The State Pitted the Dassey Family Against Steven Avery (Updated 11/01/2017)

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.

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).

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.
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.

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.

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?
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 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.

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.

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.

Bobby Dassey's written statement, dictated to John Dedering at 7 p.m. on 11/05/05:

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:

1. He woke up between 2:00 and 2:30, showered, and got dressed.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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

Jodi’s Murder: Making a Monster

Police in the U.S. are legally allowed to lie to suspects to get confessions, but it backfired in the Jodi Parrack murder case 

By WoodTV.com
February 29, 2016

CONSTANTINE, Mich. (WOOD) -- Police lied repeatedly to the man they suspected in the death of 11-year-old Jodi Parrack as they tried to get him to confess to a murder they later would learn he didn't commit, according to video-recorded interrogations obtained by Target 8.

Police in the U.S. are legally allowed to lie to suspects to get confessions, but it didn't work in this case.
Raymond McCann II, of Constantine, went to prison for 20 months for the lies police say he told them.

McCann, now 48, pleaded no contest to perjury and was released from prison in December after serving his entire term -- three months after Daniel Furlong confessed to Jodi's murder.

Furlong, 65, told police he acted alone.

"I was a hostage," McCann said in a recent interview with Target 8. "I wasn't a prisoner. I was a hostage."

Among the lies told by police during the interrogations: They had "scientific evidence" McCann touched Jodi's body, that they had evidence he was within seven meters of Jodi's body before it was found in a cemetery, that they had "insurmountable evidence" he was involved in her death.

They told him they knew he either killed her accidentally or on purpose.

"It's not just some haphazard, fricking stretch to go out and harass somebody to get in their s--- because we can't find anybody who killed the girl," a detective told McCann during one of the interrogations in 2011. "This is for real, Ray. Your life is about to change big time."

McCann denied any involvement 86 times during more than seven hours of videotaped interrogations.

Michigan State Police cold case detectives say McCann was among a few suspects in the Nov. 8, 2007, sexual assault and murder of Jodi, whose body was found in a cemetery.

They say they turned their focus on McCann based on discrepancies in his stories -- what he did up until Jodi went missing, and what he did during his search for her.

The videotaped interrogations, obtained by Target 8 through the Freedom of Information Act, document only part of the 20 or so times detectives interviewed McCann over the years.

The videos show how police turned their focus on the married father and Little League coach who worked as a reserve police officer in the town where Jodi was killed. He said he did his best to look for Jodi.

"I wish I'd never gone out to help," he said during one of the interrogations. "I wish I was never part of this police department."

Police said they felt his stories weren't adding up, though McCann, who'd never been in trouble before, repeatedly told them he was struggling to recall details of a day he'd rather forget.

"All the hard work they were doing, it seemed like it was setting me up, not trying to find out who really committed this crime," McCann said in an interview with Target 8.

While police told him during the interrogations that they couldn't suggest to him what he'd done, they repeatedly made suggestions: that he was the first to find her body but was afraid to report it; that he dumped her body after accidentally killing her; that he dumped her body after somebody else killed her and was involved in a cover-up; or that he was a porn-watching pervert who trolled for little girls.

MSP officials refused requests for an interview, but emailed a statement to Target 8. They said they interviewed several "persons of interest" "at length and on multiple occasions."

"The investigative techniques used during these interviews are accepted and legal methods used to either eliminate or identify individuals involved in the crime," state police said in the statement.

"In 2015, Daniel Furlong was arrested and ultimately pled guilty to his involvement in the murder of Jodi Parrack in 2007," the statement reads. "Michigan State Police detectives are convinced he acted alone in this heinous crime."

It was the first time, at least in writing, that MSP had cleared McCann for any involvement in the death. 

SUSPICIONS RAISED

Constantine Police Chief James Bedell had come out of retirement for one reason: to solve this case.

"Today is Nov. 5," Bedell told McCann in a videotaped interrogation in 2010 at the Constantine Police Department. "In another three days, Monday, it's going to be three years."

Three years since Jodi's mom found her body in the Constantine Township Cemetery. The fifth-grader had been sexually assaulted and strangled, her body then dumped.

"I know you've been talked to several times and this shouldn't take too long because you're going to tell me the truth. You got nothing to hide, correct?" the chief said.

"Correct," McCann answered.

It's the same story McCann had told from the start: He had been home all day that day -- Nov. 8, 2007 -- and played PlayStation football all afternoon until his boys got home from school.

He said he went with his two sons to the Dollar General store right after school and "bought 'em two little laser guns."

His wife got home a little before 5 p.m. and made dinner, he said. He helped his son with homework. They ate around 6 p.m.

He said he was watching the news after that, as his kids got ready for bed, when Jodi Parrack's mom, Jo Gilson, stopped by. It was about 8 p.m.

Jodi was missing.

