So the dim witted nephew made a full confession yet some nim wits... - Making a Murderer (2015) Discussion

[–] speculator-1 7 years ago

No, he didn't confess.

Come on, don't lie to us. You know what we want you to say.

Err ... yes? He said yes?

Good boy, Brendan.

Can I go home to watch wrestling now?

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

Yeah he did, it's why it was used as evidence against him and considered sufficient by a jury to convict.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] speculator-1 7 years ago

It's not a valid confession, it's a concoction by amateurish cops using a method of questioning that should not be used.

The jury should not have been exposed to that cooked-up mess, no right-minded person would consider it evidence of anything except the second-rate procedures of the police interrogators.

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

It is a valid confession as it's supported by forensic evidence and convinced the jury and after reading Dassey's testimony, I can see why. He had ample time to claim coercion yet just kept being evasive on the stand and was remarkably resistant to suggestions by the prosecutor in a far more confrontational atmosphere than his police interrogation.

I disagree. After hearing all the fuss I went into that interrogation expecting coercion. I came out thinking he was guilty.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] speculator-1 7 years ago

When he was in the police station he thought he was making the cops happy by making up fictional stories about what Uncle Steven did. It probably never occurred to him that under American law a witness can be prosecuted for the same crime as the person they are telling stories about.

When he was on the stand he must have realised that he was being accused of something he did not do. Naturally, under these circumstances he was less willing to implicate himself.

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

You don't know what he was thinking and have yet to explain how these "fictional stories" were supported by forensic evidence and instances of fact which the cops never mention. Cite and source where they do mention these specifics.

Right so what you're saying is that Dassey is resistant to suggestion in a far more combative charged atmosphere but not resistant to suggestion when it's done in a more softly-softly manner the way the cops did?
How come 70 IQ Avery wasn't coerced into confessing so? Dassey has a higher IQ than Avery and scored 83 overall, according to his own expert defence witness, so can you explain these discrepancies and his detailed knowledge? As in credibly and plausibly?

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] speculator-1 7 years ago

The forensic evidence is laughable.

Dassey talks to the cops because they offered him an inducement - that they will stick up for him, that he can go free as long as he tells stories about Avery.

Avery may be dumb, but he knows that the cops are not his friends. That's not intelligence, that is life experience.

"detailed knowledge"? The cops manufactured his testimony to match whatever meagre physical evidence they had gathered (or possibly manufactured).

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

No they don't. At no point do they tell Dassey he can go free. It's why I'm asking for explicit false promises of leniency. Neither you or fsacts have provided any explicit examples, not one.

Apologies for inferring wrongly re the age number my bad. All you've shown me is Dassey knowing she was shot twice in the head with a .22. Fassbender doesn't say how many times in which side of the head with what caliber bullet so... how does Dassey know these things? Can you explain this?

Forensic evidence wasn't laughable, it convicted Avery meaning the defence failed to explain it away to a jury's satisfaction.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] speculator-1 7 years ago

He also said she was shot 10 time and 5 times.

His first guess was that she got her throat cut.

It was like a game of Cluedo -
"Steven killed her in the bedroom with the knife"

"guess again"

"In the library with the candlestick?"

"guess again"

"In the garage with the ... gun?"

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

So? An admission against interest is considered evidence against you. Nothing else the suspect says has to be consistent or supported by evidence. Dassey's is supported by evidence.

Yeah, Dassey does indeed mention the garage first as in the garage that both happened to be cleaning with bleach by a meaningless coincidence, just as both by another coincidence were attending a bonfire. So another instance of his confession being corroborated by evidence and Avery's admission that they were indeed cleaning the garage.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

What happened to her head brendan?

Um.. he punched her..

..and then..?

He cut her hair..

..and then..?

I cut her throat..

..and then..?

She took off her hat..

..and then..?

We played dress up and gave her a tiara..

..and then..?

He put temporary tattoos on her..

..and then..?

We corrected her deviated septum..

AND THEN?!!
AND THEN?!!
AND THEN?!!
AND THEN?!!
AND THEN?!!
AND THEN?!!

...umm.. thats all i can remember.

Ok brendan i'm going to come out and ask it, who shot her in the head?

