http://www.inquisitr.com/3445896/brendan-dassey-former-attorney-kachinsky-fires-back-at-bullies-says-he-helped-with-overturned-conviction/
-----
Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/
*huge eye roll*
Yea, since when is selling your client down the river doing him/her a favor? He really is a piece of work. Doesn't like all the negative press? Too bad. Should have thought of that before.
Even if Dassey is guilty of all he claimed (raping and participating in the murder of TH), he did an AWFUL job as a lawyer.
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HEVYU46giQ
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
People talking about stich ups ie avery and dassey. But len was stiched up also. When len took over the case dassey had already confessed to the crime. Len then tried to get the confessions suppresed which was actually denied.
Thats when he went for the plea deal. Tbh he was out of options. If dassey had listened to len it would have ended much better for him. He wanted dassey to testify
against steve. The whole point of the pi getting involved the guy with the ribbon was to get a confession out of dassey to show he was a credible witness to testify against steve.
Under mounting pressure from steve avery and the avery family they got brendan to get rid of len. Which was actually denied. Then len off his own back asked to leave the case. New lawyer came in went with he just made up the confession...ended up getting life with no parole for 41 years. Len was going for a twenty year plea deal.
Unlike the lawyer brendan went with in the end len was smart enough to know what the outcome was gonna be.
There was nothing len could do when he came on board. Go with the he made it up and end up with life no parole for 41 years or go for the twenty year plea deal.
Oh, kettle.....
I can't believe you are defending Len Kachinsky. As Judge Duffin pointed out he spent about one hour talking to his client and ten addressing the media. And still you think his big concern was Brendan?
He had recently lost an election. In my opinion, he courted the prosecution because he knew Kratz and others had political influence.
The whole point of the pi getting involved the guy with the ribbon was to get a confession out of dassey to show he was a credible witness to testify against steve
Honestly dont agree at all. They had little option. For all we know brendans sat and told him all about the avery family. We know that he told his mum that steve had touched him.
I dont think o kelly is just putting it on paper due to hear say. We cant really say tbh because we dont know what was said or where o kelly got it from.
They picked the best route for their client it cant even be denied. Because we seen how it turned out for brendan when he chose to go the other way. They really had no other choice. Its like people watch a documentary make their mind up and it now cant be changed.
What were they to do...they tried to get the confession supressed. The judge denied it. Having brendan turn up at that point to court saying he made it up wasnt in his best interests.
Getting that plea deal was at that stage. It cant even be denied. There wasnt really another option.
As a "guilter" I have to admit O'Kelly's interrogation was deplorable. If Brendan and his family wanted to go with not guilty he should have bitten the bullet and tried to represent them to the best of his ability. It was suicide, but hey these people are willing to fall on their sword for Steven.
Having said that, I can't feel too bad for Brendan as he had an opportunity to come clean and he chose not to take it.
How do you know he didn't come clean? He said everything from he never even saw Teresa to he raped, slit her throat and helped cover up, and everything in between.
LE, and his own lawyer and hired PI thought he was gulilty. If he said anything to the contrary he was "lying."
Ok let me preface even thing by saying "In My opinion":
Personally I just don't believe that someone would come forward and admit something as serious as murder, especially if we are talking about the child like, mentally retarded person that many on this board constantly paint Dassey like. Whilst I believe that he may have been lead to say certain things in his confession, I just don't believe the things he told Kayla came out of nowhere. I just don't see how this kid who is so mentally disadvantaged could invent a story convincing enough that his own cousin felt compelled to go to her counsellors to seek advice on the matter. Not only that, he also lost a significant amount of weight during the period, and I kept help but wonder why he would make such a story up in the first place.
We then have the confession to his mother on the phone, which has been discussed ad nauseum so I know the argument to explain this, but again I just don't buy it. What he said about Steven touching him wasn't suggested by the cops, and it sounded like an explanation to why he didn't tell his mother at the time i.e. he was scared of Steven.
These two "confessions" to family members are the main reasons why i think he was involved, but there are also other details which add to my suspicions. For instance the FACT he was with Steven that night, that he did have bleach on his jeans and that sweat was found on the hood latch after his confession informed LE that SA had disconnected the battery (any fact that was he put forward). I am aware of the issues regarding these three things, but my opinion would still remain the same even if they weren't a factor.
Again this is just my opinion.
And...the judge says? You of course know more than the judge who overturned Brendan's conviction and threw out his confession!
Oh happy day! We are now to be judged by posters on this board using their suppositions and speculations. Yep! There's nothing like getting to the facts by using the peanut gallery on the outside looking in projecting their thoughts as to what really, really happened!
Judge, jury and executioner if needed. We will just throw our hands up, do an eye roll, do away with attorneys, judges and courtrooms, the constitution, etc.
Then we come to this board to use the ever so knowledgeable sages to determine guilt or innocence....somewhat like a coup....
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
What an idiot.
Did I not say in my opinion? I couldnt care less what the judge stated..they have to be sure and make sure everyone is treated fairly by the law... I/we dont have to. Are you trying to say judges don't make mistakes? If so then Avery should stay in jail regardless.