McCann described his search -- the D&S store, around buildings, the baseball fields, to a home where his own mom and sister lived, where he said he found a bike that turned out not to be Jodi's. It's where Jodi was last seen.

He said he checked the boardwalk, down by the river.

"So I walk down there, flashlight, checking behind the buildings," he said.

It was McCann who suggested that Jodi's family check the cemetery. He also suggested the same to Constantine Police Officer Marcus Donker, who was working on the search.

"We were driving around," McCann said during the interrogation. "I go, kind of like, we didn't know the night was going to end up that way, kind of joking around -- ‘cause it was just after Halloween -- I go, ‘Let's go check the cemetery.’"

"If you wanted to check it, why didn't you check it?" the chief asked.

"Because I wanted to check it with Donker," McCann responded, referring to the Constantine officer. "I don't know."

It was McCann’s insistence on searching the cemetery, then not checking it right away, that made police suspect him from the beginning. Police said holes in his stories didn't help. 

GETTING PERSONAL

"So, these interviews, you have to ask some personal questions," the chief asked. "I'm told you would have an affair at the drop of a hat if a woman was interested," the chief said.

"I flirt with women," McCann answered, with a nervous laugh.

"I'd rather see you have interest in women than guys. What about young girls, like Jodi?" the chief asked.

"No," McCann said.

McCann acknowledged talking to a woman he didn't know on his walkie-talkie, maybe the day before Jodi went missing, maybe not, and how maybe he went looking for that woman.

The chief said he was bothered by the results of McCann's polygraph tests.

"Whether you did it or not, I have a feeling you know more than what you're telling us. If you're protecting somebody," Bedell said.

"Oh God. You know what? I wouldn't protect my own family. I would not do it," McCann said.

The interview turned, again, to the cemetery where Jodi's body was found.

"If I told you somebody seen you driving out of there before that body was found, that's BS?" the chief asked.

"Yeah," McCann said. "I never went in there. The only time I went near there was when me and (Officer) Donker was up near the gas station."

"The reason that we questioned you was two polygraphs, your idea to go look at the cemetery, you driving around the day before with a walkie-talkie trying to pick up some chick. It's just weird. You're a little weird," the chief said.

"I guess I'm weird, but I tell you what, there ain't no way in hell man,” McCann answered. "Whatever you want me to do, that's all I've got to say. I'm just not going to jail for somebody else's bull----. I know that."

"I don't want you to go to jail for somebody else's bull----," the chief answered. "I want the person who did it." 

NOT THE ONLY SUSPECT

Five months later, on April 19, 2011, McCann was back in a small interview room at the Constantine Police Department, this time facing MSP Detective Bryan Fuller. Fuller was part of a cold case team, who asked McCann again about his search, for details of a night more than three years earlier.

"I don't remember all the places we went," McCann said.

He said he wondered if he was blending one night with another.

McCann said he didn't know he was a suspect until an officer read him his rights that night and asked to take a picture of his hands.

"I remember looking at my hands and, my hands?" he said. "It's right there I knew, what the hell?"

Police took his pickup and his clothes that night, later his DNA.

During the interrogation, the detective assured him he was not the only suspect, and that he was on McCann's side.

"To be honest with you, the police officer on duty that night is not ruled out. You with me?" the state police detective said.

"Officer Donker?" asked McCann.

"Yeah," the detective answered.

"Bryan, I'm here to help you," McCann told the detective. "You know. I want this as bad as you guys do. I don't want to go to my grave not knowing what happened to this little girl. I'd like to have my job back to be honest with you. I love being on the police department." 

'EVIDENCE HAS COME FULL CIRCLE'

Three months later, on July 11, 2011, McCann was back, facing the same detective.

"I have to tell you about your rights," the detective said.

McCann said he was afraid.

"I'm not going to jail, am I?" he questioned.

The detective said he was one of McCann's only supporters on the cold case team.

"The only possible way that I can go to bat for you, is if you tell me the truth," the detective told him. "The evidence has come full circle and there's a part of your story, a big part of your story that is bulls---. You don't know how embarrassed I am from my co-workers right now because all I've done the whole time is say that you're an f---ing good dude. I'm the laughing stock of this whole place right now.”

The only possible way that I can still save some face in this thing is for there to be an explanation for the lies that you've been caught in now,” the detective added. "This is going downhill fast for you, and the only thing that is going to help you is for you to be truthful and I know, I've seen it myself, I know you haven't been."

The cold case detective told McCann he knew he lied about being home most of the day Jodi was killed, that his alibi was shot, that they had him on surveillance video around town, that as a reserve police officer he owned two pairs of handcuffs, not just one, as McCann insisted.
They were two of the alleged lies that led to perjury charges against McCann.

Evidence shows Jodi's wrists had been bound. (Later, police would learn it was done with zip-ties, not handcuffs.)