..he did.

Yup - awesome confession. Rock solid.

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

Sweat
Handcuffs
.22
Knowledge that Teresa was shot twice with a .22
Knowledge of the tires
Mentions the garage first
Both he and Avery admit cleaning the garage
Both attended the bonfire
Neither have no alibi
Both lied and changed their stories.
How does Dassey know these details facts?

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] speculator-1 7 years ago

Stop derailing.

The cops fed him the info, and then got him to agree to whatever they wanted him to say.

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

No they didn't, please cite via the interrogation transcript pages where they feed Dassey these specific details.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] speculator-1 7 years ago

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Brendan-Dassey-Interview-Transcript-2006Mar01_text.pdf

Page 587.

They keep him guessing until he gets warm enough to what they want.

When that does not work they feed him the specific detail that she was shot in the head. Something he was entirely unaware of until that point.

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

What? That PDF only has 152 pages in it not 587. Please cite where they give Dassey specific details re the sweat, tires, .22, handcuffs, Teresa being shot twice in the left side of the head with a .22.
You're making the claim so please support it by linking the relevant interrogation transcript pages, thanks.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] speculator-1 7 years ago

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Brendan-Dassey-Interview-Transcript-2006Mar01_text.pdf#page=62

The pages are numbered, you could just have scrolled down.

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

If you can't find the page then it doesn't exist? Brah. If you look at the document page numbers it is on 587.

Please cite where the evidence explicitly confirms she was shot only twice.

Please cite where the source of lead on the skull fragment is explicitly confirmed as from a bullet.

Please cite where the evidence explicitly confirms the defects on the skull are definitely from a .22

If you are going to cite these things as facts you must support it by linking to the relevant trial transcripts. Thanks.



reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

Then c&P this specific explicit promise of false leniency and post it...thanks. Otherwise you're obfuscating.

I said Dassey knew that she was shot twice in the head with a .22, not whether the court established how many timmes she was shot in total, try again and explain how Dassey knew these details, tthanks.

Don't need to, it was accepted by the court as evidence after the defence hollered frame up to their heart's content.

See above

Not really no as the convictions are after the facts were established and I'm still not interested in your obfuscation.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

I said Dassey knew that she was shot twice in the head with a .22, not whether the court established how many timmes she was shot in total

so how do you know dassey knows she was shot only twice with the .22?
He also said 3 times and 10 times. They can't all be right.

So please cite where it is explicitly determined

it was accepted by the court as evidence

are you sure about that? Please cite where it is explicitly determined the defects in skull fragments were caused by .22 impact.

Also a bit sketchy saying - "well it is accepted by the court" - therefore true.
The 'court' has convicted 2 people for the same crime with totally different murder narratives. at least one of those juries interpretted evidence in a way that is incorrect.

Then c&P this specific explicit promise of false leniency and post it

“[F]rom what I’m seeing … I’m thinking you’re all right. OK, you
don’t have to worry about things.” (ECF No. 19-25 at 16.)

...

Honesty here Brendan is the thing that’s gonna help you. OK, no matter what you did
(ECF No. 19-25
at 17.)

...

“It’s OK Brendan. We already
know,”(ECF No. 19-25 at 41.)

...

“We know
[what] happened. … We know what happened, it’s OK.” (ECF No. 19-25 at 50.)

...

After the break Fassbender told Dassey, “because of what you told us, we’re
gonna have to arrest you. … And so you’re not gonna be able to go home tonight.” (ECF
No. 19-25 at 144.)

One of the key points you are missing is how the law demands involuntary be assessed.

A false promise of leniency by itself does not determine whether or not a confession is voluntary. It is just one circumstance that must be considered when ruling on involuntary confessions in THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

The primary error in the court of appeals’ terse decision was its focus on facts in
isolation and its failure to assess voluntariness under the totality of circumstances.
Although the court of appeals correctly noted the totality of the circumstances standard
(ECF No. 1-5, ¶ 5), its decision does not reflect its application. For example, omitted
from its discussion is any consideration of how the absence of a parent or allied adult
affected the voluntariness of Dassey’s confession. Nor does the court of appeals’
decision reflect any consideration of how the investigators overcame Dassey’s resistance
by deliberately exploiting the absence of his mother, feigning paternalistic concern

Duffin elaborates in great detail on the totality of circumstances that have resulted in dasseys will being overborne by the questioning. Which is what the law demands.

