anyone to comment with similar instructions for a Droid or other device). Most people can take photos/video using a standard camera app. But equally important for police recordings is the standard iPhone Voice Memos app that records audio with a single touch. If you are secretly recording a police interaction, an audio recording is preferable for several reasons. Practically speaking, useful video is difficult to obtain undercover, especially at night. Video also takes excessive storage space and prevents your device from going into Auto-Lock and Password Protect mode.
If you are stopped in an automobile and believe that the communication should be recorded, follow these steps. Calmly pull out your iPhone, open the Voice Memos app and hit the record button once. Check to make sure the recording has begun and that you did not double-click the record button. Set the Ring/Silent switch to silent mode (muting your phone will avoid any attention being drawn to your phone in the event of an incoming call or message). If you have pockets, it is recommend that you place your phone in your pocket top down (i.e. with the microphone facing out of the pocket). Although this will slightly impair the sound quality of your recording, it has the important advantage of following you if you are arrested or asked to step outside the vehicle.
If you do not have a pocket, turn the device face down (i.e. hiding the screen) anywhere near you with the microphone facing in your direction.
One should be aware that the standard iPhone app will leave a red pulsing banner message atop the phone display the entire time the device is recording. Fortunately, the iPhone will auto-lock and dim completely while recording (temporarily hiding the message). However, if an officer seizes your phone and hits the Home button, the ‘recording’ message will become visible even in auto-lock mode. This highlights the need to enable the Passcode feature on your phone as an officer will not be able to bypass the code without a warrant.
Important Note: A police officer who discovers you secretly recording them may become hostile and even arrest you simply for the “illegal” recording. If you are confronted with this situation, be polite and explain that you understood that the law permitted such recordings. Do not give an officer your passcode. If you are arrested, politely ask to speak with a lawyer before you discuss the matter any further.
In summary, you have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their duties in public. If you are arrested for openly recording the police or if your camera or other device is seized, you can sue for damages. You may or may not have the right to secretly record police. Because the legality of surreptitious police recordings remains unclear, this practice cannot be recommended without exceptions. Trust your instincts and use your best judgment under the circumstances. If you are arrested, ask to speak with a lawyer and then be quiet.
-Jesse Halfon
http://www.copblock.org/35412/tips-for-recording-police-interactions/
Court Rules Police Can Legally Make Up Lies to Pull People Over to Fish for Criminal Behavior
ReplyDeleteApril 11, 2016
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that police officers can lie to suspects in regards to a traffic stop — even when no violation has occurred.
The ruling essentially gives police officers carte blanche to stop anyone they want for absolutely no reason — merely acting on a hunch.
According to the ruling,
So long as the facts known to the officer establish reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop, the stop is lawful even if the officer falsely cites as the basis for the stop a ground that is not supported by reasonable suspicion.
The court goes on to justify their rights violating and Stasi-esque ruling by claiming it’s okay as long as the officer truly believes the subject of his lies has criminal intent.
We emphasize, however, that although our focus is on the objectively reasonable basis for the stop, not the officers’ subjective intentions or beliefs, the facts justifying the stop must be known to officers at the time of the stop.
The case in question originated out of a federal court in Montana and involved two men accused of transporting methamphetamine.
The suspect, Hector Magallon-Lopez, argued that his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated after he was stopped by an officer who lied to him about changing lanes without a signal. Magallon-Lopez argued, justly, that the evidence against him be thrown out, as it was obtained under false pretense.
The court rejected his argument.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the officer lying to Magallon-Lopez was justified so long as the officer had sufficient evidence to support this type of previously illegal investigation.
According to the ruling,
Officers working with a Drug Enforcement Administration task force obtained authorization to wiretap a suspected drug trafficker’s telephone. From the wiretap intercepts, the officers learned that: (1) on September 27, 2012, a man named Juan Sanchez would be transporting methamphetamine from the Yakima Valley in Washington to Minneapolis, Minnesota.
When police found a car that matched the description of Magallon-Lopez and his friend, the cop, without witnessing any infraction of the law, pulled them over.
Although the officer had not observed any traffic violations, he told Magallon-Lopez that the reason for the stop was Magallon-Lopez’s failure to signal properly before changing lanes. The officer knew this was not the real reason for the stop, but he did not want to disclose at that point the true nature of the investigation.
A subsequent search of the vehicle yielded two pounds of methamphetamine.
Using the War on Drugs to justify the complete dismantling of the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has opened yet another door to despotism.
Police officers are already required to have reasonable suspicion of a crime prior to detaining citizens, which makes this ruling entirely irrelevant as a tool to aid law enforcement in catching the bad guys. If police already had reasonable articulable suspicion that Magallon-Lopez was breaking the law, lying to the man about why he was stopped becomes trivial and yet simultaneously nefarious.
Police abusing questionable rulings granted to them as tools under the color of law — is a common practice. How many innocent people will be targeted by a cop who has a hunch, as a result of this ruling? If history is any indicator, there are likely thousands of future innocent victims just waiting to come across with the wrong cop acting on his skewed intuition anxiously awaiting for the right moment to dole out roadside sodomy in search of a plant.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-rules-police-legally-lies-pull-people-fish-criminal-behavior/
7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want
ReplyDeleteOctober 18, 2015
Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.
1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”
Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.
2) “Do you have something to hide?”
Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.
3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”
The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”
(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)
4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”
Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.
CONTINUED...
5.) We have someone who will testify against you
ReplyDeletePolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.
6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”
Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.
7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”
Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.
U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).
Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.
Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/7-ways-police-break-law-threaten-lie/
Ten (10) Ways Police Can Legally Lie to You
ReplyDeleteBy a San Diego Criminal Defense Lawyer
(Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice, or a substitute for a consulting with an attorney concerning the specific facts of your case. Reading the contents of this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. )
September 14, 2015
Can Police lie to you?
Yes, they can. Here is how you can spot police deception.
As a general proposition, courts permit the police to lie. The lies told by the police to a suspect under questioning do not render the confession involuntary per se. Mere trickery alone does not invalidate a confession. The court must look to see whether the deception is reasonably likely to produce a false confession. People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107; Hawkins v. Lynaugh (5th Cir. 1988) 844 F.2d 1132
(1) Police Can Lie About Having Physical Evidence
"We have your fingerprints."
"We have your DNA."
Fingerprint and DNA analysis requires time, and county crime labs are notoriously backlogged. If you have been arrested as a suspect for a crime that was recently committed, it is highly unlikely that police have fingerprints from the scene of the crime, at the time of interrogation.
Consider the following true story:
The defendant voluntarily came to the police station and was told he was not under arrest. The officer told the defendant that his fingerprints were found at the scene, a lie. The defendant then confessed to taking the property. Oregon v. Mathiason (1977) 429 U.S. 492
The 6th Federal District Court described the practice of police lying about having DNA, "a regrettable but frequent practice of law enforcement was not unconstitutional," citing to People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 299 - which allow police deception as long as it is not unlikely to produce an untruthful confession.
CONTINUED...
(2) Police can trick you into giving up your DNA
ReplyDelete"Would you like something to drink?"
If you are arrested for a serious felony (read: violent crime), a DNA swab is now part of the normal booking routine. However, the police may also try and trick you into surrendering your DNA by offering you a soda, cup of water or coffee. A positive DNA match to an active crime scene is usually sufficient for an arrest and a charge. Police are even allowed to go through your garbage to obtain your DNA and other evidence. However, it should be noted that these DNA tests still take time, and are usually performed off-site. Maryland v. King (2013) 133 S.Ct. 1958; California v. Greenwood (1988) 486 U.S. 35
(3) Police can give fake tests to "prove you're guilty"
"You failed the polygraph."
"You failed a chemical test."
Consider the following true story:
A suspect requested a polygraph test, and the police hooked the suspect up to a fake machine. During the questioning, the suspect denied any involvement in the crime, then the police show the defendant a fake graph from the fake machine, and tell the suspect that they know he is lying. The suspect thereafter admits being present at the scene of the crime - The court ruled the defendant's admission is a voluntary and admissible confession. People v. Mays (2009) 173 Cal App. 4th 1145.
Another true story:
"In the first step of the "test," the detectives sprayed defendant's hands with soap and patted them with a paper towel. In the second step, they used a field test kit used for testing substances suspected of being cocaine, which the detectives knew inevitably would turn color. The detective told defendant that the test had provided proof that defendant had recently fired a gun." People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483; People v. Parrison (1992) 137 Cal.App.3d 529, 537
(4) Police may lie about having eyewitnesses
"An eyewitness identified you leaving the scene."