App users can click here to watch the video of McCann's interrogation. 

A DNA LIE AND 86 DENIALS

Bryan, I am not going to jail for somebody else's s---," McCann said in tears.

It was one 86 times during the videotaped interrogations that he denied any involvement.

"This is my life we're talking about. The hell I've been through. My family. What can I say? I didn't do anything wrong," he said.

Then, the detective played his biggest bluffs.

"We know scientifically that you touched her body," Fuller told McCann.

"I did?" McCann questioned.

"And we know without a doubt that you put her in that cemetery," the detective said.

"Oh, God, Bryan I did not, McCann said. “No I did not."

"That doesn't make you the killer, Ray," the detective said.

"I know, but I did not put her there. If I touched her at all, it was pulling her mother away, and if I happened to touch her, then that's how it happened," McCann explained.

Later, in an interview that was not videotaped, police asked McCann how they could have found his DNA on Jodi and her DNA on him and in his pickup. It could have happened, he said, when he hugged Jodi's mom and when the mom sat in his pickup. Jodi's mom told police that never happened.

Police say that was another of the lies that amounted to perjury.

But police have since confirmed to Target 8 that they also weren't telling the truth. They didn't really have that DNA evidence. It was a trick -- a perfectly legal lie.

"This case has already been reviewed by the prosecutor's office, and the evidence about you is insurmountable," the detective told him.

"I don't understand that. You've got to promise me one thing," McCann told the detective. "I don't know who did this, but if they hold me for whatever reasons, for more questions, you don't give up looking. Promise me that."

"I'm still not convinced that you killed her," the detective responded.

"Is that what they're saying now?" McCann said.

"No," the detective answered. "They're saying that you put her there."

"Well, I didn't,” McCann said.

Maybe, the detective told him, he was covering for somebody else, or he accidentally killed Jodi, then panicked.

They say they checked his computer, found he'd been on porn sites that day.

"You're going to let somebody else tell the story about how you raped this little girl... and what a horrible, horrible monster you are because that's the story they're going to tell because they have to paint a picture," the detective said. "They have the stuff to support that to a degree and they're going to twist it.

"They're going to say that you killed her," the detective said.

"Jesus," McCann said.

"You killed her for sexual gratification and they're going to use the porn stuff," the detective said. "You know where they're going to go with it, and I'm telling you, you can prevent that."

"You know, when I leave here, I'm going to try to get some answers, because this is bull----," McCann responded.

Near the end of the interview, the detective pulled his chair close to McCann.

"Ray, listen to me, listen to me. You did it, and it can be proven that you did. You're not a bad guy. You're a good guy, but whatever went wrong went wrong accidentally,” the detective said. “It's all right."

"I understand that Bryan, but I didn't put her there. We can sit here all day and do this, but I'm telling you, I didn't put her there," McCann said.

"You know what?" McCann told the detective. "I don't know if you believe in God, but someday we're all going to stand in front of Him and you guys are going to find out the truth. You know that? You guys are going to find out the truth, that I did not put her there. One day we'll stand in front of the Lord, and we'll all know. Hopefully you and me will be standing by each other, and I'll say, 'Bryan, I told you.'" 

THEORIES AND BLUFFS

Weeks later, and more than three and a half years after Jodi was killed, MSP Det. Bryan Fuller was joined by a new face from the state police, Lt. Shawn Loughrige, who said Constantine needs answers.

"They're looking to crucify somebody," the new detective said.

McCann recounted his day: PlayStation football at home, maybe checking porn sites, later buying laser guns with his sons at the Dollar General.

This, police have said, is another of his big lies -- that his sons say they didn't go to the store that day.

McCann recalled his search before eventually turning left into the cemetery.

"That's where I seen everybody running around, screaming," McCann said. "I pulled my truck up to a certain point, get out and run up there and that's when I realized the mother had her and that's when I realized she was dead. You could tell."

Detectives told McCann they had his cell phone records.

"Knowing that we have the times of the phone calls, the movements, is that concerning to you at all?" the new detective asked.

"I don't know exact times, what time was what during that night," McCann said. "I didn't have nothing to do with this girl's death."

"Listen, don't say that, because I don't want to hear it," the detective said. "Trust me. I know different. OK?

The detective suggested a theory: McCann found Jodi’s body in the cemetery earlier, which is why he kept telling people to search there.

"What we're saying is you found her, but you were afraid because you didn't want them to think you put her there," the detective said.

If that's not what happened, the detective said, there's an alternative.

"Maybe, this is their thought, maybe Ray is living a double life," the detective said. "I mean, Ray says he's a Christian, Ray says he's this, that, a coach, whatever, but when mom leaves to work, Ray trolls the streets looking to pick someone up, gets on porn before he does it… goes to a religious site, a couple of them to feel better, then he leaves the house."