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

Dassey knws she was shot twice in the left side of the head wit a .22. How does he know this when the cos never mention it?

Not interested in your rehashing of established fact but only if you can back up your claims of coercion with validity.

I said accepted by the court equates to established fact, it's one of the reasons they have trials.

Nope- Fassbender says this early in the interview before Dassey has outright confessed to anything yet, at this point they probably see him as a mere witness not a perp, so his saying he does not having anything to worry about is within context as he says from what he's seeing.

Yes honesty does indeed help one when one has done something horrible and wishes to get it off their chest, no matter what they did.

Yeah cops are allowed to they they already know everything to suspects and are allowed to trick and lies to them as well, doesn't constitute coercion.

Yeah totality of circumstances is that Dassey had already volunteered info in previous interviews, had his confession supported by evidence, had an admission against interest explained to him and was offered a lawyer which he refused and was read his rights, that's the totality of the situation and one of several reasons I have hope that Duffin will be overruled. You seem confident though, props.

Anyhooo, any actual non open to interpretation explicit false promises of leniency, rather than the waffle you c&p'd from the Gospel According to St Duffin?

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

Dassey knws she was shot twice in the left side of the head wit a .22

again. How do you know he knows that any better than he knows she was shot 10 times? Or that her hair was cut?

Any actual non open to interpretation evidence she was shot only twice in the left side of the head with a .22?


Yeah cops are allowed to they they already know everything to suspects and are allowed to trick and lies to them as well, doesn't constitute coercion.

of course they are. In many circumstances it is totally acceptable. However in this case as the duffinator explains, the trickery and lies has contributed to a number of other factors which have overborne dasseys will.
Involuntary isn't determined by how many lies you are told. It is how the totality of the circumstances have effected your ability to give a willful confession.

The fact you keep repeating "show me explicit examples" over and over again highlights a particular lack of understanding on how involuntary confessions are determined.

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

Now facts you should know by now that your evasiveness is of zero interest to me. Dassey shouldn't know any of these things and ever since I started discussing this case, not one of you supporters have given a satisfactory answer for this and other instances of fact that supports Dassey's confession. Says it all about how weak your case is.

Dassey's will wasn't overborn and Duffin provides nothing credible to support his opinion and that's all it seems to be. I do agree with the article when it says he simply seems to dislike the appellate court's decision to uphold Dassey's conviction but provides nothing of actual viable substance to support his dislike.

No. It just means you can't provide explicit examples and neither can Duffin. It's again one of several reasons that I have renewed hope he'll be overruled.
He's already lost round one as Dassey's still in Oz.
We'll see how he does in round two.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

Dassey knws she was shot twice in the left side of the head wit a .22. How does he know this when the cos never mention it?

He had a 50/50 chance of getting it right. Pretty good odds.

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

No he didn't and you're viewing his confession in a piecemeal manner, sorry.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

So please cite where it is explicitly determined

I love that you're asking Corpus to cite things. That used to be his ploy!

There's no joy in discussing this case with him, as you will soon find out, if you don't know it already. But I greatly admire your effort and willingness!



reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

He's asking me to cite what the court already covered, so I have no need to do so.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

You're asking me to cite what the court already covered. Sooo..?

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 7 years ago

So the dim witted nephew made a full confession yet some nim wits......still think they could be innocent?! Astounding.

I think what's astounding is that you yourself refer to him as "dimwitted" yet seem think there's no way his confession could be coerced.

reply

[–] law607 7 years ago

@Corpus...

I was interrogating a child pedophile one afternoon. He was distracted by 2 children playing near a large generator outside the window of the interrogation room. When the children appeared, he opened up and started talking freely about his crimes. A few moments later, the children walked off and he clamed up and stopped talking.

I grabbed another detective and told him to go get those children and tell them to go back to the generator. He found the kids and told them that money was lost around the generator and if they find it, they could keep it.

I moved the suspect's chair so he could have a better view out of the window. The children returned and he gave a full confession about several crimes in which he committed.