But hey I knew someone would say something stupid, which is why I said in my opinion. I explained the reasons for my opinions but hey lets just ignore that for what Duffin said , when all Duffin is concerned with is are the standards being met. Did he state whether he though Dassey was innocent or not? No he didnt, so we are still free to speculate.
By the way everything you said to me could be applied to those who think Avery is innocent.
The very first case were DNA was used to convict a murder also was used to disprove a confession.
In the UK a 17 year old kid with a low IQ confessed to killing a young girl.
There was a similar murder in the area that the police had linked and try as the might they could not get the Kid to confess to the other murder. The lead detective had read up on this new science called DNA and wanted to use it to prove the kid did the other murder. So they tested the sample for the other murder and it did not match the kid, so they decided to test the sample for the murder the kid confessed to and again it did not match but both samples came from the same killer. Therefore the kid was release and thousands of men in the area were tested, but there was no match. The killer (Colin Pitchfork) was caught when his friend told his colleagues over drinks that he took the test for a friend for money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pitchfork
DNA isn't required to secure a conviction anyway though, it simply means that detection technology has improved, but the burden of proof bar isn't raised to accommodate the technology.
Dassey's confession isn't ruled as false by Duffin.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Gee, thanks! We now have another little person when frustrated insults and calls posters names. Just like a school yard bully! Very mature response. You may wish to read, several times may behoove you, WhatLarks comment by a former prosecutor, Robert Milan.
Q: From a prosecutor's perspective, does the lack of corroboration in Brendan's confession, in the form of evidence, or otherwise, give you pause or concern?
Milan:
________________________________________
Yeah, from a prosecutor's perspective, you know Dr. Cavanagh and Laura and others can talk about the child's psychological issues and the demeanor as Laura pointed out and things that others look at, but from a prosecutor, the way I looked at a case, was corroboration. And to me, and I've taught this over and over again, but a confession is absolutely worthless unless you can corroborate it. I'll say it again: a confession is absolutely worthless unless it can be corroborated. And if you look at the Brendan Dassey case, there is zero corroboration, to back up that very, very weak confession he gave. The evidence that would've been left at that scene could not have been cleaned up by the sharpest individual, let alone Avery and Dassey. There is no way, they could have cleaned up all that blood. There is no way that there wouldn't have been marks left from shackles on the bed and everything else. There is no way that that young woman's hair wouldn't have been found in that trailer, or semen on the sheets of the bedding. Not a chance that those things wouldn't have been found. And the fact that there is zero physical evidence to corroborate a very, very weak and ridiculous confession taken by that young man should be enough for the Wisconsin prosecutors and the Wisconsin police to walk away from that case.
[Re: MAM] "I found myself screaming at the television, screaming at Mr. Kratz like the rest of you, and as I broke this thing down, this is how I looked at it. It started out with a conflict of interest. I mean how did this whole thing start going south? That they were wise enough to call in the Special Prosecutor - a moronic Special Prosecutor, but they brought in Special Prosecutor. But they weren't wise enough to keep the original cops out of this. So that's how this whole thing starts going sideways. Followed by Kratz's press conference regarding Mr. Dassey's confession, which was outrageous. Followed by the fact that Kratz commits a huge discovery violation by questioning Bobby Dassey during trial about a statement that the defense attorneys never heard about. Followed by the defense attorney for Brendan, Kachinsky, absolutely selling him out with the investigator. Followed by a series of rulings by the judge that were outrageous. One being no gag order: I mean why prosecutors and defense attorneys they're stepping up to cameras after every day at trial, is beyond me. And then followed by what I aleady mentioned, which was zero corroboration to substantiate the confession. This was more than a perfect storm; this was an absolute disaster."
to kpaptest
Ill repeat what I said previously. He wasn't on the cops radar until Kayla came forward, and I am not convinced that someone would make something up like that coupled with his weight loss and bouts of uncontrollable sobbing. Then there is the convo with his mother, that again whilst there is a rationalised explanation for it, I choose to believe the other rational explanation, that two strangers couldn't get a someone to purposely lie to the one person they are closest with, especially over something so serious. There is nothing you can put forward that by itself will make what you are saying more probable than my beliefs, and vice versa.
I will endeavour to watch the interviews though Cat as I should be informed when discussing them, especially as I do believe he was lead in at least some of the areas.
Another prosecutor's perspective:
“It’s not terribly relevant if we think Brendan and Steven did what they are accused of,” said Christy Keating, King County deputy prosecuting attorney. “This is really about the importance of humility and the self-awareness as we go forward in investigation, especially for the police officers and prosecutors.”https://lsj.washington.edu/news/2016/02/26/interdisciplinary-panel-deconstructs-making-murderer
Keating blamed what she considers an invalid conviction on the confirmation bias of the investigating officers and the prosecuting attorney. She was particularly critical of the prosecuting attorney’s comments to the media.
“The reason they did that was not necessarily a malicious attempt to frame him, I see it as an attempt for them to confirm that he was guilty — they suspected it, so they made it happen,” she said. “Him engaging with the media appears to be him confirming with them what he believed to be true.”
Keating described the prosecutor’s actions as motivated by “hubris, not humility,” a dangerous style for a powerful public official.