True Story:
A defendant was brought to a police station and advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant waived his rights, gave a statement, and then asked for an attorney. As the detectives picked up their books to leave the room a detective tells the defendant that the victim identified a picture of the Defendant as the one who stabbed and raped her. At the time, the victim had not seen any photographs. The defendant subsequently confessed. People v. Dominick (1986) 182 Cal. Ap. 3d 1174.
CONTINUED...
(5) Police can lie about recording your conversation
ReplyDelete"I'm turning the recorder off, this is just between you and me."
"This is off the record."
There is nothing requiring a police officer to disclose the presence of an already-activated tape recorder. In fact, there may be more than one recording device in the room, and the police may turn one of those devices off and say, "this is just between us," or "this is off the record." Remember that when speaking with the police, there is no "off the record." People v. Sims (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 405.
(6) Police can lie about having an accomplice's confession
"Your friend sold you out and told us everything"
The police are permitted to lie and tell you that your accomplice confessed. Often this is used to extract minor details, such as your location at certain times - little things that are used to build a case. Police will say, "just tell us where you met your friend," or "how long were you hanging out?" - While these questions seem innocent, your answers are confessions to those facts.
True Story:
Detectives could place both Frazier and his cousin at a bar where a victim was last seen alive. Both Frazier and the cousin were arrested. Police lied to Frazier during the interview that his cousin confessed and told them everything. Frazier only made statements that he and his cousin were at the bar. Those statements were used to convict him. Frazier v. Cupp (1969) 394 U.S. 731.
(7) The police will try to imply that your refusal to cooperate will be damaging to your case.
"We know what happened, but if you obstruct our investigation the DA will be a lot tougher on you."
The above statement is not a lie- you can be criminally charged for obstructing an investigation (i.e. lying to the police). But the way it is phrased is often interpreted as "you have to talk to us." Refusing to answer questions is not obstruction of justice. Your best defense is always to remain silent and wait for a lawyer. You will not talk yourself out of a jail cell.
What most people don't realize is that the police do not charge you with a crime - only the district attorney can make that decision. The police are just supposed to hold you and get as much information as they can to convict you. That's it... That's their job. It is the DA's job to evaluate the evidence and decide whether to even issue a case. Often, a DA does not know anything about the case until the date of arraignment where they first pick up the file and read a police report. Most DA's don't even get that far, and simply read an interns notes on the file. When a DA reads the file for the first time one of the key pieces of evidence they are looking for is if you made any statements (that is the one thing that makes their job the easiest). United States v. Santos-Garcia (8th Cir.2002) 313 F.3d 1073, 1079 (noting that raised voices and suggestions on how to gain leniency do not render a confession involuntary).
(8) Police can lie about what will happen to other people.
"Your friend will spend their life in jail if you don't tell us what happened."
The police can lie to you and say that your friend will go to jail for the rest of their life. HOWEVER, they cannot threaten a family member with harm or removal from the home. While the court permits a number of coercive tactics, threatening your family is considered the type of threat that is likely to produce a false confession. “A threat by police to arrest or punish a close relative, or a promise to free the relative in exchange for a confession, may render an admission invalid.” People v. Steger (1976) 16 Cal.3d 539, 550.
CONTINUED...
(9) They will lie about wanting to help you out.
ReplyDelete"We know what happened, best thing for you is to tell us how write it up in your favor and we will help you out."
"We have enough evidence to charge you - this is your only opportunity to tell your story."
Police do not "charge" you with a crime. The hardest cases to prosecute are the ones where the Defendant has said NOTHING. The less you say to the Police, the better off you are at avoiding a charge. Talking to police only makes it more likely that charges will be filed.
True Story:
Defendant and his accomplice were wanted for a murder. Officers already had a full confession from defendant's accomplice, who stated the defendant was the killer. Police lied and told the Defendant they have enough evidence to charge him with murder. The defendant told the police his friend actually did the murder. His statements were used against him to place him at the scene of the crime, and as an accomplice. Defendant was ultimately convicted of murder. When the police tell you they will help you out, they are lying. Their only job is to investigate a case. The police will never help a suspect/person do anything but incriminate themselves. People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557
(10) Police may ignore your request for a lawyer
There is an evidentiary loophole that allows voluntary statements, given in violation of Miranda, to be useable in court for impeachment purposes (challenging the defendant's credibility).
True story:
Strategically, police officers made an agreement prior to interviewing the defendant, that they would continue questioning Defendant if he invoked his right to an attorney. They knew that anything the Defendant said could not be used to prove his guilt, however anything the defendant said is admissible as "impeachment evidence," - which is evidence that tends to show that the Defendant is falsely testifying.
Defendant requested a lawyer 11 times over the course of a 4 hour interrogation, but each time after requesting a lawyer, the police ignored the request and asked another question to which the Defendant answered - and then resumed questioning. He then later admitted a rape and double homicide to police. He never saw a lawyer. Court found the defendant was not subjected to physical or psychological mistreatments and is mature and has had past criminal experience and that his statements were therefore voluntary and admissible as impeachment evidence. People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774
False confessions happen with a surprisingly high degree of frequency.
DISCLAIMER:
An individuals criminal case is fact-specific, so nothing in this article should be taken as legal advice. This article is for information and entertainment purposes only, and not a substitute for legal advice from an attorney familiar with the specific facts of your case. If you are concerned the police behaved illegally, talk to your attorney about possible civil remedies.
This article is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney client relationship.
http://www.njmoorelaw.com/10-ways-police-can-lie-to-you
Are you going to a Police Interview?
ReplyDeleteA Police interview is the start of the prosecution process against you and it is incredicly important that you understand what you need to do:
Doogue O’Brien George has a team of criminal lawyers who are highly experienced in dealing with the Police.
If you are at all concerned about your interview with the police, call us on 03 9670 5111.
There are a number of guidelines that we recommend you read before attending a police station – please see below:
DO
Ask why you are being arrested
Give your name and address
Ask the police for a telephone so you can contact Doogue O’Brien George
(it is not an automatic right, but you can request the use of a telephone)
Ask for bail
Be polite
Dress well for the interview as it will be recorded on video
DON’T
Answer any questions except to give your name and address
(if you are the owner of a car or trailer you must give information which would lead to the driver if you are asked)
Make any statements in writing
Make any statements in words
Sign anything
Plead guilty to anything unless you have spoken to a solicitor
(even if they tell you to)
Resist arrest
Be abusive or impolite
* If you are under 18 years of age you must have an adult you trust present.
CONTINUED...
What is the purpose of a Police Interview?
ReplyDeleteThe aim of a Police interview is to obtain admissible evidence with which to prosecute you.
It is not a search for the truth. The Police are not generally trying to get your version of events so they can compare it to another version of what happened. If it was a search for the truth they would not be videotaping your interview.
People who have never been in trouble before tend to misunderstand a Police interview.
They believe that going in there and telling the truth as they remember it will fix the matter. Unfortunately that is not true. The Police will often know that you are going to deny the charges before they interview you. The reason they are interviewing you is to tie you into a position. They are often trying to get you to commit to something that is wrong so they can later claim that you are a liar. (for example “who was there?” – if you leave someone out they would prove they were there and use that fact against you).
You should also remember that the Police are experienced questioners. They regularly cross-examine and question people in police interviews.
Why does a Police interview happen?
A Police interview happens because they have identified you as a suspect. A person who is not a suspect might be invited in to the Police Station to make a statement. The difference between the two is that you must to attend an interview but you do not have to agree to make a statement.
How do Police Interviews happen?
The Police will either arrest you and take you to the Police Station or arrange an interview by appointment. If the offence is not a minor one, the Police do have the power to arrest you to take you to an interview. This can be very embarrassing if you are arrested at your workplace or home and is a good reason why you should make an appointment if asked, rather than avoid the issue. In the event you are given the option of an appointment, the Police will call you and arrange a time to attend the Police Station to be interviewed.
It is imperative that you comply with your agreed appointment time. It is common sense that this not the time to put off your interview or otherwise inconveniencing the Police.