His eventual attorney filed a motion to suppress the confession on the grounds of coercion. The Court of Appeals granted the motion because I positioned his chair in a manner as to see children playing outside.

BD might be the guiltiest person on this earth, but that confession was absolutely coerced.

30 yrs retired 18 yrs homicide.

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

Thanks for your thoughtful and informative post, Law. With respect, can you explain how it falls under the actual standard definition of coercion? The Reid technique itself is not akin to coercion. Maybe PACE is better but as it stands Reid is allowed, so attacking the actual technique itself (not saying you're doing this personally to clarify but some have argued this) is to me akin to evasion as it avoids the actual content and evidence. If you're a retired detective, then you know far better than I do that suspects rarely confess right off the bat, but need the confession coaxed out of them, which can often come in waves over the course of several interviews.

“To confront a suspect who lies or keeps on denying his implication in a crime, Inbau et al. have developed an interview process designed to break his resistance, give him a chance to confess while minimising the consequences, and prevent him from losing face.”

— Michel St-Yves, “Police interrogation in Canada: from the quest for confession to the search for truth”, in Tom Williamson, Becky Mile and Stephen P Savage (eds), International Developments in Investigative Interviewing, (2009) [Willan Publishing, 2009], 92-110, Confrontation: the nine steps of the Reid technique, p 97.

Imagine you're still a detective in say, the state of NY. You bust a perp for murder with his DNA on the murder weapon (knife) and victim's on the blade. However it's LCN (low copy number DNA) but accepted by NY. Now imagine a defence expert witness claimed that the DNA should be discarded because it was LCN. Wouldn't that be attacking the science in order to avoid the evidence? Wouldn't the same principal apply here? Attacking the technique to avoid the evidence?
Thanks again for your post Law, you've given me food for thought, even if I disagree at present.

However you have the on the ground experience and I respect your opinion on the matter and very much appreciate your thoughtful post and your point is very much taken on board.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] law607 7 years ago

First let me say that I viewed this Doc when it first came out so my memory is fuzzy. I'm going to talk about that coercion as aspect as well as how the case was handled

It wasn't any one particular thing that led me to the conclusion of coercion but rather the totality of all the circumstances involved with the whole interview / interrogation.

Investigators can lie and use trickery during the course of an interrogation however they can't go overboard with the deception. There are intrinsic lies (dealing with the current investigation) and extrinsic lies (relating to legal issues or the court system)

Intrinsic lies are ok to a certain degree where an investigator might say..."Brendan, the neighbor saw you and SA carrying a body out of the trailer"

However an extrinsic lie such as "the courts will not do anything to you because of you age" is crossing the line. I thought I remembered hearing something like this but I could be wrong.

Another area of concern for me was the fact that BD is/was a 16 kid with the IQ of a lunch box. They were putting words in his mouth and then asking him to repeat them. All the while, BD believed in his mind that he was going home to watch a wrestling match.

The fact that his mother was not present was alarming. I realize he was 16 but when you're dealing with someone with a low IQ, you have to know that his mental capacity is going to come up during a suppression hearing.

I believe at some point one of the investigators said "ok, Im just going to say it...you shot her in the head". OK, You never ever give details about a crime to a suspect. You hold on to the details to eliminate potential publicity nuts wanting to take credit for the crime.

The moment Lenk and Colburn walked onto the property of SA, the crime scene was compromised and any and all evidence should have been suppressed.

I know I went into a different direction but in all honesty, everyone involved in this case should have been fired.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

However an extrinsic lie such as "the courts will not do anything to you because of you age" is crossing the line. I thought I remembered hearing something like this but I could be wrong.

I don't think they ever mentioned his age, but they implied -- and actually said -- "you're going to be all right"; "if you didn't do anything", and said they were his friends and were looking out for him and would "talk to the DA". They implied all along that all they wanted from him was information. Any 16 year old would have believed them, and the highly suggestible, passive, anxious-to-please Brendan was duck soup for these two.

I believe at some point one of the investigators said "ok, Im just going to say it...you shot her in the head"

Wiegert said this, except he said "who shot her in the head?" He had obviously lost patience and violated his own technique.