“Unwillingness to acknowledge biases’ existence can cause a downward spiral in the justice system, [and] we really see that in ‘Making a Murderer,’” Keating said. “It’s pretty clear that some shortcuts were taken.”
Though Keating considers Avery guilty of the crime, in her opinion, the weakness of the case and the missteps by the prosecutor means the case does not fulfill her standards for a conviction in court.
Also, some arguments about what Brendan said are circular. For instance, some point out that he talked about the hood latch and sweat. He was led to talk about the RAV. He was asked if "he did something under the hood" by Fassbender. He earlier said SA was sweaty, also while being led.
The same with the gun and the shooting. He never mentioned shooting until they came right out and asked him. And yet people use that to "show" that he knew things and volunteered them.
Everything incriminating thing he said was suggested to him. And then some use that he said those things to show that he was telling the truth!
The first thing I want to ask is, did you listen to BDs first questioning, and all of his interrogations? That's the very first thing I did in investigating this case, and listened and watched them in chronological order. Have you done this? If not, and I suspect not, I suggest you do, and with as objective a mind as you can manage.
It's beyond me how anyone could do that and walk away thinking Brendan is or was merely a shy teen.
Have you ignored the number of links posted here about the frequency of false confessions given by youths, especially when the Reid technique is applied to them (which was not its intention), and that's not even addressing the FACTS that he's mildly retarded/cognitively impaired and even less adept with words?
All is very clearly not well in Brendan s brain. It doesn't take someone with extraordinary powers of perception and observation to see it.
Do you by chance have a link to Kayla and her counselor s statements? My impression was she said it to get attention, but I'd rather reread it than go on old impressions.
There is no evidence Brendan lost a lot of weight. That's just a fact. He told his mom LE, and perhaps Kayla, said he'd lost "a lot of weight" because he was upset about what happened with Teresa, but it was because his very first girlfriend said he was fat, and then dumped him. Does this sound unbelievable to you? It sounds very believable to me. Why would you disbelieve this yet believe his "confessing " to his mom the same night LE leaned on him so hard, and TOLD him to call his mom that night and confess, because it was better she heard it from him than from them?
He also recanted to her in the very next conversation, when he was no longer pressured by LE.
We have no way of knowing if sweat was found on the latch or not. Regardless, he mentions sweat ONCE, supposedly hours before the RAV, was moved, supposedly when SA first answered the door. WTH kind of evidence is that?? Not only that, but it was W&F who lead him to even talk about anything to do with SA going under the hood at all. When first asked, he said no. When they made it clear he'd answered "wrong,' he agreed, as he did throughout his interrogations. How can you be oblivious to all of this? If it's because you haven't actually listened to and watched what he said, which is what I suspect, please do so.
This sounds bad but I really have no desire to watch a four hour long interview filled with guresome details. I have already said that I believe the interogations may be problematic, but the reasons for my doubting his innocence lies with the "confessions" he gave to his family members. I doesnt surprise me Kayla would say something like that but lets be real now: She wanted attention from a murder case where her uncle had already been arrested for it and he had already served 12 years for a crime he didnt commit? I cant believe someone would dare be that reckless, even at 14.
His confession to Barb could indeed be him acting on what the officers said (although we all seem to think it was a nefarious reason, when they could have just been trying to tell him to be honest to his mother) but regardless IMO I believe the bond between mother and son just wouldnt be broken that easily. I dont really believe a son would lie to his mother just because two cops (who he already said he didnt like) told him to, ad he wouldnt just say "mom they got me to say things I didnt do, I'm scared", I might be wrong but there is no way to prove the opposite is more likely.
In regards to the sweat I never cared much about that. I more interested in that he stated that the battery was disconnected which, and (honestly) correct me if i am wrong, they never told him about.
I understand why you are trying to talk me out of this opinion but I honestly dont think it is as clear sided to be able to be sure either way.
he wouldnt just say "mom they got me to say things I didnt do, I'm scaredthat is pretty much exactly what he says in a later conversation to his mother.
That's what I thought. In reality it's much more than four hours, the four hours was only ONE DAY of his being interrogated.
I'm pretty squeamish, and the worst is hearing Kratz's made up accounting of the events, picked out of the MANY, contradictory things Brendan said, which, if you actually listen to and watch, is very clear he's making it up as he goes along because W&F refuse to believe him when he tells the truth, and threaten him when he says things that don't coincide with their narrative. They then accuse him of lying, and say they can't help him if he "lies," but can and will "back him up' if he says what they want him to say.
It's so obvious he's guessing, trying to figure out what they want him to say, so it really isn't gruesome. It's very tragically absurd. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
Why wouldn't Kayla be that reckless? We already know she comes from a highly dysfunctional family. Again, do you have a link to her and her counselor's reports? I know her testimony recantation, but not exactly what she said to LE, or her counselor.
But he DID tell his mom he was scared, and that he hadn't done what he'd just "confessed " to. I tend to think W&F were SO intent on getting A confession, they were blinded by everything else, including common sense. Either that or they're both incredibly stupid, or really were in on some convoluted conspiracy to frame SA, and BD was collateral damage.