If the charges are at all serious, you should be scheduling the interview for as early in the day as possible and avoid Fridays. The reason for this is that if the Police have interviewed you and refused bail at the end, if it is early enough, you can get before a Court and may be granted bail. If you are interviewed on a Friday and the Police refuse bail you may have to stay there all weekend.
CONTINUED...
How does a Police interview start?
ReplyDeleteAn interview starts with the Police asking you questions about whether you understand your rights.
They will ask you if you want to contact a lawyer and if you do not know one they will give you a yellow pages to look through (which is generally unhelpful). So, make sure you have your criminal lawyer’s number in your pocket.
It is always wise to discuss the interview with your lawyer prior to attending, because the decision about whether to talk or do a “no comment” interview is a very important one with lots of considerations.
Often, it pays to ring your lawyer when the Police gives you the option to as your lawyer can have a discussion with the Police. This is often useful in getting a gauge of what charges might be pending and whether you will be bailed. If they are not going to bail you, then it helps to arrange to have a lawyer at Court to arrange the bail application.
What happens during the Police interview?
The Police will ask you a series of questions about what happened. Usually, once you have given your version, they will put the other version of events to you and ask you to comment. This is where interviews often go wrong as the interviewee is annoyed and says things that they later come to regret.
Who will be in the Police interview?
The informant (the police officer who will charge you) and a corroborator (another Police Officer who is a witness to what happened). You will be there of course and your lawyer, if you take one with you.
Do I need a lawyer with me in a Police interview?
Like many things it depends on the circumstances. If you are attending an interview on a fairly straight forward matter and doing a “no comment” interview, then it is a purely economic decision and your choice. We would not advise you to take a lawyer to something like that as it would be a waste of money.
Can I have a family member in the interview?
If you are not a child, the Police do not have to let anyone else into the interview (other than your lawyer).
We advise that have some of your family members (if they are in no way involved) to go with you to the Police Station and wait for you to be interviewed.
What is a “no comment” interview?
A “no comment” interview is one in which the accused tells their name and address details and then says “no comment” to every question after that.
It is very important that if you do a “no comment” interview that you say “no comment” to every question. You can not answer some questions and say “no comment” to others. The reason for this is that a partial “no comment” interview can be used against you.
CONTINUED...
Why would I do a “no comment” interview?
ReplyDeleteYou would do a “no comment” interview because you do not want the Police to use your own words against you. The right against self-incrimination is one of the most fundamental rights we have. The Police have enormous resources and enormous powers and if they can prove you did something, then the burden of proof lies with them. However, a citizen should not be forced to get themselves in trouble or trip themselves up by answering questions. Often, simply erring by giving an incorrect date, having a speech impediment or sounding untrustworthy (when they are not) is enough for the Police to use against someone in Court.
What is the consequence of a “no comment” interview?
The fact there has been a “no comment” interview can not be lead as evidence. It does not imply guilt and is generally completely neutral.
Can I give a statement at a later time?
Once you have been interviewed, you and your lawyer may provide the Police with a statement of what you say happened. It would be rare to do that, but it happens occasionally.
How long does the Police interview go for?
An interview can go for a number of hours. If it is a “no comment” interview it will be much shorter and is often over within 10 – 20 minutes. The Police will often leave you waiting for a long time prior to interviewing you. This is just a standard technique to try to make you more stressed. It is our advice that you take a good book with you so that you can spend the time productively.
How do they record interviews?
An interview is recorded on DVD. So, it is wise to do obvious things such as shave and dress appropriately prior to being interviewed. The interview is an important step in the process and one that might be viewed by a number of people.
Advice on behaviour at the Police Station
It should go without saying that your behaviour is polite and respectful towards the Police when being interviewed. Mostly, they are just doing their job and will respond in kind to people who are rude to them.
What should I do if the Police say they will not give me bail unless I plead guilty to the offence?
Think about their motivation. They obviously need you to give a statement to make the case against you stronger. You might get some short term benefit but in the long term it will hurt you. Do not plead guilty to things you have not done. Make sure that you confirm what they said on the recorded interview. ie say – I am only pleading guilty because you said I would not get bail otherwise. You can then bet they will deny saying it to you as they are not allowed to pressure you in that way to get a statement from you.
CONTINUED...
Should I sign any documents in the interview?
ReplyDeleteSign nothing and mark nothing if you are doing a “no comment” interview.
What happens after the interview?
You will be fingerprinted and possibly be asked whether you will supply DNA. They will then take you to the watchhouse if you are being bailed and a different officer will ask you some questions about whether you have a complaint to make. They will then release you.
You should call us immediately after your interview. There is a lot that can be done straight away.
Other reading on the issue
Fingerprints Photographs, Medical Examination DNA
How Long Can You Be Held At A Police Station?
Should You Be Interviewed By Police?
Should You Go In A Line Up?
Your Rights
https://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/police
Your Right to Film Police
ReplyDeleteFilming
Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties.
Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply.
This is the guide to your rights when taking pictures or recording video in public.
Your rights as a photographer:
When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes pictures of federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police. Such photography is a form of public oversight over the government and is important in a free society.
When you are on private property, the property owner may set rules about the taking of photographs. If you disobey the property owner’s rules, they can order you off their property (and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not comply).
Police officers may not generally confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video without a warrant. If you are arrested, the contents of your phone may be scrutinized by the police, although their constitutional power to do so remains unsettled. In addition, it is possible that courts may approve the seizure of a camera in some circumstances if police have a reasonable, good-faith belief that it contains evidence of a crime by someone other than the police themselves (it is unsettled whether they still need a warrant to view them).
Police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.
Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. Professional officers, however, realize that such operations are subject to public scrutiny, including by citizens photographing them.
Note that the right to photograph does not give you a right to break any other laws. For example, if you are trespassing to take photographs, you may still be charged with trespass.
If you are stopped or detained for taking photographs:
Always remain polite and never physically resist a police officer.
If stopped for photography, the right question to ask is, “am I free to go?” If the officer says no, then you are being detained, something that under the law an officer cannot do without reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime or are in the process of doing so. Until you ask to leave, your being stopped is considered voluntary under the law and is legal.
If you are detained, politely ask what crime you are suspected of committing, and remind the officer that taking photographs is your right under the First Amendment and does not constitute reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
CONTINUED...
Special considerations when videotaping:
ReplyDeleteWith regards to videotaping, there is an important legal distinction between a visual photographic record (fully protected) and the audio portion of a videotape, which some states have tried to regulate under state wiretapping laws.
Such laws are generally intended to accomplish the important privacy-protecting goal of prohibiting audio “bugging” of private conversations. However, in nearly all cases audio recording the police is legal.
In states like Texas that allow recording with the consent of just one party to the conversation, you can tape your own interactions with officers without violating wiretap statutes (since you are one of the parties).
In situations where you are an observer but not a part of the conversation, or in states where all parties to a conversation must consent to taping, the legality of taping will depend on whether the state’s prohibition on taping applies only when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. But that is the case in nearly all states, and no state court has held that police officers performing their job in public have a reasonable expectation. The state of Illinois makes the recording illegal regardless of whether there is an expectation of privacy, but the ACLU of Illinois is challenging that statute in court as a violation of the First Amendment.
The ACLU believes that laws that ban the taping of public officials’ public statements without their consent violate the First Amendment. A summary of state wiretapping laws can be found here.
http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13492
Photography at the airport
Photography has also served as an important check on government power in the airline security context.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) acknowledges that photography is permitted in and around airline security checkpoints as long as you’re not interfering with the screening process. The TSA does ask that its security monitors not be photographed, though it is not clear whether they have any legal basis for such a restriction when the monitors are plainly viewable by the traveling public.
The TSA also warns that local or airport regulations may impose restrictions that the TSA does not. It is difficult to determine if any localities or airport authorities actually have such rules. If you are told you cannot take photographs in an airport you should ask what the legal authority for that rule is.
The ACLU does not believe that restrictions on photography in the public areas of publicly operated airports are constitutional.
https://www.aclutx.org/en/know-your-rights/your-right-film-police
Your Word Against Ours: How The FBI's 'No Electronic Recording' Policy Rigs The Game... And Destroys Its Credibility
ReplyDeleteMay 20, 2013
Considering the FBI's unseemly interest in recording phone calls and inserting itself into all sorts of electronic conversations (all without asking permission first), it's incredibly strange that it refuses to use one of the most basic electronic devices available: a voice recorder. In fact, as Harvey Silverglate's op-ed for the Boston Globe points out, it's forbidden to use any sort of recording device when interviewing suspects.