Also the man who came up with the Reid technique said it should not be used on those underage or mentally ill or with mental incapacities, i.e. someone like Brendan.

The moment Lenk and Colburn walked onto the property of SA, the crime scene was compromised and any and all evidence should have been suppressed.

This is what astounds me. I'd think a judge might have rightfully declared inadmissible any evidence they had anything to do with, which would, basically be all of it, in that they were there when the key was found, Lenk was there when the bullets were found, and arrived shortly after the RAV was found, and they were heavily involved in the entire investigation. Manitowoc County itself said they had a conflict of interest, and yet allowed these two to work this investigation.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

law I mostly agree with you about BD's confession. Were you fired for moving the suspect's chair? No.

I don't agree with
"The moment Lenk and Colburn walked onto the property of SA, the crime scene was compromised and any and all evidence should have been suppressed."

LE were looking for a missing young woman. AC was sent to visit SA. At this point SA's could hardly be considered "a crime scene". Hindsight is 20/20. At that time AC was just doing his job. AC and Lenk were not being sued and were not on the force in 1985 so it is a bit of a stretch to say conflict of interest at that point early in the investigation. This is Mayberry not NYPD. Incompetence yes.

Do you think info from a jailhouse snitch is reliable? All AC did was forward a phone call in 1995 when he wasn't even a police officer yet.

Throw out the key and the bullet as evidence. Most would agree it was the blood in the Rav 4, the bones and burned personal items that convicted SA along with the words of his own family members and SA's actions on Oct. 31.

Zellner seems to have tweeted that the blood didn't come from the vial. We'll see what she comes up with.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

AC was sent to visit SA

Not precisely. Wiegert radioed Colborn to send someone to the Avery property. Colborn decided to go himself instead of delegating it, even though his shift was almost over.

reply

[–] law607 7 years ago

law I mostly agree with you about BD's confession. Were you fired for moving the suspect's chair? No.

Oh no. It was nothing malicious on my part. While the confession was tossed, we still secured a conviction and he received some pretty good time. The scales of justice lean towards the defendant. As an investigator, you have to get near "that line" without crossing it. You learn from your mistakes and move on.

LE were looking for a missing young woman. AC was sent to visit SA. At this point SA's could hardly be considered "a crime scene". Hindsight is 20/20. At that time AC was just doing his job.

Once again it has been a while since I have watched the doc but I am referring to the moment that SA was named a person of interest. The investigation was turned over to a neighboring agency and I believe someone said during an TV interview that MSO personnel would not be used and that if they needed anything from Manitowoc, it would only be equipment related.

They transferred the investigation and made that statement with respect to manpower to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety. Once a department relinquishes control of an investigation, they are completely out of that investigation to avoid exactly this type of situation. I'm not saying they planted evidence, Im saying the fact that they were even at the crime scene raises enough doubt that any evidence obtained by them should have been excluded.

Do you think info from a jailhouse snitch is reliable? All AC did was forward a phone call in 1995 when he wasn't even a police officer yet.

It all depends on his/her motive to provide that information. Information is just that...information. That information should be corroborated by at least one or two sources to determine its validity and full disclosure should be made in regards to what the snitch is receiving for that info.

Throw out the key and the bullet as evidence. Most would agree it was the blood in the Rav 4, the bones and burned personal items that convicted SA along with the words of his own family members and SA's actions on Oct. 31.

I would agree with this however with everything else involved in this case, I believe that SA deserves a new trial. The thing is...do it right the first time and you won't have these problems.

reply

[–] law607 7 years ago

I just want to put it in perspective as to the severity of the violation that Lenk and Colburn committed by even walking onto the property.

Neither of them had any, zero no jurisdiction whatsoever to even be on the property much less search for evidence. Once the investigation was transferred, the jurisdiction associated with the investigation and crime scene went with it.

It would be like if they went to New York and started to investigate a crime.

I have seen some absolute knuckle headed things done in law enforcement over the years and I know you said they are like Mayberry, but I don't believe I have ever seen two more ignorant law enforcement officers than Lenk and Colburn....Hell, also ANYONE in the chain of command above Lenk and Colburn.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

"Once the investigation was transferred" What date was that? Wasn't TH a missing person until Nov. 8 or later? Are you saying all Man. LE should not have been involved in the missing person search? I agree Man. LE shouldn't have been involved after Nov. 8.