"They can paint their damn picture, whatever they want to do," McCann said. "I didn't have nothing to do with this damn thing. I went out there, did my job that night, supposedly. I guess I didn't do it to a tee."

"I believe you," the detective said.

"This is the hell I'm going through and still going through," McCann said.

They played on his faith.

"You're a Christian, right?" the detective asked. "So if you want the grace in your life that you need right now, the only way you're going to get that is if you're honest."

The detective floated another theory: Jodi visited McCann's home, then "flipped out" because she wanted to date McCann's son, who didn't want to date her.

"You take control," the detective said. "You say, 'Hey, settle down, relax,' and something happens in that process. Even to the point where she almost is going to hurt herself and she gets handcuffs put on her because she's going crazy. OK? What else is there Ray?"

"I don't know," McCann said. "You tell me, but that's all bull----.”

Then, another police bluff -- another perfectly legal police lie.

"We have the full investigation," the detective said. "I told you. We just don't know the 'why,' the little part in there. OK, we know we have a dead girl, we know that Ray's involved. OK. We've told you that."

"OK, so they're going to stick, what, me in jail for something I had no part of?" McCann responded. "Is that how the system works?"

"Guys, I don't know what you want from me. You want a confession that I can't give ya. Guys, I didn't find her, I didn't put her there, I didn't kill her," McCann said.

After more than two hours in the interview room that night, McCann abruptly left, but not without apologizing.

"Sorry guys," he said. "I'm just upset, alright." 

A PRISON VISIT, AN OPEN WINDOW

In March 2015, McCann was sent to prison for 20 months after pleading no contest to one of five perjury charges. Without the plea, he said, prosecutors were threatening years behind bars.

"I took the plea because it was the quickest way to get home to my family," he said in an interview. "It wasn't that I was guilty of anything."

But, last September, three months before McCann's release, came the news -- the arrest of Daniel Furlong in Jodi's murder, complete with real DNA evidence, after he tried snatching another girl.

Furlong had lived blocks from Jodi, but was never a suspect. He confessed to killing Jodi, dumping her body -- and working alone.

"Do you know Mr. McCann?" Furlong was asked during his confession.

"I don't know the one they showed on TV. I don't know him. I know his grandfather," Furlong said.

"You saw everything in the paper about what was going on with [McCann]? What did you think then?" the prosecutor asked Furlong during the confession.

"I just thought I was in the clear," he said.

A few weeks later, the new Constantine police chief visited McCann, the former lead suspect, in prison.

"I was thinking, 'Oh good, he was going to come in and apologize to me, they're going to get me out of prison, tell me they got the right person,'" McCann told Target 8.

But, according to an audio recording of that meeting, that didn't happen.

"The person that we arrested is a friend of yours," Chief Mark Honeysett told him.

"I don't know who he is," McCann said.

"I don't think I should be here right now," McCann said. "I'm glad they caught this guy. I don't know who he is and like I told you before, I wish I could have five minutes with this guy because I've lost 20 months of my life, and I've still got another three months to go."

Then, the chief gave him one last chance to come clean about Jodi's death.

"I'm serious man," the chief said. "Don't let that window close, don't let that happen. Whether it's Dan or whether it's somebody else, somebody's holding all the cards and your picture [is] on the face of every one of those cards."

Why Do Innocent People Get Railroaded

People in power get away with these things (or attempt to) becuase they're insiders. You've got the planters, who are trained in evidence identification and collection, identifying and collecting their own planted evidence.

The Teresa Halbach murder case has garnered this amazing amount of attention because every single piece of evidence is legitimately suspicious and questionable for multiple reasons, including the way each piece fits into the big picture. Looking at each bit of evidence individually you can say, "yes, it's odd....but....". Then when you step back and view the entire mess as a whole, there is just no way that a reasonable (and honest) person can't see that something is seriously wrong here.

Then we've got the BD horror show piled on top adding more suspicion. When more questionable evidence comes as a result of the glaringly obvious coercion and manipulation of a vulnerable teen, the big picture becomes clearer.

Yes, we don't really know whether evidence was planted or not. But when the planters are part of the system, and the truth-seekers have to rely on that system to correct the crimes of the system itself, it becomes much more than just an "uphill battle". The system is immediately in fight mode for its own self-protection. The system relies on the fact that most people will automatically revert to the stance that "well, they're the good guys and the good guys don't commit crimes....it's all good, I can get back to telling my fb friends what I had for lunch."

My apologies for getting so wordy here! But it aggravates me when observers are unwilling, or unable, to look at the big picture and trust it enough to say, "something is seriously wrong here and we need to get to the bottom of this, no matter how damaging it is to the system and/or the public perception of that system."