FBI agents always interview in pairs. One agent asks the questions, while the other writes up what is called a “form 302 report” based on his notes. The 302 report, which the interviewee does not normally see, becomes the official record of the exchange; any interviewee who contests its accuracy risks prosecution for lying to a federal official, a felony. And here is the key problem that throws the accuracy of all such statements and reports into doubt: FBI agents almost never electronically record their interrogations; to do so would be against written policy.
Without a recording to compare the transcript to, we are expected to trust the FBI's version of the interrogation. If we can't trust it, we are left to draw one of the following conclusions.
1. The transcript is completely false.
2. The transcript is heavily editorialized.
3. The transcript interprets certain statements, but is otherwise accurate.
4. The transcript is completely accurate.
Of all of these choices, number 4 seem least likely. In fact, one wonders why the FBI bothers interviewing anyone when it could simply put two agents in a room and allow them to bang out a confession on behalf of the accused.
If a suspect claims the transcription is erroneous, it's his word against theirs. His words, of course, disappeared into the ether as soon as they were spoken. The FBI's version lives on, printed on paper.
We don't need to ask "why" this is a problem. There are rhetorical questions and then there are stupid questions, the sort helpful teachers and guidance counselors continue to pretend don't exist. A better question is, "Why hasn't this been changed?" Silverglate notes this policy is an updated version of a 1990's policy, crafted in 2006, long long long long after recording devices were ubiquitous. The excuse that this policy was "logistically necessary" because of technological limitations was ridiculous in 1990, much less 16 years later.
This is a problem. More specifically, this is Robel Phillipos' problem.
Phillipos is a 19-year-old Cambridge resident, former UMass Dartmouth student, and friend of alleged Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He faces charges of making materially false statements during a series of interviews with FBI agents. If convicted, he could get up to eight years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine.
CONTINUED...
How do we know he did this? Because the FBI says he did. It has the "paperwork" to "prove" it. As was pointed out above, simply questioning the transcript opens the questioner up for charges of "making false statements." Phillipos could be completely innocent but that means nothing when the accusers are writing the narrative. Scott Greenfield shows just how easily an innocent answer could turn into damning "evidence" in the hands of an FBI interrogation team.
ReplyDeleteQ: We found files on your computer showing that you went to a website with instructions on how to make a bomb, so we know you did it. When did you first go to the bomb website?
A: I surf the web constantly and go through, like, a million pages. I have no idea what pages I searched or when. How could I possibly know?
Notated in 302: D cannot recall when he first went to bomb website. Went "constantly."
Slick, isn't it? And when someone points out a misquote, the accusation is turned on them just as easily. "Are you lying now or were you lying earlier?"
This is nasty business but it gets even nastier. Beyond the hilarious claim that tech simply hasn't advanced enough since 1990 to allow reliable voice recording, there's a much darker rationale guiding this ridiculous (and dangerous) policy.
The more honest — and more terrifying — justification for non-recording given in the memo reads as follows: “. . . perfectly lawful and acceptable interviewing techniques do not always come across in recorded fashion to lay persons as proper means of obtaining information from defendants. Initial resistance may be interpreted as involuntariness and misleading a defendant as to the quality of the evidence against him may appear to be unfair deceit.” Translated from bureaucratese: When viewed in the light of day, recorded witness statements could appear to a reasonable jury of laypersons to have been coercively or misleadingly obtained.
Sometimes the "reasonable jury" would be right -- the statement has been "coercively or misleadingly obtained." Other times, it may not be as clear-cut. But in a day and age where recording interviews and interrogations is the expectation, the FBI continues to play by its own (convenient) rules. And if the person being interrogated doesn't like it, he can expect additional charges to brought. This puts the alleged criminal in the unenviable position of having "anything he says" twisted, rewritten and heavily paraphrased before being used against him.
Silverglate cautions to withhold judgement on Phillipos until all the facts are in. But as long as the FBI continues to use this "recording" technique, don't grant its statements any credibility. They have none.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130516/18383623114/your-word-against-ours-how-fbis-no-electronic-recording-policy-rigs-game-destroys-its-credibility.shtml
FBI and other federal agents must now tape interviews with suspects
ReplyDeleteMay 22, 2014
Under a new policy, FBI and other federal agents must tape interviews with suspects
Law enforcement officials from the FBI and other federal agencies, who for decades have jotted down confessions and statements from accused bootleggers, terrorists and others, soon will turn to video cameras and other electronic equipment.
Under a new policy announced Thursday by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., federal agents investigating drug and gun crimes, as well as the U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI, will videotape or audiotape suspects starting July 11. The interviews will be recorded between the arrest and first appearance in federal court.
For years, FBI agents have been criticized by defense lawyers in criminal trials for testifying about interviews based on recollections gleaned from scribbled notes.
That practice was sharply challenged this month by defense lawyers for accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was quizzed for hours by agents after his capture last year. Partly because of that process, Tsarnaev's lawyers have asked a federal judge to throw out everything he said before the case goes to trial in November.
Holder acknowledged that bringing FBI agents and other federal officers into the modern world would boost law enforcement's credibility.
"Creating an electronic record will ensure that we have an objective account of key investigations and interactions with people who are held in federal custody," he said. "It will allow us to document that detained individuals are afforded their constitutionally protected rights."
Equally important, he said, the new policy will be a "backstop" to ensure that federal agents have "clear and indisputable records of important statements and confessions made by individuals who have been detained."
Most state and local police departments have been recording suspects for decades, some as far back as the 1940s.
The practice was also embraced by Barack Obama when he was an Illinois state senator in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He championed a bill to require the videotaping of suspects. At the time, many police supervisors and police union leaders resisted the change. But they later came to like the new technology after realizing, to their surprise, that cameras and microphones did not scare suspects into not cooperating.
Although the new policy was announced Thursday, Deputy Atty. Gen. James M. Cole signed the directive May 12, when he also informed top federal prosecutors in a conference call.
The rules call for videotaping, but if cameras are not available, agents can audiotape their interviews, Cole told the prosecutors. "Electronic recording will begin as soon as the subject enters the interview area or room and will continue until the interview is completed," the rules state.
However, sometimes hidden cameras can be used. In cases in which agents are eager to talk to suspects because of pressing public safety concerns, the interviews can still be done without electronics. And cameras and tape recorders will not be used if a suspect says he will talk "only if it's not electronically recorded."
Holder announced the policy in a video message. The recordings, he said, will soon be "building trust and fostering community engagement" in law enforcement operations.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fbi-interviews-20140523-story.html
Legal aid in the United States
ReplyDeleteLegal aid in the United States is different for criminal law and civil law. Criminal legal aid with legal representation is guaranteed to defendants under criminal prosecution (related to the charges) who cannot afford to hire an attorney. Civil legal aid is not guaranteed under federal law, but is provided by a variety of public interest law firms and community legal clinics for free or reduced cost.
Criminal legal aid
In a series of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that American indigents do have a right to counsel, but only in criminal cases. See Gideon v. Wainwright. The federal government and some states have offices of public defenders who assist indigent defendants, while other states have systems for outsourcing the work to private lawyers.
Civil legal aid
Legal aid for civil cases is currently provided by a variety of public interest law firms and community legal clinics, who often have "legal aid" or "legal services" in their names. Such firms may impose income and resource ceilings as well as restrictions on the types of cases they will take, because there are always too many potential clients and not enough money to go around. Common types of cases include: denial or deprivation of government benefits, evictions, domestic violence, immigration status, and discrimination. Some legal aid organizations serve as outside counsel to small nonprofit organizations that lack in-house counsel.
Most typical legal aid work involves counseling, informal negotiation, and appearances in administrative hearings, as opposed to formal litigation in the courts. However, the discovery of severe or recurring injustice with a large number of victims will sometimes justify the cost of large-scale impact litigation. Education and law reform activities are also sometimes undertaken. Funding usually comes from the federal government Legal Services Corporation (LSC), charities, private donors, and some state and local governments. Legal aid organizations that take LSC money tend to have more staff and services and can help more clients, but must also conform to strict government regulations that require careful timekeeping and prohibit lobbying and class actions. Many legal aid organizations refuse to take LSC money, and can continue to file class actions and directly lobby legislatures on behalf of the poor. Many organizations that provide civil legal services are heavily dependent on Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts for funding.