"the severity of the violation that Lenk and Colburn committed by even walking onto the property." Are you speaking legally or ethically in hindsight? Before or after Nov. 8? Lenk and AC were not being sued. Are you saying LE shouldn't investigate anyone suspected of a crime when there is a lawsuit against the police dept. and those LE are not being sued?

It could have been a number of suspects at ASY. I am not sure how LE stepping on ASY is a violation. The Rav 4 was found by a civilian who was given permission by an Avery brother. If Zellner can prove otherwise that's a different story. One poster asked me to prove the evidence was NOT planted. Just let that sink in...law, prove something was NOT planted. The goal line will just keep moving. Blood not from the vial...somewhere else. Prove that there is no Santa Clause.

Since SA is convicted, the burden of proof is NOW on Zellner to prove evidence was planted. Do you think if SA had an "airtight alibi" 10 months ago and "all roads lead to one door" we would be waiting for a year?

What do you think of BJ asking her son if he did what they were saying and BD said "Some of it", but denied selling crack? At that time SA's own sister thought SA was guilty. She should have been there with her son...that's partly on her.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

Once the investigation was transferred" What date was that? Wasn't TH a missing person until Nov. 8 or later? Are you saying all Man. LE should not have been involved in the missing person search? I agree Man. LE shouldn't have been involved after Nov. 8.

Pretty sure the announcement about transferring the case was made on Nov. 5, after finding the RAV. Kratz actually came to the salvage yard that afternoon, apparently. Why would he, unless he expected to be involved?

Don't you agree that there would be much less controversy and suspicion if Manitowoc County had not, as they said, been at all involved in this case? If no one from Manitowoc County had, as Law says, ever set foot on the property? Their excuse for barring the coroner from the bones discovery and the burn pit was partly because of conflict of interest, and yet they had MC law enforcement everywhere. It's just part of why this investigation is so tainted, in my opinion.

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

What the f___ are you talking about bernie?

One poster asked me to prove the evidence was NOT planted. Just let that sink in...law, prove something was NOT planted. The goal line will just keep moving. Blood not from the vial...somewhere else. Prove that there is no Santa Clause.

??

Since SA is convicted, the burden of proof is NOW on Zellner to prove evidence was planted. Do you think if SA had an "airtight alibi" 10 months ago and "all roads lead to one door" we would be waiting for a year?

Seriously? Where's the relevance here?

Msd shouldn't have been there, accept it. Move on. It seems like you are seeking positive affirmations from law on other issues in an attempt to deflect from the core issue that the officers who asked to be excluded should have remained excluded to maintain the integrity of the investigation. Its pretty simple!

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

FacrUnderChecK Off topic was I? FactUnderChecK awful sorry, thought I was having a civil debate with law about guilt and innocence which is what the OP was about. FactUnderChecK (off topic again here I guess), said the following to me on Oct. 5...

"If he was planning something he would have called her direct but he doesn't want to pay the extra couple $ for a hustle shot so he organizes it through AT."

This is what FactUnder tried to pass off as "facts". In fact SA is actually denying TH the extra money she would get from AT for a hustle shot (not $ from the customer). Was SA that mean-spirited or was there another reason he did not call her directly (and also used *67) when SA had her number and TH had his number? Who gives a contact number (BJ) for someone SA knows is going to be at work all day?

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 7 years ago

 wow bernie. Thanks for another super relevant post...

reply

[–] law607 7 years ago

"Are you saying all Man. LE should not have been involved in the missing person search? I agree Man. LE shouldn't have been involved after Nov. 8."

No, they should have been searching because at that time...there was no conflict of interest. I'm saying that once the announcement was made that the case was transferred to a different county, then Manitowoc should have had nothing more to do with the case at that point. I believe the announcement to transfer was after SA became a suspect.

Obviously somebody somewhere felt there was enough of conflict of interest concerning SA and MCSO for them to make the decision to transfer the case.

"Are you speaking legally or ethically in hindsight?"