[ _idunnowhy_, reddit, May 28, 2017]

By William L. Anderson September 8, 2010

Four years ago, a friend who was from England and I were discussing the placement of police surveillance cameras in commercial areas and elsewhere. While I told her I was wary of how the authorities would use those cameras, she replied, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

Indeed, most Americans still believe that very thing. If they aren't breaking the law and if they are trying to be good, law-abiding citizens, then they won't have any problems.

The other night, I spoke at length to a woman in North Carolina whose brother was falsely accused of child molestation, yet who won acquittal, but only after an expensive trial and a huge personal cost to himself and his family.

She told me what I have heard many times, and I will put it into the following points:

• Her brother believed in the "fairness of the system" and that if he was innocent, the authorities, who were as truth-seeking as he, would never charge him with crimes he did not commit;

• Because he trusted "the system," he gladly spoke with police without an attorney present because, as everyone knows, the police only want to get at the truth;

• Judges actually care about doing justice;

• Good church-going Christians never would knowingly lie or mangle the truth in order to try to convict someone who clearly was innocent;

• The police use highly-qualified and honest experts in helping them get at the truth (just like they do on CSI).

However, he soon found out that the people he trusted were not trustworthy.

For example, he took a lie detector test administered by an agent of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI). The administrator told him he flunked everything, including his own name and age, but would not let him see the results. (Given the recent scandal that has hit the SBI crime lab, I am not surprised that an SBI agent would try to cook the books on a polygraph, just as Georgia authorities are not to be trusted, either.)

What this man discovered -- the hard way -- was that police and prosecutors throughout the United States no longer care about who did what, or even if crimes have been committed.

The SBI scandal in North Carolina, along with the FBI crime lab scandal of a decade ago, along with many other "forensic" scandals, demonstrate that in the world of prosecutors and police, at best we are dealing with depraved indifference and at worst outright criminal behavior.

So, why child molestation?

First, as I have pointed out many times before, there is money in it from the federal government.

Second, prosecutors and police can pose as heroes, for in American society, there is no lower form of life than a child molester, and the court systems are so rigged against anyone being charged with such a crime that it is all-too-easy for cops and prosecutors to play to the crowd.

Third, this is a crime that needs no evidence. All that is needed is an accusation, and the law requires that ANY accusation of this sort be investigated as though the charges were true. Since the vast majority of such cases have no physical evidence, all that is needed is for someone to make an accusation. We have seen from the Tonya Craft case that no matter how ridiculous the accusations and no matter how preposterous they might be, there always will be people who will stand in line to believe anything.

Fourth, because all that is needed is some bullying behavior by police and prosecutors and dishonest "forensic" interviewing by people like the Suzi Thornes of that business, it is quite easy to bring charges. Furthermore, the simple accusation practically puts someone in prison, and the public generally will believe anything the cops say.

For example, when Tonya Craft was arrested two years ago, WTVC, Channel 9, immediately ran stories that claimed that the children were victims of Ms. Craft, and in this one, it is clear that the reporter believes that Ms. Craft is guilty and makes no bones about demonstrating her prejudices. It is hard for anyone -- and especially someone falsely accused -- to stand up to that kind of an assault.

Fifth, police and prosecutors have a decided advantage because they are not having to spend their own money. On the other side, however, people falsely accused must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves, and if they don't have that money available, they likely are going to prison.

Those are the cold and hard facts about "justice" in this country today. Furthermore, police and prosecutors have legal immunity, and they are protected by their friends in the courts and in the government agencies overseeing them.

This means that even when they lie in court and instruct witnesses to lie, that nothing ever happens to them. In Tonya's trial, for example, it was clear that both Joal Henke and Sandra Lamb were lying, and they had absolute proof that Lamb was testifying falsely. However, "judge" Outhouse made sure that jurors would not see the hard proof (her daughter's on-line acting resume) regarding Lamb by forbidding the corroborating material to be entered into evidence.

Keep in mind that Deal, Arnt, Gregor (and "judge" Outhouse, for that matter) felt free to forge a document in the middle of the trial and claim that the defense was lying about its previous existence. That was because they knew that since "judge" Outhouse had their backs and the Georgia authorities would not investigate, they could do whatever they wanted.

All too often, people will plead to something because if they fight the charges at a trial and lose, they are going to prison perhaps for the rest of their lives. The incentive is to plead out, serve some time, and then deal with the aftermath.

Furthermore, as we saw in the Tonya Craft trial, police and prosecutors will lie, fabricate material "evidence," and get away with it, especially since judges in trials involving people charged with child molestation are hostile to defendants and are likely to work hand-in-glove with the prosecution, as we saw with "judge" Brian Outhouse in the Craft trial. In other words, the legal system is absolutely stacked against innocent defendants, and especially against innocent defendants charged with child molestation.

Like that man in North Carolina, most Americans have been brought up with the notion that the system is "fair," and that the players really care about right and wrong, guilt and innocence. However, when they get a taste of what it really is like, then they come to realize that everything they have been taught about the courts and about American justice in general is a very big lie. 