Pro bono
The problem of chronic underfunding of legal aid traps the lower middle class in no-man's-land: too rich to qualify for legal aid, too poor to pay an attorney in private practice. To remedy the ongoing shortage of legal aid services, some commentators have suggested that mandatory pro bono obligations ought to be required of all lawyers, just as physicians working in emergency rooms are required to treat all patients regardless of ability to pay. However, most such proposals have been successfully fought off by bar associations. A notable exception is the Orange County Bar Association in Orlando, Florida, which requires all bar members to participate in its Legal Aid Society, by either serving in a pro bono capacity or donating a fee in lieu of service. Even where mandatory pro bono exists, however, funding for legal aid remains severely insufficient to provide assistance to a majority of those in need.
Administrative legal aid
A few states (e.g., California) have also guaranteed the right to counsel for indigent defendants in "quasi-criminal" or administrative law cases like involuntary terminations of parental rights and paternity actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aid_in_the_United_States
Find Legal Aid
ReplyDeleteLSC is an independent nonprofit established by Congress in 1974 to provide financial support for civil legal aid to low-income Americans. The Corporation currently provides funding to 133 independent nonprofit legal aid organizations in every state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories.
If you are looking for help with a civil legal problem, enter an address or city below to find an LSC-funded legal aid organization near you.
You can also visit LawHelp.org to look up information about your legal questions and find free legal forms.
http://www.lsc.gov/what-legal-aid/find-legal-aid
Are You Entitled to a Court-Appointed Attorney?
ReplyDeleteIf you have been charged with a serious criminal offense and lack the resources to hire legal representation, you may be entitled to a court-appointed attorney. The right to an attorney in criminal proceedings is enshrined within the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, it was not until the 1963 Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright that the law established the right to free legal representation for criminal defendants who are unable to afford a lawyer and face the possibility of incarceration.
Defendants who meet the criteria are assigned either full-time public defenders or lawyers appointed by the court and paid by the hour. In either case, these attorneys typically handle an enormous caseload and have limited resources for each client.
See Getting Free or Low-Cost Legal Help to explore additional options, even if you do not qualify for a court-appointed lawyer.
Criteria for a Court-Appointed Attorney
The justices in Gideon unanimously held that "in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him." However, the Court later clarified this ruling, making it apply to cases where the defendant is charged with either a felony or a misdemeanor which could result in imprisonment from a conviction. This rule also applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings.
There are some limited exceptions to the rule, including:
defendants who are mentally ill or developmentally disabled;
children; and
in some cases involving child custody or child protection.
To determine whether you qualify based on income level, you may have to gather financial documents and prove to the judge that you lack the funds for a private lawyer. However, some courts may take you at your word (for example, homeless individuals lacking such documentation). Counties may determine eligibility for a public defender in a number of different ways, but your ability to afford a lawyer typically is based on your income and expenses. Some judges may ask you to get estimates from as many as three private attorneys before approving the assignment of a public defender.
Working with Court-Appointed Counsel
Public defenders and private lawyers appointed by the court typically have very large caseloads, so they may not have the same amount of time to spend on your case that a privately paid attorney would. However, it also should be noted that since public defenders work on so many cases, they typically know the prosecuting attorneys and judges quite well, and can use this to the advantage of their clients.
As with private attorneys, public defenders are legally obligated to zealously defend their clients' interests. Also, despite the fact that public defenders and court-appointed lawyers are paid by the same entity that pays the prosecutors and judges (the government), they work for you.
You may be represented by the same defender throughout your entire case ("vertical representation") or you may have different defenders handling different phases of your case ("horizontal representation"). While vertical representation provides continuity and familiarity, horizontal representation often involves the use of the most senior-level defenders for the more serious phases of a case.
Get Legal Help Now
Not all defendants qualify for a public defender or assistance from other legal aid organizations, which typically target those with no property and little income. Even those who qualify for a public defender but can afford a private attorney choose to retain one, since private attorneys tend to have more time and resources to devote to your case. Before you decide how to proceed get a free initial case review with a local attorney to determine whether your case would benefit from private representation.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/are-you-entitled-to-a-court-appointed-attorney.html
How To Survive A Traffic Stop "I Don't Answer Questions"
ReplyDeleteKenny Suitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYBshAScmE
"I Don't Answer Questions" Police / Cop Video Clips Compilation Here's a compilation of "I Don't Answer Questions" police ...
Kenny Suitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrlrUy9Avmc
Police / Cop Repellent "I Don't Answer Questions" I pulled over to videotape what I thought was a traffic stop. There was a police ...
Kenny Suitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn2-9vqIZt4
How To Handle An Illegal Traffic Stop "I Don't Answer Questions"
Kenny Suitter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5HJH872QbE
"You Have the Right to Remain Innocent" (James Duane)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8
catoinstitutevideo
Published on Sep 30, 2016
Law professor James Duane became a viral sensation in 2008 for a lively lecture that explained why people shouldn’t agree to answer questions from the police. In his new book, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, Duane expands on that presentation, offering a vigorous defense of every citizen’s constitutionally protected right to avoid self-incrimination. By using case histories of innocent persons who were wrongfully imprisoned because of information they gave to police, Duane debunks the claim that “if you haven’t done anything wrong, then you don’t have anything to worry about.
View the full event here:
http://www.cato.org/events/you-have-right-remain-innocent
[–]HuNuWutWen
ReplyDeleteHuman beings are "flight" creatures, our instinct is to flee, to escape, to put distance between ourselves and dangerous situations. Cops know this, they use your own fear against you, to induce you to cooperate immediately..."hey, we will wait for a lawyer if you want, get in the cruiser, we'll take a little ride to the station..."....OR..."talk to us freely, you've got nothing to hide, right?..."
That sounds good in the moment, except that you probably don't realize that cops are not your friends, and they will twist your words if it suits their purpose...but for some nagging reason... you would really rather be ANYWHERE ELSE right now, so you'll talk...and that's a mistake...
The sad bottom line is...in our World, you just can't blindly trust the Police, your Doctor, your boss, or anyone for that matter.
But you have to consciously overrule your instincts in sticky situations, if you inadvertently get mixed up in some kind of shenanigan, you have to STFU and respectfully request that you be allowed to contact your Attorney...DON'T TALK....
This whole SA and BD fiasco is a ridiculous bad joke, any sensible person can see that these guys were violated so flagrantly it would be funny if not so sad...
I sincerely hope that KZ is successful in exposing these horrible people for what they have done to SA and BD...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/53etil/things_i_have_learned_aboutfrom_the_wisconsin_us/
[–]thom_driftwood 5 points 7 hours ago
ReplyDeleteI think the bones, the pornography, the marijuana and whatever else BJ had on her was enough to coerce the Dassey/Tadych family into cooperating. BoD had the most damning evidence on his computer, so LE used him to testify against SA.
I don't think this new information eludes to any direct involvement from BoD in the disappearance of TH. It shows he had enough dirt on him for KK/LE to keep him in line and frame SA.
SPECULATION: Sometimes I feel Brendan didn't know about the plan, but the way he flip-flops... it makes me wonder if he was confused between what everyone was telling him to do. On the one hand, he was supposed to frame SA. On the other hand, he was trying not to go to prison.
[–]HuNuWutWen 3 points 8 hours ago
So, BoD gets an itch in his britches as he watches TH photo Barb's van...then what ?... rubs one out, in the shower...but that doesn't quench his thirst... no...so then what ?...
... follows her out of ASY, somehow gets her to pull over ?.... that's when he jumps her ?.. goes all caveman on the side of the highway... uh huh... how else could this have happened ?...
...in broad daylight, in the afternoon ?... no idea if she has made calls, or how many people know exactly where Teresa is at that very moment ?...
... guy just loses his shit, can't control himself..is that it ?...
... remember now, he has time to reconsider, as he follows her down the road, right ?...
...and then what ?... along comes Scott ?...pulls over, says hey Bobby, I've got an idea... how about instead of going deer hunting...
... we become insane rapist/murderers on a Monday afternoon...cuz that sounds like it could happen...yeah, right there on the side of the highway...
....yeah, let's leave one of the vehicles here, on the shoulder...I see you've already "convinced" her to cooperate, she is in a heap in the cargo area... no way is Teresa conscious at this point...