We already know Brendan lied to his mom, one way or the other, so that argument doesn't hold water. Do you think he was less or more likely to tell her the truth once he was alone with her, or when he was no longer being pressed and threatened by them?
He NEVER said SA disconnected anything. THEYasked him what SA had done under the hood. At first he said he didn't remember him doing anything under the hood, but LE were relentless in leading him until he buckled. Finally he said he didn't know what he'd done but suddenly remembered SA doing "something ' under the hood, eyeroll
She wanted attention from a murder case where her uncle had already been arrested for it and he had already served 12 years for a crime he didnt commit? I cant believe someone would dare be that reckless, even at 14.
Would you please cease using those two asinine words: Guilter and Truthers? Silly, silly, silly!
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
I referred to myself as a guilter, and only did so for convenience sake. I am aware it does bug people here and I try not to use it, but at the same time if it is easier to use I will do so.
Bare in mind I put guilter in quotations as I am aware of the connotations.
Whether or not plea deal was the 'right' option does not excuse len from allowing his client to be interviewed and over borne by police with no representation from any adult.
His comments to the media were also deplorable for what was supposed to be a defense attorney.
There are lots of debatable points in this case - whether len did anything that could be considered close to a good job is not one of those things.
Having brendan turn up at that point to court saying he made it up wasnt in his best interests.
Essentially tho len wanted brendan to come clean tell them everything he knew and help with the investigation against steve.
That was the goal and it was also best for brendan. Saying that he should have bite the bullet and done what the family wanted wasnt in brendans best interests.
If you look into it...that interegation with brendan that o kelley carried out. They were trying to establish brendan as a credible witness. Hence the reason they used pretty desperate means to get him to open up. It didnt work...it wasnt used in either court case because brendan turned out not to be a credible witness plus they went with the not guilty plea etc. Len 100 percent picked the right option for brendan.
Kettle I agree with you're overal point, but at the end of the day as an attorney he has standards he has to try and meet. i honestly feel he let him down in that regard, and I wouldn't want someone representing me if they werent ultimately going to do what I asked them to do. His intentions may have been well meaning but his means of doing things were quite low.
shareHaving brendan turn up at that point to court saying he made it up wasnt in his best interests.
I watched it mme. And i was as shocked as anyone watching it. But essentially it actually was in brendans interest.
O kelley needed that confession he also needed a confession that showed brendan to be a credible witness. It genuinely was in brendans interests bearing in mind there move to suppress his Initial confessions was denied. and when they did go for he made it up he ended up getting life with no parole for 41 years.
It actually was the best decision they could have took at the time. There was also too much against steve to think he d be anything but guilty at that stage imo. They d either have sent brendan to certain life...or tried to cut a 20 year plea deal. Thats where their desperation to get brendan to confess came from
It troubles me that you think there was nothing wrong in what O'Kelly did. Personally I think he is a monster.
Because, it's obvious, from what he wrote about the Avery family, that he does not have Brendan's best interests in mind. His purpose is not to help Brendan; it is to help himself and Kachinsky and the prosecution. His self-righteous attitude toward the Avery family leads him to believe, apparently, that it is his duty to eliminate such people...or at least put them in jail where they cannot procreate.
Its troubling that people cant see what he done was actually in brendans best interests. Because in terms of the law it was. I bet a lot of top lawyers would have went down the same path.
I d like to find out where he got this information on the avery family. You know what its another question thats not been answered. We re just assuming hes either made it up out of thin air or based it on gossip hear say or maybe he actually knew something that we dont. Who,s to say brendans not confessed that to him or len. Or it was something the police were aware of etc.
We really dont know. Its something that really should have been cleared up by now.
Thats what we should be asking instead of making our decision based on an assumption.
You think Brendan would have told him the Averys were a family tree that needed to be cut down, or anything like that?!
I'll give you a challenge. Imagine you're 16, mildly retarded, a very passive type of person, with few skills of articulation, and you're innocent of raping, or slitting anyone's throat. All you did was come over to your uncles house one night, help him collect stuff for a bonfire, and help him clean up a stain on his garage floor you thought -- and perhaps your uncle told you -- was something that had leaked from a car he was trying to fix.
Your lawyers assistant meets you alone in a room, w a table laid out w things related to the person you'd falsely confessed was raped, murdered, and you had a hand in it.
He presents you w a document that gives you two choices: you committed the crime and are sorry, and are asked to write out WHY you're sorry, or that you did it and are NOT sorry. But in fact, you didn't do anything. Yet you're told, by this person who's supposed to be part of your DEFENSE team -- someone you're supposed to trust, someone who's supposed to be on your side -- if you don't fill this out and answer the questions, you'll receive NO help.
When you tell him the truth, that you were really only there for the bonfire, he says no, that isn't the truth and can't help you if you say that.
What do you do?
My challenge to you is to watch O'Kellys interrogation of Brendan again, and as you do, assume he's innocent, mildly retarded, etc., just for this challenge. For the moment, put aside your conviction that he's guilty, and watch it again, w these assumptions.
Actually I challenge anyone here to do this, of those who think he's guilty.
When i get the chance i will cats.