Comments from Reddit About Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey's Cases:

“All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence.” —Dean Strang

[–]kjb86

There’s no wiggle room in these rules.

Wisconsin Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6(2)(a) prohibits lawyers from making public statements that the lawyer “knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

Rule 3.6(2)(b) is more specific, prohibiting attorneys in a criminal case, from publicizing “the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence of the contents of any confession, admission or statement by the defendant or suspect.”

The Comments to Rule 3.8 which concern “the special responsibilities of a prosecutor” state that “a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused.”

[–]SBRH33 

It starts and ends with the March 1st press conference.

It was inexcusable and down right criminal.

Why even bother with a trial after that....

".......murder is hot right now!"

[–]kjb86

The press conference alone, although not 'illegal', was extremely unethical.

[–]Canuck64

With the amount of pretrial publicized - such as the media releases of untested unproven prejudicial information/evidence during the investigation, at the preliminary hearing and motion hearings as well as the release of an unproven "confession" - it would be impossible for anybody to have received a fair trial. But I understand that in the US the right for the media to increase it's ratings outweighs a person's constitutional right to due process.

[–]batgirlpow

It cemented the fact that Steven nor Branden could ever have a fair trail. This was before jury selection, meaning everyone in their town now thinks what he said was fact. (Even though not a shread of evidence was found)

[–]KochisGodnow

It is a Fact the press conference ended all legitimacy of the court. This is not an opinion it is what all the attorneys except the state attorneys have told us.

[–]robtheastronaut 

Sweaty boy Kratz graphic explanation of the "murder" on live TV tainted ANY potential juror from being on the case.

[–]schhhuckmyshhhock

As an Irish person and knowing our rules about the presumption of innocence, I don't believe he got a fair trial, OK it's 2 different countries but believe it or not, our constitution is based on the American constitution, it's been ratified here and there, but the presumption of innocence is there and the media adheres to that, they will say somebody was arrested and might name the person, but the details of the crime won't be in the public domain unless its leaked by somebody in the know and the newspapers and news outlets can't have a comment section on the website's, so was his trial fair? When people like Nancy Grace can comment and kk can narrate a horror story, then no I don't believe he got a fair trial, whatever the evidence gathered, if the state can say to the media that apparently this and that happened before a trial takes place, then there's no proper fair trial, its conviction by media.

[–]S_Hollmes

1) I find it interesting that so many testimonies from witnesses in court are in stark difference to the respective accounts given just after the disappearance of TH. There should be some weight to immediate recollection vs. statements more than a year later. 2) excel spreadsheets for phone records - no originals 3) Using BD 'confession' to find bullet, but not using that confession to convict SA. 4) BD and SA convicted for the same crime, but with very different explanation of specifics in each trial. Just for starters.

[–]SilkyBeesKnees 

Yep, pretty sure perjury is breaking the law.

[–]Hubert_J_Cumberdale 

This is absolutely a case of top-down corruption. At first, I was willing to believe that maybe a couple of low level LEOs (AC, JL, etc.) orchestrated the whole thing on their own - and it didn't get out because so few people were involved.

But in looking at the entire picture - from the actual murder to tampering with the jury... This came from the top and I believe numerous people were deeply involved. The code of silence is stronger than I ever imagined. I don't think anyone on Team Blue stepped forward to work with Zellner. If she has an informant, I would be stunned if it was anyone from MTSO.

[–]SBRH33 

I have one name to offer. And her name is Peggy.

She has over seen quite a few "indefensible" cases in Wisconsin. And when those cases were proven bogus her office .... found ZERO wrongdoing by authorities.... this includes Avery's 85 case and quite interestingly the Laurie Bembenek case..... one that eerily parallels the 2005-07 Steve Avery case.

[–]SBRH33 

Yea.... Wisconsin Atty Generals office is as corrupt as they can be. Shimmel is just towing the line.

[–]SBRH33 

Can someone tally the sustained objections by the prosecution granted by Willis?

How many objections did the Defense make... that were "sustained" by Willis.......?

[–]SBRH33 

......."Even if the Key was planted" .......KK.

There is just no words that can be used in describing Kratz's shenanigans.

And Willis just sits there yawning.... waiting to sustain the next prosecutorial objection.

What a Kangaroo court that was......

[–]SBRH33

The Jury is also suspect in this. How did they sleepwalk through some of the testimony and not be able to call BS on most of it. Amazing.

We have one LE (JL) who purgers himself twice. Blatantly.

Another.... (AC) who lacked any serious kind of poker face, ....perjured himself over the key, the bookcase and the RAV Plates.

Investigators manipulating witnesses and statements. (JD) (DR) (MW) (WB) (TF)

Witnesses who were coached to perjure.... BoD, ST. DP and JOZ..... and especially RH.