...okay, you drive the rav4, I'll follow ya...
... let's mosey over to the quarry for a little slap'n'tickle... just the three of us...seriously ?... do I need to continue ?...
...okay, now what ?...Scott and Bobby double-team a random unconscious stranger ?...WHY ?...
... then decide to KILL her ?...WHY ?...
... then decide to incinerate her corpse ?...WOW, these guys are EVIL !...
... then transfer the incriminating cremains and her vehicle to their own home property ?...
... for the purpose of "framing" Steven ?... is that the theory ?... right out of the blue ?...one minute it's deer hunting, the next it's kidnapping, rape, murder, frame an innocent relative?...seriously ?...
... lol...keep in mind what we know about Scott"s chronological whereabouts on the evening of the 31st, and Bobby too...
... when exactly would either of these guys have the time to cremate?... no way ...
...it would take 2 people to jockey three vehicles...
...why the hell would they not torch the rav4, leave it in the quarry?..the vehicle was of no use to them, certainly ridiculous to think that they would bring all of this evidence back to their own house...
... and then what ?...Ryan and Mikey, ala Hardy Boys are "snooping" at ASY ?...they got "freaked out"...what the fuck?...
... this just silly nonsense...op is joking, right ?...lol...
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/78fbtu/not_perfect_but_still_the_most_credible_theory/
[–]Kkman1971
ReplyDeleteTale as old as time... Follow the money... And none of it is a coincidence... MCSD and the State of WI were no strangers of getting themselves into and out of trouble, especially when big green dollars at play. All the players and victims were selected for the plan and big green dollars, self preservation, power and intimidation wasand still is the motive.
ST, BoD, AC, JL, TF, JP, and KK are proven liars to ensure SA was convicted. (I am sure there are many more too)
The only things we know for a fact are: -TH is still missing (until there is proof the bones were hers) -SA and BD are in prison -MCSD and State of WI are conducting business as usual -KZ is also conducting business as usual... TICK TOCK.......
[–]probert282
With SA in jail years for the rape, these two wouldn't have had any real relationship with him. Since his release SA seemed to be upsetting the order of things in the family also, some family members really didn't like him etc. Quite easy to lay the blame on him to save their own necks, I doubt it would play on their conscious. BD they obviously wouldn't of expected him to get caught up in it.
[–]Fahuwagoz
Yeah thought the same thing. Strange the rave 4 was in plain site for 2+ days. I think the killers were offering it up to law enforcement by leaving it there. No effort to conceal and then it ends up concealed at the salvage yard. Was wondering if the killers took the real keys and colborn hit up RH for the spare. I think when AC called it in RH & M.H. were with him there at the turn out.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/79am0n/fan_theoey_from_early_last_year/
Did Ken Kratz get Bobby to flip his story about the RAV4, and did he talk Scott into corroborating it? (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted an hour ago * by magilla39
Zellner Law has been busy, and new material evidence has surfaced. Blaine now swears that Bobby told him that the RAV4 had left by the time he drove away to hunt on 10/31/2005. But by 11/05/2005, Bobby's story has changed, regarding the RAV4 (CASO Page 90):
BOBBY stated that he left for deer bow hunting at approximately 1445 to 1500 hrs. He stated that the teal vehicle was still there when he left....
BOBBY indicated when he came out of his residence to go to his truck, he did not see the lady.
In addition, Scott and Bobby now have arranged to suspiciously co-alibi each other, and LE doesn't think it is even worth asking "Where were you hunting in Kewaunee?" (CASO Page 91):
BOBBY indicated that as he was traveling on STH 147 towards the property he hunts deer on, he did observe an individual known to him as SCOTT TADYCH. BOBBY indicated that SCOTT would be able to verify precisely what time he had seen BOBBY.
BOBBY stated that no one was in his vehicle with him.
The question becomes, "Who is responsible for this change in Bobby's testimony and its convenient corroboration?"
If you really think it through, I believe that all roads seem to lead through our independent prosecutor, Ken Kratz.
Is this the secret that Bobby, Scott and Barb are trying so hard to hide?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7a60qz/did_ken_kratz_get_bobby_to_flip_his_story_about/
[–]tuckerm33
It’s getting pretty clear what happened here now. Fassbender confiscates the Tadych computer, they find the pedophilia on it and use it to manipulate Barb to allow them to work over Brendan. Weigert takes them to Fox Hills to isolate them. They tell Barb if she refuses to cooperate, Weigert basically threatens that they will all get arrested for being pedophiles. Barb agrees to let them use Brendan to help them and hence why he is in room by himself when he gives his false confession later on.
They try to lay the ground work for the “story” they want Brendan to tell while at Fox Hills, but Brendan is still confused about what’s going on.
This is why Weigert yells at him and why Weigert and Fassbender get so mad during interrogations -- because Brendan can’t remember what they told him to say when they were at Fox Hills. That why they had to keep going back and doing more interrogations, to close up holes in the story, and that’s why there is not one continuous cohesive “confession” as the judge pointed out during oral arguments recently. The “confession” comes from pieces of all of the interrogations.
Barb is pissed after the fact because they made it seem like Brendan would just be a witness, but she knows that the outcome is to blame it on Steve, so she already threw her brother under the bus.
Weigert and company go so far overboard though, that Brendan ends up “confessing” to helping kill Teresa.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7a4qhz/zellners_latest_filing_now_online/?sort=new
[–]magilla39 10 points 3 hours ago
ReplyDeleteI think Steven's hospital statements are a bluff. They try to get Barb to say her alibi for Scott that night is false, but she doesn't bite.
I think the new evidence is pointing toward Bobby and Scott conspiring with the prosecution to incriminate Steven. The whole thing had to happen prior to Bobby's 11/05/2005 police interview. In that interview, Bobby calls the SUV teal (a color that's not in many rural 20 year olds vocabulary), says the SUV was there when he left but the girl was missing (highly inculpatory), and presents the Bobby/Scott cars passing on 147 co-alibi (corroborating the timeline).
This statement that leads to his testimony ultimately is very incriminating, and smells like the work on Ken "The Soaking Tee-Shirt" Kratz.
[–]hollieluluboo [score hidden] 41 minutes ago*
Something that I have always noticed in BoD's witness testimony, that I've never seen discussed, is at the beginning when he is asked if he has ever worked in the yard and he says he has down some summer work there before. They ask him what his job was and he says (I don't have the docs open in front of me but it's something like)
It was my job to change the colour....er...the tires.
Changing the colours of the cars? Really? Were they running a chop shop as well?
OR is this a different kind of Freudian slip? Is he concentrating on the colour of the car and waiting to be asked about it because he has been told it's important he states the right one...teal?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7a5yrl/scott_and_the_hospital/
Barb called Kathleen Zellner :thumbsup: (self.TickTockManitowoc)
ReplyDeletesubmitted an hour ago by briply
That's great news! Even if all we know so far is that she was only able to leave a message.
And here's a statement from Carla on the family page that I just saw:
"Kathleen Zellner's supplement to the motion filed yesterday is difficult to read. My family appears to have been targeted and pushed to turn on each other, but no one in our family had anything to do with THs disappearance. Not Steven. Not Brendan. Not Barb. Not Bobby. Not Scott. Please let Kathleen Zellner do her job and wait to pass any judgement on our family. Steven and Brendan have paid the ultimate price of being locked away, but all of my family has been victimized by this horrible injustice. Barb and her family, all of us are doing what we can to get Steven and Brendan released. Please support our family while we get to the bottom of it."
[–]Sashasrevenge [score hidden] 44 minutes ago
The family isn't being pushed to turn on each other by Zellner, that's what investigators did in 2005. Zellner is pushing for the truth no matter how ugly and it wouldn't have to get ugly if folks would stop LYING!!! I support Brendan and Steve and the lying crying begging family can go suck it! Not one more iota of compassion from me for the family because they won't stop lying and changing their story. And Barb needs to stop asking for money. If you want to help Brendan than give to his defense fund directly, not to the lying family.
[–]SilkyBeesKnees [score hidden] 38 minutes ago
People would back off if Barb did the right thing, and nobody needs to be told what the right things is... TRUTH. Just tell the truth. Simple solution, no?