Regarding the accusations against the averys i m sure o kelley said he got it from his investigation whatever was involved in that.
What i will say is brendan told the investigators that steve used to touch his penis through his pants. Mentioned something about steve touching him to his own mum. We ve had several allegations against the avery family over the years. From different sources plus convictions for some of them. o kelleys not really just went out on a whim with it.
Someone will be on soon saying it was just horseplay with brendan from steve and their own brothers or something do it all the time for a laugh...all harmless fun. Or any
other one of the allegations or convictions over the years were just for a bit of harmless fun.
Let me ask you something cats. Your brendans lawyer. You try to get his confessions supressed. Its denied.
Bearing in mind the evidence is mounting up against steve and the liklihood of brendan being sent to jail for life if he went with his just made the confession up defense. Which looked kind of weak in the end at trial.
If you had brendans best wishes at heart...what would you do? People can complain all they want but his best interest would have done just as o kelley tried to do. Went for the plea deal.
The truth is and people dont want to hear it but the investigators did have brendans best interests at heart.
He was initially pulled in a second time as a witness. Hence the reason his mum didnt even ask for a lawyer. He then incriminated himself. The investigators at that point didnt realise he was actually any part of the crime. From that point on...with the evidence mounting against steve. Which again the truth is if people stopped being silly for a minute. It was an open and shut case against steve.
At that point they needed that confession. I actually think part of the reason they used the methods they did was obviously to get steve. But also they did want to help brendan. Everything did point to steve and brendan. They genuinely believe they did it. Now get the confession from brendan then they can cut a deal otherwise it was gonna be life in prison for brendan.
They already had enough against steve without brendans confession anyway. As the outcome of his trial showed.
Thanks, Kettle. I realize it's difficult to set aside one's preconceived beliefs, but please do make a genuine attempt in this case.
O'Kelly undoubtedly got some of it from police records. SA was charged with raping his niece, although for some reason that charge was dropped. Either Earl or Charles, possibly both, were charged with molestation of their daughters. I forget the details at the moment. As well as domestic violence charges against all three of the brothers.
But this DOES NOT relate to any of the Dassey kids, none of which had gotten any trouble at all. Even their mom, whose only run in with the law was once being arrested or stopped for smoking pot. Seriously, big deal.
Fair question. If I were Brendan's attorney, provided I were an attorney, I'd have lined up experts about his clear intellectual and emotional disabilities, and how they relate to the reasons for his false train wreck of a confession, and sure as hell wouldn't have spent a mere hour talking with my client, who repeatedly said he was innocent, vs ten hours to the press! That's a 1 to 10 ratio, for god's sake. Where does that say his interest lies? It's very clear to me.
Evidence mounting against SA has nothing to do with BD, unless you've already concluded it does.
Sorry, I don't believe Kachinskys motivation had anything to do with having BD's interests at heart. I think he and his hired PI believed BD was guilty, no matter what, and proceeded on that basis, no matter what.
I agree they wanted to get SA, but the methods they used were entirely inappropriate for someone such as Brendan, which they completely ignored.
You say on one hand they didn't need BDs confession, because they already had enough evidence against SA, but at the same time they did. It has to be one or the other, it can't be both. Can you clarify?
Good post cats.
To clarify i meant...they didnt need the confession in the end because without it steve ended up getting life no parole. But at the time they needed it for brendan to testify against steve to get leniency for brendan.
The point regarding the averys being in serious trouble and the dasseys not being. Len would have used that to paint brendan as a victim.
Do i think len made the right decision for brendans best interests...definetely 100 percent. He went down the right route imo...seeing them desperately trying to get the confession from brendan only really tells half the story. He needed it to actually help brendan.
Do i believe len cared about brendans best interests? I m not sure. I dont think we can really answer that question. We ve made assumptions about his motivations but we cant really know.
He was looking after brendan. If he didnt care he wouldnt have even tried to get the confession supressed. He did he then went down the right route to get brendan his client the best deal possible.
The new lawyers kind of did do what your saying. Trying to discredit the confession. It didnt work. Any decent lawyer would have knew it wouldnt have. Len actually done or tried to do a decent job for brendan. Or the best possible option available to him.
Again his motivations without making assumptions...we dont really know.
Yeah didnt they get his school counsellor/psychologist to speak about BD's IQ and his abilities in school? Maybe they couldnt afford experts and they went with a cheaper alternative.
shareTo clarify i meant...they didnt need the confession in the end because without it steve ended up getting life no parole.Dassey's "confession" wasn't admitted as evidence in Steven's trial, but the jury had all heard it already from news interviews, and in the very most lurid of the various versions at that. I do not think it can truthfully be said that Steven Avery was convicted without it.
Fair enough if people believe that. But i hate that its set in stone as the jury was tainted. Initially i can see how that could be true. But its like people see the jurors as all just a bunch of morons.
For the life of me i dont see many people after hearing both sides of the story. The evidence etc. Not being able to make up their minds because kratz done the press conference. No one was turning up saying my mind cant be changed even if they did hear the conference.
It really was just kratz firing the first shot. I dont think he even meant to influence people at the time tbh. Honestly i think the prosecution knew they had plenty against steve without using it that way.
