844 users online (114 members and 730 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37
  1. #1
    shadowraiths's Avatar
    shadowraiths is offline LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Specialist, infoSec Architect
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,806

    Let's talk about the Kachinsky emails

    First, h/t jaiddie.

    That said, while I have posted Kachinsky email links (which I've uploaded to my google drive) to the Documents: Brendan Dassey *No Discussion* thread (see post #17), I am also including them below.

    Subject: Avery/Dassey Investigation
    From: Kachinsky
    Date: Friday, May 05, 2006
    To: Wiegert
    CC: O'Kelly, Kratz


    Subject: Brendan Dassey Meeting on May 12th
    From: Kachinsky
    Date: [Unknown]
    To: O'Kelley


    Subject: Interview of Brendan Dassey on 5-13-06
    From: Kachinsky
    Date: Friday, May 12, 2006 <= corrected misread year
    To: Fassbender
    CC: O'Kelly, Kratz


    I will comment further in a following post.
    Last edited by shadowraiths; 01-15-2016 at 04:25 PM. Reason: corrected misread year



    Forensic Psychology Portal

    I tend to disappear from Websleuths from time to time.
    If I do, you can usually find me on
    Twitter.


  2. #2
    shadowraiths's Avatar
    shadowraiths is offline LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Specialist, infoSec Architect
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,806
    I have nothing whatsoever good to say about this.

    I find these men's behavior not only appalling but obscene.

    While I voted that I thought Brendan might have seen something, and that he, at the least, deserved a retrial, at this point, and considering the "mind washing" techniques that were employed, I highly doubt we will ever learn the truth with regard to whether or not brendan was involved in Ms. Halbach's horrendous death and subsequent attempted coverup.

    As such, if I could go back and vote, I would vote to vacate Brendan's conviction.

    As I have previously stated, I think Kachinsky should be disbarred, his "investigator," O'Kelly, should have his license yanked. And, imnsho, both should be charged with, at the very least, obstruction of justice, and be tossed in a cell to give them some time to think about what they perpetrated against this boy.

    This is, of course, nothing more than my very subjective opinion.



    Forensic Psychology Portal

    I tend to disappear from Websleuths from time to time.
    If I do, you can usually find me on
    Twitter.


  3. #3
    shadowraiths's Avatar
    shadowraiths is offline LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Specialist, infoSec Architect
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,806



    Forensic Psychology Portal

    I tend to disappear from Websleuths from time to time.
    If I do, you can usually find me on
    Twitter.


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    907
    I personally believe that what Kuchinsky did should be criminal and the guy should be in prison. At minimum his license to practice law should be revoked, but I think that's too easy when someone's life is on the line. The fact that he seemed so comfortable doing this, makes me think he's done this kind of thing before. Prosecution likely knew EXACTLY the guy for the case.

    What will happen from these emails ? likely nothing if it hasn't happened already. sad, but true.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    888
    Makes you wonder how he can sleep at night. And not just him, the LE that interrogated BD too.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    93
    The emails make me furious. Those two men participated in taking a young boys life. While they didn't kill him his life was taken. A bunch of people should be held accountable for that starting with these two.

    I, too, wonder how the men that did this to Brenden can sleep at night. It is so obvious that he does not grasp what they have done to him when he asks if they can wrap up so he can go to class.

    Of course, as a side, how can authorities listen to these kids that do not understand and then push for them to be tried as an adult? It is sickening.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,490
    I couldn't even get through them. I honestly think there should be some sort of penalty or something when a defense attorney doesn't even TRY to defend. I think plea bargain should be offered and outlined and if the accused refuses, you move on and try to defend.

    But I know it has a lot to do with not wanting to LOSE a case, and that's stupid.

    Kachinsky shouldn't be in charge of taking care of houseplants much less defending a murder suspect.
    I speak fluently in reaction gifs.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    29,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawny View Post
    I couldn't even get through them. I honestly think there should be some sort of penalty or something when a defense attorney doesn't even TRY to defend. I think plea bargain should be offered and outlined and if the accused refuses, you move on and try to defend.

    But I know it has a lot to do with not wanting to LOSE a case, and that's stupid.

    Kachinsky shouldn't be in charge of taking care of houseplants much less defending a murder suspect.
    Neither could I, at least not on the first attempt. Once I got to the part that said O'Kelly was authorized to share his work product with Fassbender, my vision turned to white hot disgust.
    __________________________________
    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"

    WEBSLEUTHS ON FACEBOOK



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    22
    I agree with everyone that if there is one true villain in this case it is Len Kachinsky. It's so obvious that he couldn't be bothered to actually do his job to defend Brendan and just saw him as poor trash that didn't really matter. If anything, I think he saw this as an opportunity to cozy up to the prosecution by playing ball in order to help his political career.

    He is the poster child for why we need systemic reforms within our justice system.