[–]MamaTried1981 [score hidden] 6 minutes ago
I've never been particularly fond of Carla, but especially in the past week since KZ's Motion for Reconsideration was posted. She has criticized KZ several times that I have seen saying that she has "overstepped." And here in this statement she seems to be implying that KZ is targeting her family and causing people to turn on each other. As if the fact that some in her family are lying liars who lie is somehow KZ's fault.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7a6mcc/barb_called_kathleen_zellner_thumbsup/
[–]GrowingHumansIsHard at reddit wrote:
ReplyDeleteI actually am a pen pal of the kid. Aka Brendan Dassey. He's 26 now and he will be 27 in October. His IQ is around 70 and he graduated with his GED in December. He has someone help write his letters because he often doesn't understand questions his fans write him nor is he that strong of a writer. He will often say his writer had to ask him the question repeatedly in different ways for him to comprehend it. He's very simple. What you see is what you get. I can't imagine he ever did this crime. Not even if he was forced into doing it. He just is so simple. All he wants to do is play video games and have a girlfriend.
He is a very sweet kid. He's always wanting to try and help anyone as much as possible. He said he writes to literally anyone who writes him because they deserve a letter back for taking time out of their day to write him. So if anyone has ever considered writing him, please do so. He loves to hear about where you travel to, tell jokes, and he loves to talk about eating different kinds of foods. He especially loves hearing about pizza and hamburger places he should try once he gets out.
Here is his address to send letters only to:
Brendan Dassey #516985
Columbia Correctional Institution
PO Box 900
Portage, WI 53901
Honestly, I am surprised by the lack of information on a lot of people's parts. Was anyone in here part of the Brendan Dassey Facebook group the family set up? They did a live Q&A last year where supporters could ask questions and Barb Tadych and Scott Tadych and family friends would answer questions. They were asked what their favorite childhood memory of Brendan was, they had no answer. They asked what his favorite movie was, no answer.
They asked at one point if he was a playful kid who ever hurt himself, they said no. If you know Brendan you know he hit his head hard on the back of a truck tow hitch as a kid and was sent to the hospital.
It's simple things like those questions that make me wonder, do they even know Brendan? In my mind, I just think they were "simple" country folk. Brendan was a little different than the rest of the kids, and they never paid him any mind.
Lots of people think Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey were up to trouble when they went hunting without Brendan, but if you know Brendan, they left him behind ALL THE TIME. I think perhaps sometimes the rest of us look too much into things, when they don't look enough into things.
I was a member of that group and watched that heartbreaking interaction. It sickened me and within a week I was off that page never to look back.
They gave me the impression that Brendan was left out of a lot of things growing up. He often talks about how his brothers were asked to do fun stuff but he never was. So the idea of them hunting without him that day, doesn't surprise me. I feel like they have inconsistent alibis because they were trying to make sure they were distanced from the events that took place and that Bobby Dassey may have been trying to help Steven Avery's alibi. But they did a poor job at planning.
CONTINUED...
Scott Tadych had only been dating Brendan's mom for a year when this took place so he may have easily thought Steven Avery was a creeper and belonged in prison. I dunno. I just don't get why people think the brother and step dad did it.
ReplyDeleteIs the step dad a good guy? I don't know but he sure does know more about Brendan than his own family. Last weekend the family did a live QA session and they couldn't tell you shit about Brendan's interests, life in prison over the years, etc. but the step dad could tell you stuff. How freakin sad is that? Dude deserves a gold star for at least trying to make it look like he talks to the kid.
I pray to the Gods that Brendan is not returned to that home until massive therapy for everyone is completed. Otherwise, Barb will have him pimped out like a circus monkey on every talk show willing to give her gas cards or stamps.
Unfortunately he will return to live with her. There have also been discussions of having him go on speaking tours to talk about his situation and inspire other people. I personally can’t see Brendan as a motivational speaker. He’s very reserved. It’s my personal opinion that she will try to pimp him out and he will go along with it. Because to him, he loves his mom and loves the attention he is finally getting from her.
I remember people would send her money to help him buy commissary. Yet if you read his letters he’d always ask for items saying he was low on stuff. What was that about? That’s a whole other can of worms though because I believe Brendan was being played by another inmate who was helping write his letters for him. He kept a notebook of details about supporters and would stay up till 2am typing letters “as BD” And Brendan would read and approve them. It’s quite a bigger mess than people realize because the guy’s crime is not pretty and he’s also a registered sex offender. Brendan has unfortunately been played by almost everyone around him. Again. Just my opinion.
I know how much he adores his mom. He really does. He is always telling me when she will visit and how excited he is. He's a momma's boy through and through.
I'd be very curious to see the visitor log for Brendan as I've heard several close people to the family say he was rarely visited. Which is why in the documentary they only show recent photos of Brendan with his family as opposed to photos of him throughout the 10 yrs he's been in there. I've only ever seen one photo of him from when he was at Green Bay, I believe during Christmas time. He was approximately 19. Other than that all the other photos with "family" were recent.
Reddit comments from one year ago...
ReplyDelete[–]pife11
ST was obviously influenced by the State & LE.
All 3 of his statements to LE have been beat to death around here, but if you want to see how much he "remembers" just read the progression of his "memory" in the Nov 10th, Nov 29th & March 30th interviews.
I don't think its ironic that he doesn't say anything about a fire during the Nov 10th interview. Then he does see a fire in the Nov 29th interview & the fire is "big" in the March 30th interview.
Further yet, his story changes about who he sees & the location of these people as the interviews progress, again, ironically after significant changes in the case.
Timeline:
When he arrives at the ASY to pick up BJ....
Nov 10th interview: He first claims that BJanda was standing outside w/ one of her sons, along with SA (no mention of a fire).
Nov 29th interview: Now BJanda is NOT outside, and it is only SA & one of her sons (he specifically states he can't make out which one) - standing by a fire (now there is a fire).
March 30th interview: BJanda again is NOT outside, but now the fire is "Big" and he now guesses that SA is standing around the fire w/ BDassey. Ironically this statement would come after BDasseys confession. Not only that, but hints to the fact that SA may have some type of sexual relationship with BD (which such suggestion shows you how much dislike he has for SA).
So the progression goes: No fire. Fire. BIG Fire. And SA standing outside with BJ, her son. To standing outside w/ just 1 son but doesn't know who. Then standing outside w/ BD (somebody he think SA is molesting).
It is clear that as LE is announcing evidence in their investigation, and as it becomes known to the public, ST goes right along w/ that evidence and every statement he makes corroborates with the State's case.
In my opinion, either ST didn't like SA to begin with, for whatever reasons; maybe because he thought SA was thinking he was a "hot shot" due to all his "fame" taking pictures with politicians & getting a bill in congress passed in his name - and the fact that SA was going to get a lot of money. Maybe ST was jealous of that. Maybe SA was being cocky because of it? Idk. But I can only "assume" that somebody in SA situation, about to make a lot of money, could lead to a lot of jealousy.
Or.
ST could just be one of those guys with blinders on. Maybe as the evidence started to mount, he thought SA was guilty as hell, hence the reason his statements changed, making SA look more guilty. His last statement, the most damning of them all, on March 30th, would seem logical. This would be after BDassey had confessed and BJanda & ST were pissed at SA for dragging BD into the murder. At that time, they would have not seen the video of the interrogation & would have taken LE word that SA did do all those things & brought BD along for the ride. I'm sure BJanda and her family, along with ST, hated SA and would say anything to LE at that time to make sure he was convicted.
ST isn't a smart guy. He got torn to shreds on the stand by the defense. So much so, that by the time Strang was done with him, ST essentially just accepted the fact that he was an idiot & nothing he said could he accepted as truth.
In my personal opinion, ST simply didn't like SA. Period. And he was going to cooperate with LE to ensure he was put behind bars; no matter how badly he had to change his statements. Thankfully the defense realized this & tore his ass up on the stand.
[–]_idunnowhy_
Wow, great overview of ST's involvement. I agree but I would add that I think he got some prodding from BJ, LE and the DA on the story he settled on when it came time to testify.
Even grandpa said "everyone knew she was coming..."
ReplyDeleteIt is just way too convenient that Bobby was on his computer until 2, and nothing after that whilst she was on her way. It just seems like he was anxiously waiting/looking out of his window for her, especially when reading his statements.