A witness who places himself at the scene of the crime at a critical moment. Makes a completely false statement about seeing a fire at Avery's. (JR) ........way before cremains are found in the pit.

Key, critical players allowed onto a walled off crime scene numerous times just prior to all of the physical evidence being discovered.... inside and on/ around Steve's immediate property. (SB) (RH) (JR) ............RAV Plates, RAV Key and Cremains.

N[–]Hubert_J_Cumberdale 

I have no doubt that some or all of the jurors were given a pep talk on "doing the right thing" <nudge nudge> when visited by members of the MTSO during the trial and deliberations.

I don't think they would have found Avery not guilty if JL or AC admitted to planting evidence on the stand. They had a plan and it was going to end one way and one way only.ot so credible testimony from crime lab employees (SC) (WN)

An FBI chemist who failed miserably at the EDTA test.... He tested 3 swabs out of 6.... therefore they all must be negative for EDTA..... WTH? .....Thats science for ya....

[–]Meymey123

The jury: at least 10 were afraid or were pressured, and there was one very hostile juror who had familial ties to the Manitowoc Sheriffs department. And one juror was excused under really shady circumstances.

[–]SBRH33 

    I don't think they would have found Avery not guilty if JL or AC admitted to planting evidence on the stand

Well that would have been a constitutional violation.... outright.

Remiker did have a hand in violating Dassey's sequestered Jury. The "pizza-man" had 3.5 hours of unfettered, undocumented access to a deliberating jury.

Pagel had access to a the Jury in Avery's trial and influenced other key behind the doors moments.

[–]Nexious

The odds were stacked against them from the Manitowoc jury pool. In Avery's case we heard of potential vote trading and jurors referencing charges and narratives that were not part of Avery's trial such as the rape allegations.

Remiker and Prange violated department rules and were subsequently reprimanded for interfering with a sequestered jury in Dassey's case, by allowing unauthorized person(s) into the secured jury area without logging them. One known unauthorized visitor was Prange's husband who stayed in there for 3.5 hours late one evening, treating them to pizza and drinks without having been logged as going into the secured area.

A member of the state interacted with jury members during the trial, which is against the rules. Was his presence intimidating? Did it influence the jurors' decision? Possibly.

[–]7-pairs-of-panties

Agree...Don't forget about Calumet Sheriff JP having dinner and drinks w/ sequestered jurors. That is NOT allowed, and may intimidate some jurors. We also don't know what kind of conversations he may have had w/ these people when they were not to have contact w/ outside sources. I think KK would have been up in arms and it would have made the news if Strang and Buting had dinner and drinks w/ sequestered jurors.....

[–]lrbinfrisco 

Well there was illegal contact with the deliberating jury by LE in both trials. Willis dismissed a juror illegally and appointed another illegally. The whole EDT test was an illegal cluster muck. Willis' interpretation of Denny was clearly biased against the defense. About everything LK did as BD's lawyer broke the law. JL and AC's heavy involvement in the investigation was a clear ethical violation of conflict of interest. SC's self approved deviation from standard protocol on the magic bullet would be found nowhere in any book on ethics. Willis allowing SC's magic bullet test into evidence was clearly unfair and violated a host of case law. KK's press conferences, especially the March 2nd, 2006 one. BD's interrogations and coerced confession. KK's lie by omission to public that the FBI had conclusively identified bones as being TH.

[–]LaxSagacity 

The prosecutor convicted two people of the same murder with different versions of events.

[–]JJacks61 

I have no idea if there is a rule or whatever, but Sheriff JP showing up for dinner and drinks dury jury deliberations is a red flag.

It is my understanding that only court bailiffs are allowed to interact with jurors. Short of someone getting shot, Pagel had no business being there. Unless he was delivering a not so subtle message.

[–]sss5551212

I will need help with drilling down on the specific rules, but another reason often trotted out for why SA did not get a fair trial was the jury selection. At least one jury member was inappropriate due to being related to LE and/or court employee.

Also the fact that LE was in contact with/tampering with the jury during the trial. That's not supposed to happen.

Oh one more - not sure if this counts as part of the trial, but it was very unfair and surely broke some rules. The same LE associated with SA's civil suit subsequently being involved in investigating him, and then handling evidence and testifying against him in a new criminal matter. They should have been NO WHERE NEAR him or the investigation if things were to be fair and objective.

[–]dark-dare

Their Constitutional Rights were violated. Period.

That is why they will be exonerated. Duffin just said BD's, 5th and 14th amendments were violated.

[–]roblopes 

    Denny rule inappropriately used by the court and exploited by the prosecution to remove as much "reasonable doubt" as possible from the trial, limiting the defense to show 3rd party.

    Jury was tainted and had an LE spouse as an insider in the jury deliberations room serving food and hanging out when he wasn't allowed too. There was a finding of wrong doing by the court, but that was just a slap on the wrist. This should have been a mis-trial.