The jurors heard the full story. Their decision wasnt based on that initial press conference but everything that pointed towards
steve.
Even if kratz did use it to taint the jury pool which i dont believe. Both sides were at it. Thats kind of their job. To influence the jury. Kratz believed they had the right man. Strang and butings job was to get steve off. They both were up to it.
Thanks m Kettle.
Right, in the end BDs "confession " wasn't used in SAs trial, but as you pointed out, that was initially the point of going after BD. They had no narrative, what they had was her car, with SAs and T's blood in it, her burned bones in the fire pit and barrels, and her effects. But NO narrative as to what happened or how.
I resent what they did with Brendan not only because they used and abused someone so vulnerable and easily persuaded, which they used to implicate him, but also put the Hakbachs through unnecessary anguish over thinking T had a unthinkably awful end to her life, when it's VERY unlikely that's what actually happened. That's cruelty on two counts.
Kachinsky did NOT paint Brendan as a victim; that's abundantly clear. I don't understand how you could think otherwise. He thought he was guilty, the PI he hired thought he was guilty, and went even further to say he thought his whole family tree needed to be extinguished. This from someone HIRED as part of his DEFENSE team! With a defense such as this, who needs a prosecution?
Of course he "tried " to suppress his "confession," that was by rote; he had to. How hard do you think he tried, believing his client guilty and having only bothered to spend one hour with him, in total? Versus 10 hours speaking to the press?
His lawyers afterwards did attempt to do what I said, but weren't versed in false confessions and the reasons why they're frequently given using the Reid technique, let alone with a juvenile, let alone with a juvenile with clear intellectual and emotional deficiencies.
Thanks to Kachinsky and O'Kelly, Brendan's confession and drawings, produced under coercion, were used against him, resulting in his conviction.
I can see it from your point of view cats. I really can.
But i genuinely dont believe it. I dont think they needed a narrative. Think steve would have been convicted without one. The defence went with the police planted evidence imo because they never had any other real choice steve or buting and strang. By the by tho. But essentially they failed to provide any evidence of it. Did they create doubt yes but nothing of note in terms of evidence. A narrative wasnt even necessary.
Again no one really went after brendan initially. He incriminated himself. They didnt even see him as a suspect just as a witness to the crime months later i think it was after kayla spoke to the school counciller. Brendan opened up...it was the investigators job to then go further in on it.
It benefitted everybody on the prosecution to get brendan to testify against steve...true. But heres where the real dilemna starts. After brendan incriminated himself and the suppression of his confession was denied. It then became to brendans benefit to give a good solid confession and testify against steve completely.
They used desperate measures the investigators and his own defence...that i completely agree with. But people are looking at it wrong imo. They think it was all about getting steve...using brendan as a throwaway kid.
I dont think it was. I m still convinced without knowing the outcome the jury went 12-0 against steve. Because the defence didnt really have any real evidence against planting. It would have been crazy to go any other way.
The narrative wasnt even necessary to get steve. Although they probably were desperate for it all the same but i believe they were also desperate for it because it would have helped brendan in the end also. There desperation was two fold as opposed to being all about getting steve.
It was necessary to get him brendan. If brendan didn't confess to being an accessory he is a potential alibi that the prosecution doesn't want the inconvenience of.
shareJust for the record i think brendan is guilty as well btw cats. Sometimes wish i didnt because i like some of the innocent camp on here. Genuinely believe the true story is somewhere in his confessions.
I m in the camp that they made a pretty decent job of cleaning up plus the dna testing wasnt quite as thourough as it should have been eg the bedding wasnt even tested. Dna testing wasnt nearly as advanced in 2005 plus people have overestimated what it takes to clean up. Eg i m pretty sure that ian huntley scumbag killed the two young girls in his house and yet there was no dna there. It does happen.
Thats all by the by tho. Its all old ground.
I believe brendan should be released now because he was essentially manipulated by steve.
But i dont like if he is released how we dont have anymore of an explanation. I dont like that people seem fine with it.
Just saying he falsely confessed which no one can even be 100 percent sure on. And thats what disappoints me.
What if the tests actually reveal steve is guilty. Bearing in mind brendan was with him on the nite in question they had a fire. They cleaned the garage. What then...do we still accept brendan never seen anything.
What you ve got to remember is not only did the prosecution and say his own lawyers thought he was guilty. But even some of his ownfamily thought they were guilty also. That speaks volumes.
i think brendan is guilty as well
Everyone should read the following to understand how completely positive Brendan was in his statements/confession:
https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ypgsu/a_few_things_that_brendan_dassey_admitted_to_in/
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
Yes, it's obvious you think Brendan is guilty as well as SA, but based on what? There's literally NOTHING that implicates or points to Brendan being involved in any way in Teresa's alleged rape, or assured murder than his own clearly coerced "confession." No DNA, no trace evidence,no witnesses, no nothing.
I believe the truth is somewhere in his confessions as well, just not in the wildly ridiculous and contradictory statements he made while under duress.
As I understand it, the mattress was brought in and tested, but the bedding, i.e. Sheets etc, was not, for reasons unknown to me.