Was 18-year-old Bobby infatuated with Teresa, the independent 25-year-old woman, who was always smiling. Did he mistake her friendliness for flirting, thinking he had a chance with her? Did he stay awake that day, anticipating her arrival, planning to make their paths cross, but she was too quick in taking the picture and heading out in her RAV4?
[–]nicolethompson11 7 points 10 hours ago
Much as I think we know little enough to be unsure and yet plenty to suspect both, the most operative evidence at this time for me is the blood spatter inside the rear cargo door.
Zellner’s expert says it’s backspray from blunt force blows while she was lying on the ground. I think this is the most important evidence we have at this point in time.
So with that said, I can’t rationalise that in a hypothesis for BoD but I can for RH.
The best guess for BoD is that he pursued her in his vehicle, possibly ran her off the road, likely even collided with her vehicle. So I’m not sure how that fits with her ending up being bludgeoned behind her vehicle.
But RH surprising her accessing the back of her vehicle upon arrival home (or elsewhere) adds up for me.
[–]idunno_why 4 points 6 hours ago
I agree with your RH scenario as a more likely one. To add to it a bit....
After he does the deed he has to figure out what to do next. "Luckily" for him he finds her day planner sheet and appointment notes/fax in the vehicle. What would I do next? Dump the vehicle and her body close to somewhere she had been earlier in the day. Her appointments were at two private residences and an auto salvage yard next to a large quarry. Bingo. I'm going to dump as close to the salvage yard as I can get.
LE then commence to plant evidence at SA's because they believe he did it (easy to convince yourself of this when it also takes care of the civil suit matter). And RH possibly helps them along with the discoveries and planting because, well, anything that keeps them from looking too closely at himself is a good thing.
CONTINUED...
[–]dorothydunnit[S] 3 points 3 hours ago
ReplyDeleteI forgot about the blood splatter part. If it was BoD, then it would have to be that she stopped her car (her car broke down or she photographing the cars or he ran her off the road) and he happened upon her and attacked her. That is too many assumptions, so now I'm back to square one. Sheesh!
[–]Dontgetstrange 5 points 10 hours ago
Too many liars and the obvious planting of evidence has got me to a point where I don't even have a theory about who did it anymore.
Your theory is a good one but it doesn't address the timing of TH's murder and how it helped the state kill off SA's litigation. This still seems too much of a 'lucky' coincidence for them.
[–]annies999 5 points 5 hours ago*
Your theory is a good one but it doesn't address the timing of TH's murder and how it helped the state kill off SA's litigation. This still seems too much of a 'lucky' coincidence for them.
Well, the litigation was common knowledge... so were SA's accusations against LE - both well publicized in the media.
It could be as simple as: If someone was of the mindset that could hurt another person, and knew how some in the local LE could really operate and how eager they would be to see SA back in jail on serious convictions, the circumstances may have presented a perfect opportunity to get a freebie by simply moving some of the evidence to implicate SA. Without MaM, this may well have been the perfect crime - served with a stay-out-of-jail free card. :)
[–]annies999 3 points 3 hours ago
My impression was that it was big, and as we saw in MaM there was a gaggle of tv news camera crews and reporters at the first civil case court submission, not to mention that Avery was rarely off the news channels r.e the Avery bill as well. 'Crime was hot' for the media news and the Avery story was as hot as it got. I agree about Calumet County, tho, as I think the initial crime itself was all Manitowoc.
I don't think you would have to know all the ins and outs of the history, just a reading of the game that some in LE would bite their own fingers off if meant that all of their huge problems went away with Avery back inside as a sex murderering monster. It was an ideal time (before the depositions) but I've not, so far, been convinced that it was essential for it to happen before then.
Obviously, I have no idea what happened but I like to mention it, periodically, as a viable alternative for people to keep in mind. As DS and JB's defence strategy proposed - LE didn't kill Teresa, but that someone or some people did and skillfully exploited the situation. I think that has merit.
[–]annies999 1 point 2 hours ago
TH's brother, the attorney, certainly would have been in tune with what was happening in Manitowoc and the possible ramifications if Avery's lawsuit was successful.
In my experience, it's not the one's up front and centre that need be of most concern, more the quiet one's in the shadow's
[–]SilkyBeesKnees 2 points an hour ago
Don't feel bad if you can't come up with a believable scenario. LE had ALL the evidence and they STILL haven't presented a believable theory. How the heck are WE supposed to when we only have a FRACTION of the evidence?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/7dyqjw/occams_razor_and_my_latest_decision_as_to_who_did/
[–]makingacanadian 14 points 8 hours ago
ReplyDeleteI think zellner is showing that bod and Scott could have met the deny. Law enforcement failed to reveal to the defense information that would have made this possible.
[–]screamcleaning 6 points 5 hours ago
Yeah, it's all about Denny. It made such a huge impact on the outcome of the trial. Imagine the possibilities if S&B had been allowed to present ST, BoD, and RH as alternative suspects. That along with a motive for LE planting evidence and the very obvious fact that they ignored these other suspects quite possibly equals a different verdict.
[–]FlowerInMirror 2 points 4 hours ago
Yes I think it's a way to push an evidentiary hearing. If they had alibis then show them in court (where else can they show?)
[–]tuckerm33 8 points 9 hours ago
Accidental or sideways, these are just adjectives that seem to serve as downplaying the seriousness of the crime.
There is nothing accidental about framing someone else for murder, lying on the stand, watching your brother and uncle going to prison for it , and then having your mom’s new boyfriend claiming it’s the best thing that could have happened.
Softening the intent doesn’t make it less probable or less vicious or less guilty.
LE definitely bailed on the investigation early on and made moves to pin this on SA. That’s no doubt.
But the idea of them inflicting scratches on other suspects or deliberately setting things up to frame other individuals, just so they can frame SA, pretty far fetched. More far fetched than believe SA and BD murdered her.
It is completely likely that LE kept stumbling upon evidence that did in fact place a lot of suspicion on ST and BoD and this frustrated LE because it was causing problems for them making the case against SA.
It’s even more likely that LE made it very clear to ST and BoD that they had proof of “other” suspects that “may” be involved someway, and then would suggest things about internet searches or burn barrels that showed other finger prints of people etc... They possibly hinted that these people could be arrested any moment and go to jail even if they didn’t have anything to do with TH murder.
This made ST and BoD very paranoid. They knew LE was on to them. However, LE refrained from asking more questions of them, took it easy on them. This was LE “implicitly” getting the cooperation of ST and BoD. They understood that if they played ball, they would be safe. So the two of them sat back and did nothing.
Then once KK got ahold of them and prepped them for their testimony at trial, KK walked through the questions he was going to ask them, and steered them with the answers they were to give.
Bobby and Brendan's older brother Bryan Dassey told Department of Justice officials in November 2005 that Bobby had told him that he did see Teresa leave the property that day. Bryan Dassey recently doubled down on his recollection, signing an affidavit stating, "I distinctly remember Bobby telling me, 'Steven could not have killed her because I saw her leave the property on October 31, 2005.'"
ReplyDeleteBobby could have left the property in his Blazer, and Teresa could have pulled out behind him. If so, this means Bobby would have seen her in his rear view mirror as both of them were driving down Avery Road. He said he turned right onto highway 147 from Avery Road and Steven said he saw Teresa signaling to turn left (and that Bobby's truck was gone when he saw Teresa at the intersection of highway 147 and Avery Road).
In CASO's re-investigation of the case in 2017-2018, Bobby told Dedering: "I left before she did." In other words: "She left, but I left first."
Bobby implies that he left first, and what he is really saying is: I left and then she left and I know that she left.
He said he left before she did, implying he knows she did leave.
Bryan's statement to LE about what Bobby said: 11/6/05.
Bryan's affadavit: 10/16/17
Barb's FB comment: 10/30/17
Barb and Scott call admission: 10/24/17
All these happen before 11/17/17 when Bobby tells Dedering "I left before she did."
He slipped up.
Guilters can say Bobby misspoke about "I left before she did" or try to claim we are hearing something different...but the problem is...his own mother is recorded on a call saying "she left," she answered a FB question about Bobby saying he saw her leave, and Bryan's affidavit.
During Dedering's interview, he is detailing where everything is. He gets asked by Wisch, "Did you see her leave?"
Bobby says "No. I left before she did." So quiet and I bet he got freaked after he said it. They missed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE9-fnW4S7g&t=184s
16:06 in.
https://twitter.com/TManitowoc/status/1120412461742665731