Both. From a legal stand point, they could have been charged with obstruction of justice. They had no more legal right to enter that crime scene as Robert did from the corner store. They had no legal authority to be where they were and to do what they did. In a sense, they tampered with a crime scene.

From an ethical stand point...Removing yourself from a case is done to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Both officers were veterans and should have known this.

From a civil stand point...If they were to lose the case based on the actions of Lenk and Colburn then they are both open to lawsuits along with the MCSO.

Before or after Nov. 8? Lenk and AC were not being sued.

It doesn't matter who or what was being sued. Someone thought there was enough conflict of interest to remove MCSO from the case.

Are you saying LE shouldn't investigate anyone suspected of a crime when there is a lawsuit against the police dept. and those LE are not being sued?

Absolutely. I'm saying that if John Smith is suing my department for excessive force and then it is determined that our Narco unit is working a meth lab case on John Smith...I would have shut it down and told them to turn it over to the county and have no further involvement whatsoever.

Just to give an example...We once removed a detective from a case where a witness to the crime was a babysitter for the detective's ex wife that he had never met. Too many chances for a lawyer to play games.

It could have been a number of suspects at ASY. I am not sure how LE stepping on ASY is a violation.

Everything I'm talking about is after SA becomes a suspect and they said that MCSO would have no involvement.

What do you think of BJ asking her son if he did what they were saying and BD said "Some of it", but denied selling crack? At that time SA's own sister thought SA was guilty. She should have been there with her son...that's partly on her.

I do not take much away from any of that. As I recall, the mother didn't even know what a particular word meant.

Personally I think if Zellner could get a new trial out of Manitowoc she would have a better chance at attacking inconsistencies in testimony, suppressing certain evidence etc.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

Thanks for clearing that distinction up. You originally said AC should never have set foot on ASY...that was days before Cal. took over. I believe Man. was to give "equipment" backup, am I wrong? It's not really like Clint Eastwood in NYC. (obscure movie reference)

As for Barb. The new BD defense motion quotes her. She does not sound particularly slow, it sounds like common sense advice to her son:

BARB: Ya. When did you go over [to Avery’s trailer]? BRENDAN: I went over there earlier and then came home before you did. BARB: Why didn’t you say something to me then? BRENDAN: I dunno, I was too scared. BARB: You wouldn’t have had to been scared because I would have called 911 and you wouldn’t be going back over there. If you would have been here maybe she would have been alive yet. So in those statements you did all that to her too?
BRENDAN: Some of it.

Who was BD scared of? In my opinion BD was coerced by everyone, including SA.

"maybe she would have been alive yet."

I hope BD gets out and tells the truth, whatever that is.

reply

[–] law607 7 years ago

Thanks for clearing that distinction up. You originally said AC should never have set foot on ASY...that was days before Cal. took over. I believe Man. was to give "equipment" backup, am I wrong? It's not really like Clint Eastwood in NYC. (obscure movie reference)

From what I remember, the gentleman gave a conference and stated the investigation was being transferred and that no one from MCSO would be involved in the case however they may use their equipment. My only problem is with ANY MCSO deputy going on to the property after that statement was made.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

I have seen some absolute knuckle headed things done in law enforcement over the years and I know you said they are like Mayberry, but I don't believe I have ever seen two more ignorant law enforcement officers than Lenk and Colburn....Hell, also ANYONE in the chain of command above Lenk and Colburn.

It's always puzzled me why they continued to be part of the investigation, since conflict of interest was the very reason the case was turned over to Calumet County. I've heard the reason was shortage of manpower but I flat don't believe that. Calumet County had detectives; in fact, several worked the investigation. So why did they think it was okay for Colborn and Lenk -- and other MC LE, as well -- to be actively involved? The only explanation I can think of is that they were not supposed to be "officially" involved -- Kucharski's report about finding the key never mentions their names -- or that their superiors didn't know they were involved. But how could that be? If they weren't investigating the Halbach case, surely they would have been assigned somewhere....as in somewhere else.

I think they never dreamed it would be known or become so controversial, and the conflict of interest business was mostly lip service.

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

I honestly didn't see any promises of leniency re the courts. They simply said we'll go to bat for you, stand behind you no matter what you did because you're being the good guy here. But no explicit promises of leniency re the courts.