Why would it disappoint you some think there's an abundance of evidence BDs confession is false, or contrarily that there is a distinct LACK of evidence that it's true, when you claim to be convinced BD is guilty based on the flimsiest of evidence?
If tests prove SA is guilty, then they do, and I'll accept it especially if Z says so. She is the one currently running the tests, after all, and SA is her client.
However that has nothing to do with Brendan, aside from his admitting SA did call him that night to come over to help him gather up junk to make a bonfire, and afterwards help him clean up a spill on the garage floor.
None of Brendan's family thought he was guilty.
Very good, Cat. You nailed it perfectly. I will go a step further and state I believe it was transmission fluid he helped clean off the floor. I also don't believe he saw a body, foot or whatever in the burn pit.
🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!
Thanks, Ksp. I'm not certain if it really wa just transmission fluid, or if he saw anything in the fire or not, but I don't believe he raped, etc Teresa, and probably did not knowingly, anyway, cover up any murder.
share[deleted]
Its troubling that people cant see what he done was actually in brendans best interests.
Brendan went against them and ended up with life in prison with no parole for 41 years.
Its wierd that people think that was in brendans best interests.
Its like people are forgetting that the judge denied them supressing his earlier confessions.
And now he's probably going to set free. So yeah, there's that.
shareDo you honestly think Kachincky EVER had Brendan's interests at heart? I see no evidence of it. Do you have any? How good a j do you think Kachinsky did representing Brendan to suppress his supposed confession. IMO, it was p!ss poor. IMO he took the case for PR, having just lost his run for local office, and knowing local sentiments ran against both SA and BD.
What if BD "went against them" because he really was innocent, but LA and prosecution refused to believe him?
Again what if brendan went against them because his own family were influencing him not for his best interests but because they also had steve to think about.
Same goes for the judge on that point. He initially denied brendans request to get rid of len. He was villified for that decision. But what if the judge was rightly or wrongly looking out for brendans best interests instead of trying to ruin brendans case. I personally dont think any of them including the two investigators had it particularly in for brendan. They actually did want to help him.
People assume that their sole motivation was to use brendan to get steve.
But its not completely the whole truth imo. Yes they did want that...but they also needed that confession etc to help brendan.
They obviously wanted to solve the crime...but a lot of their pleas to brendan to tell the truth etc...werent just for getting steve. But also getting leniency for brendan. People dont really touch on that.
I personally dont think any of them including the two investigators had it particularly in for brendan. They actually did want to help him.
To make that jump tho mme we need to make assumptions. Ie. He wanted to score points for his political career. It could be argued both ways.
As i said maybe len was actually trying to do a good job. And him trying to discredit the averys...was to show that brendan had been a victim to it all. That could easily have been the route they were going down to gain sympathy for brendan in his trial.
Honestly for all the vilification len ond o kelly took. People are really only listening to the story told one way.
Could they have been in it for their own gain entirely and brendan was just a throwaway kid...possibly.
But it was equally possible what i m saying is true. And there actions actually pointed to it.
Honestly for all the vilification len ond o kelly took. People are really only listening to the story told one way.
I think Brendan lied in the beginning to protect his uncle. Perhaps because he was pressured or persuaded by his family, and/or threatened by SA.
"I personally dont think any of them including the two investigators had it particularly in for brendan. They actually did want to help him."
Seriously? How can you possibly think this? Have you listened to/watched all of the interviews and interrogations conducted against Brendan by W&F? If you have, I have no idea how you could arrive at such a conclusion. Truly, no idea..
People talking about stich ups ie avery and dassey. But len was stiched up also. When len took over the case dassey had already confessed to the crime. Len then tried to get the confessions suppresed which was actually denied.
Thats when he went for the plea deal. Tbh he was out of options. If dassey had listened to len it would have ended much better for him. He wanted dassey to testify
against steve. The whole point of the pi getting involved the guy with the ribbon was to get a confession out of dassey to show he was a credible witness to testify against steve.
Under mounting pressure from steve avery and the avery family they got brendan to get rid of len. Which was actually denied. Then len off his own back asked to leave the case. New lawyer came in went with he just made up the confession...ended up getting life with no parole for 41 years. Len was going for a twenty year plea deal.
Unlike the lawyer brendan went with in the end len was smart enough to know what the outcome was gonna be.
There was nothing len could do when he came on board. Go with the he made it up and end up with life no parole for 41 years or go for the twenty year plea deal.
i can actually justify all law officers in this documentary, to some degree, in a way or another (even krats, the sheriff etc etc) except for kachinsky , i think he should have been disbarred. I find unbelievable that he could get away with working against his defenceless client and then become a judge. this is shameful
shareLook at this effed up legal system:
AG Brad Schimel says:
“Two state courts carefully examined the evidence and properly concluded that Brendan Dassey’s confession to sexually assaulting and murdering Teresa Halbach with his uncle, Steven Avery, was voluntary, and the investigators did not use constitutionally impermissible tactics.”And yet:
"In 2006, Kachinsky was removed from the case by the State Public Defender’s Office for unethical professional conduct. The state decertified Kachinsky from handling future homicides and other major crimes for the public defender's office because he allowed Dassey to be interviewed by police without legal representation.I mean, the state - that's AG Brad Schimel - says Dassey shouldn't have been there in the first place. They decertify his lawyer for putting him there. And now they're going to appeal Duffin? Fer cryin' out loud. Putting aside opinion of guilt or innocence, that's not a just process.