    Excused Juror for "Emergency" reasons later discovered it was not life threatening and the juror was heavily on the not guilty side (see #2).

    One of the jurors was a relative of LE. Not sure how that one slipped/allowed to happen.

    Willis was biased and favored the prosecutions on almost every objection raised by the prosecutions.

[–]ConvictedForMurder

A relative of one of the investigating officers on the jury does not violate any established laws or rules in jury selection. Ken "Sweatin to the Oldies" Kratz's press conference was not in violation of any laws, even as improprieties as it was.

[–]Rayxor 

Well, heck! It seems you just didnt look.

Kratz violated Wisconsin Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6, rather blatantly law.cornell.edu

"A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."

[–]ConvictedForMurder

Prosecution in possession of possible exculpatory evidence that is not disclosed to the defense, knowingly putting a perjurer on the stand, and a defense lawyer not providing effective assistance of counsel are some examples of an unfair trial in the eyes of the law.

[–]7-pairs-of-panties

I think it's a Brady violation that the state didn't hand over the FULL unedited version of the flyover on Nov 4th. You can look at the video and fully know it was edited. The call logs also seem edited. Listen to the DR and MW morning of Nov 5th phone call.

It is also a violation to alter phone records. This was clearly done. Was the home land lines turned over? KK seems to know whom erased the voicemails on TH phone, yet he withheld and Willis doesn't make him say. Clearly the fax machine was off in time so only the land line records can accurately tell us what time the fax was made.

[–]JBamers

SA didn't get a fair trial, due to all the things that have been mentioned - the biased Judge, the Denny ruling, the press conference, the fact that one of the jurors was related to LE, Kratz being allowed to blatently lie and elicit false testimony from Bobby Dassey, Culhane fucking up the sample and using it all up so the defense could not retest, Le Beau getting away with guessing as to what was present in samples he did not test, Kratz getting away with telling two different stories about the same crime, etc.

[–]dvb05

Len Kachinsky the "state appointed attorney" and his private investigating piece of shit colleague Michael O'Kelley worked in unison with state prosecutors Ken Kratz as well as detectives to help convict SA, using BD and his coerced confessions in the process.

This is not just bad protocol or concerning, it's a violation to the point of criminal behaviour.

LK finally got booted out but it was another factor in how BD was allowed to be used as a pawn against SA when this was his witness until MW, TF and similar morally bankrupt snakes manipulated him.

All of it was to nail SA, every move on the chess board was played for that end result.

[–]thed0ngs0ng

There was a great point made before that SA's trailer wasn't actually on the Avery Salvage yard. Remiker didn't have permission to be on the ASY when he confirmed the RAV4 as TH's which was used as a basis to get the search warrant so yeah this all should have been thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree. I suspect with BD's confession being thrown out, the bullet fragment should also be thrown out as it was the result of a coerced and uncorroborated confession.

[–]tbenn585 

A contaminated test should have been inconclusive. And on top of that the deviation request that SC filed wasn't even signed by her supervisor. The dna test on the bullet should never have been allowed into evidence.

[–]sjj342

B&S actually had some pretty good motions and arguments about how most of the ASY search - basically everything found 11/6-11/12 - violated the 4th amendment. The one warrant one search rule protects LE from accusations of planting just as much as it protects rights of the accused.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Defendants-Brief-in-Support-of-Motion-to-Suppress-Evidence.pdf

[–]7-pairs-of-panties 

And what defines a "fair" investigation?

PS was working as an agent of the state. She met w/ JP at TH home right before "finding" the car. She is related to JP they have "met" before. She had his personal cell phone, RH did not give it to her. "The boss has something he want's us to do." This was planned or DR and JJ would never have been on the site as early as they were there. The Rav 4 search is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

No one was looking for a live woman. No one asked if there was any sign of TH. EVERY CAR ON THAT LOT WAS SEARCHED FOR CLUES, EXCEPT FOR THE CAR OF THE MISSING GIRL!!!

[–]seekingtruthforgood 

For me, my interest in this case has nothing to do with the procedures followed in the trial. It's about the procedures used to bring an innocent man to trial - it's about what happened before there was a trial.

Whether the judge, jurors, defense counsel or prosecuting attorney acted in good faith is NOT the issue. The issue is that the case against Avery was clearly fabricated.

The real evidence, not that freak show put on for the jurors and public, suggests that Avery is not directly or indirectly responsible for her murder. She and Avery were not in the locations presented by the state, during the timeline presented by the state. The forensic evidence (and lack thereof) points to another location, at a different time, during a window of time for which Avery was elsewhere.

So, rather than debating the process/procedures that followed during a trial, it seems more productive to debate the circumstances fabricated by LE which brought Avery to trial to begin with - he should have never been charged or prosecuted by the State - the crimes and injustice committed against Avery started long before the trial.