Dassey's IQ is higher than Avery's according to his own expert witness, who stated he's in the low average range

His intellectual functioning was assessed by means of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test-2 and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. On both tests, he received comparable IQ scores. On the WASI, Brendan obtained a Full Scale IQ of 81. On the KBIT-2, he received a Verbal IQ of 84, a Nonverbal IQ of 87, and a Composite of 83. Thus, according to Wechsler norms, Brendan’s IQ scores all fall within the “low average” range of intelligence.
Robert H. Gordon, Ph.D

But this was in the context of Dassey having already being allowed to go home after volunteering incriminating info, so his expectation isn't that outlandish if you consider this. Or maybe he was savvy enough to think he'd be able to post bail, especially if he has relatives who are ex cons or have been in trouble with the cops before.

The law didn't require that his mother be present though and in fairness they were probably afraid he'd clam up in front of his mother, especially if confessing to serious crimes. She was nearby as she appears right after the confession, with Dassey telling her that they got inside his head.

I completely agree with you on Fassbender's question being completely inappropriate and that he never should have mentioned it. But I don't think this automatically nullified the confession and Fassbender never says anything about a .22, Teresa being shot twice or it being in the left side of the head. Dassey knows these things anyway.

I would respectfully disagree re Colborn and Lenk and that would be mainly for reasons which Bernie covered. To clarify though I'm not saying there weren't problems with the investigation, but surely most investigations are "flawed" to a degree as cops are fallible humans prone to error like everyone else. I don't think the problems/flaws were severe enough to actually compromise the investigation though. I have no problems with you going off in another direction either btw as I value your opinion, due to your experience and any additional comments you make are quite welcome.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] law607 7 years ago

The law didn't require that his mother be present though and in fairness they were probably afraid he'd clam up in front of his mother, especially if confessing to serious crimes.

Correct. However the thought is and should always be...

As an investigator you always want to get a confession but more importantly, you want/need that confession to hold up during a suppression hearing or appeal. This is/was a very serious crime and those 2 investigators HAD to know that BDs mental capacity was going to come in to play with respect to an appeal.

The options are you go ahead with the interrogation w/out a parent present and you take your chances with an appeal. An investigator should never take chances especially when it is a homicide case.

or

You cover you butt and get the parent in the room or at least give her the option. Now when it comes time for an appeal, the investigators can say they went above and beyond the requirements associated with interrogating a suspect.

I completely agree with you on Fassbender's question being completely inappropriate and that he never should have mentioned it. But I don't think this automatically nullified the confession

That in itself does not nullify the confession. It just makes it incredibly sloppy and inappropriate police work and at the end of the day you have to ask yourself...Why did he give that information?

To be perfect honest with you...I'm not saying BD is innocent or guilty, I'm saying that if I was in the room that day, I could have got BD to confess to the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown.

To clarify though I'm not saying there weren't problems with the investigation, but surely most investigations are "flawed" to a degree as cops are fallible humans prone to error like everyone else. I don't think the problems/flaws were severe enough to actually compromise the investigation though.

Oh sure, there are flaws in every investigation. An example of a flaw would be the testing of 5 drops of blood when there was 7 drops. Failing to note the exact time that Miranda was issued or even failing to sign a search warrant. All dumb mistakes without malice.

What Lenk and Colburn did races well past any flaw and rises the criminal level. They were basically told to stay out of the investigation. They inserted themselves into the crime scene and found evidence. They knowingly and willfully tampered with a crime scene of a murder investigation for which they had absolutely no jurisdiction. This is a very serious offense. The kind of offense that causes suppression of evidence and immediate mistrials in most likely any other state in America.

In my department, not only does that get you terminated from your career, it also gets you indicted on Obstruction of justice charges.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

in most likely any other state in America.

Which may also address the question of why W&F felt safe in repeatedly questioning Brendan alone.

They had to know their own state's propensities.

reply

[–] allthewine 7 years ago

I guess you haven't heard of false confessions?

*beep*

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

His confession wasn't ruled as false, but involuntary.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] danielk-73606 7 years ago

Not sure who has the lowest IQ, you or Brendan.

reply