They decertify his lawyer for putting him there. And now they're going to appeal Duffin?
That isn't what that says. It says Kachinsky was decertified because he allowed Brendan to be interviewed (but the truth is he was being INTERROGATED at that point) by LE without legal representation. This refers to after Kachinsky was BDs attorney, not that Brendan should never have been there at all.
Personally, I DONT think he should have been interrogated, and most certainly not by using the Reid technique on him, which was entirely inappropriate.
This refers to after Kachinsky was BDs attorney, not that Brendan should never have been there at all.
The relevant context is obviously that he shouldn't have been there at all since he was without representation. Having representation, according to the state -- and they're right -- was an indispensible component of that situation. Without it, the situation -- again, according to the state -- was manifestly unjust.
They castigate Kachinsky specifically because he allowed a breach of justice, then they appeal on the basis that what happened was not a breach of justice. A major part of "what happened" was, by the state's own most strongly-worded, unambiguous admission, a breach of justice.
The Reid technique is a source of a great deal of injustice.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
A major part of "what happened" was, by the state's own most strongly-worded, unambiguous admission, a breach of justice.
Unfortunately Brendan was given and waived his Miranda rights before he started "confessing," which was before Kachinsky was his counsel.
What this refers to is Kachinsky not being present during the last interrogation by the police on May 13th, and clearly he should have been.
I wholeheartedly agree the Reid technique is responsible for a lot of injustices.
The grounds for my criticism of the AG's position are independent of the specific timing of Kachinsky's injustice. The state's objection to Dassey's being without counsel rests on a general value: if they're going to say he should have had counsel representing him when facing the police at the point of Kachinsky's involvement, then he should have had it at any time. The value of counsel to this individual, overtly proclaimed by the state, cannot be limited to the point of involvement of a particular lawyer at a particular time.
The state in no uncertain terms claimed that Dassey was done an injustice because he faced LE without legal representation, while on the other it has claimed that the confession obtained without counsel was just. These arguments are irreconcilable.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
lue: if they're going to say he should have had counsel representing him when facing the police at the point of Kachinsky's involvement, then he should have had it at any time.
.........
Nope. Again, he was read his Miranda rights and waived them for those interrogations when he "confessed." He had no attorney at that point, was given the opportunity to get one and refuse to speak until he got one and in his or her presence. He declined. Not that I think he had any idea of what all that meant, but he said he did.
That's the law.
You're missing the point, arguing the literal law. The point is not about the literal law. It is about justice.
"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson
I'm not arguing anything. I was just explaining the legal differences between the two situations. I've made my position on Brendan and the judges ruling abundantly clear, not only in my responses to you, but other posts in this thread and many others.
shareI'm posting this again just in case you missed it:
The study’s authors note that “innocent people who stand accused believe that their innocence will become apparent to others … which leads them to waive their Miranda right to silence and to an attorney.” However, they conclude that these experiments “convincingly demonstrate that use of the bluff tactic in an interrogation can induce compliant false confessions from innocent people. Importantly, however, additional research is needed to reassess the predicted effectiveness of the bluff on the true confession rates of perpetrators.”
Yes, I did miss it, and agree with the quote.
Prior to seeing MAM, I would have done the exact same thing, and waived my Miranda rights. The difference is, I would have fully understood what that meant. I also would have stopped the questioning once they started their coercions, and then asked for an attorney, but Brendan was too cowed or just didn't understand he could do that.
The real problem began because the detectives either were unable or unwilling to grasp that Brendan had intellectual and emotional disabilities and question him accordingly, and that's how they treated him throughout. Obviously I think that's wrong, and have said so repeatedly for many months.
That ignores not only Brendan's cognitive challenges but also his age at the time. It's the law for adults, not for children.
"I've only really liked a handful of people in my life, and you've been two of them."
Unfortunately no, in WI, it's the law for kids as well.
shareAnd yet the conviction was overturned in part for this reason.
"I've only really liked a handful of people in my life, and you've been two of them."
Yeah it's almost like Duffin acknowledges that neither state nor Federal law requires an adult present... and then promptly disregard his previous acknowledgement in order to justify his overturning...
Maybe that's what the A.G. meant when he claimed Duffin didn't interpret the facts or the law correctly and maybe that'll be a specific example highlighted as to how as well as a lack of relevance to Dassey's situation via his citations of precedents and cases and all that other legal chin strokey razzle dazzle he pulled.
Just a thought. A feeling one might say.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Nope, that part was because Kachinsky set up the May 13 interrogation, and didn't bother to attend, or reschedule so he could!
shareMy error. Kachinsky had nothing to do with his overturning the conviction because of the way it wa filed -- he couldn't.
This is why he overturned it:
"However, the state courts unreasonably found that the investigators never made Dassey any promises during the March 1, 2006 interrogation. The investigators repeatedly claimed to already know what happened on October 31 and assured Dassey
that he had nothing to worry about. These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. "