  10. #10
    shadowraiths's Avatar
    shadowraiths is offline LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Specialist, infoSec Architect
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,806
    What especially gets me about this, is that these were sent to the two officers who interrogated Brendan, as well as the prosecuting attorney. And I am reminded of Attorney Strang's statement during the SA trial:

    "All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence" — Dean Strang, co-defense counsel for Steven Avery

    Iow, is this "strong current" the thing that blinds some prosecutors and LEOs to the concept of ethical behavior? Or, are they blinded by their biases? Or, are they simply, evil?

    I, personally, think people make choices based upon a combination of what is occurring in their lives at any given point in time, in conjunction with their perception of the world around them. The latter will include but is not limited to, everything from biases, to personal and career goals, to personal belief systems, to social influence.

    And the combination results in moral dilemmas. In this case, and imho, getting a conviction for a murdered woman, trumped any injustice they might perpetrate on a mentally challenged teen. An ends justifies the means, sort of thing.

    If anything, and imho, this case stands as a stark reminder regarding the devastation that can be brought by the ends-means argument.
    Last edited by shadowraiths; 01-16-2016 at 07:24 PM. Reason: added link



    Forensic Psychology Portal

    I tend to disappear from Websleuths from time to time.
    If I do, you can usually find me on
    Twitter.



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowraiths View Post
    If anything, and imho, this case stands as a stark reminder regarding the devastation that can be brought by the ends-means argument.
    RSBM - I agree and this stands for whether SA is guilty or not. If he's innocent, then it's very clear, but what if he's guilty and his conviction gets overturned because of misconduct and unethical behavior by investigators and attorneys?
    I speak fluently in reaction gifs.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by shadowraiths View Post
    What especially gets me about this, is that these were sent to the two officers who interrogated Brendan, as well as the prosecuting attorney. And I am reminded of Attorney Strang's statement during the SA trial:
    "All due respect to counsel, the state is supposed to start every criminal trial swimming upstream. And the strong current against which the state is supposed to be swimming is the presumption of innocence" — Dean Strang, co-defense counsel for Steven Avery

    Iow, is this "strong current" the thing that blinds some prosecutors and LEOs to the concept of ethical behavior? Or, are they blinded by their biases? Or, are they simply, evil?

    I, personally, think people make choices based upon a combination of what is occurring in their lives at any given point in time, in conjunction with their perception of the world around them. The latter will include but is not limited to, everything from biases, to personal and career goals, to personal belief systems, to social influence.

    And the combination results in moral dilemmas. In this case, and imho, getting a conviction for a murdered woman, trumped any injustice they might perpetrate on a mentally challenged teen. An ends justifies the means, sort of thing.

    If anything, and imho, this case stands as a stark reminder regarding the devastation that can be brought by the ends-means argument.
    I think that there is a large degree of hubris and to an extent narcissism that plays a huge role as well. If your internal narrative is that you're a good guy in pursuit of justice, along with a huge dose arrogance that you couldn't be wrong, then things like the presumption of innocence and ethical behavior are just things that make your job more difficult.

    Look at the attitudes of the Law Enforcement involved in the 1985 rape case. Even in the face of DNA evidence conducted by the state's crime lab they still couldn't accept that they had been wrong. They could barely contain their contempt during sworn testimony in the deposition.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Miette View Post
    I think that there is a large degree of hubris and to an extent narcissism that plays a huge role as well. If your internal narrative is that you're a good guy in pursuit of justice, along with a huge dose arrogance that you couldn't be wrong, then things like the presumption of innocence and ethical behavior are just things that make your job more difficult.

    Look at the attitudes of the Law Enforcement involved in the 1985 rape case. Even in the face of DNA evidence conducted by the state's crime lab they still couldn't accept that they had been wrong. They could barely contain their contempt during sworn testimony in the deposition.
    I agree wholeheartedly, and it wasn't just one or two of them who appeared extremely displeased at being questioned about that case.
    I speak fluently in reaction gifs.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    401
    Len Kachinsky is absolutely the true villian in this mess, he is worse than Kratz IMO. He violated just about every part of the ethical code he promised to uphold, his "representation" of Brendan was simply appalling. There is no other word for it IMO.

    I've worked for criminal defense attorneys (as a legal secretary and an intern, at different firms in different states) and am working on my law degree in hopes of becoming a criminal defense attorney myself. I've wanted to do criminal defense for as long as I can remember because I truly believe our constitution affords EVERYONE, even people who are guilty, a competent defense, and maybe this is why Kachinsky's behavior is so disgusting to me. Clearly he thought Avery, and probably Brendan, were guilty, and that's fine- most people he represents probably are guilty, to some extent. The problem is, is that what he thinks doesn't matter. He is required to give Brendan the best defense he can, to give him advice so he can make legal decisions that are in his best interest- guilty or innocent. At the end of the day, Kachinsky works for Brendan, and Brendan only- not his family, not Steven, not the investigators, and certainly not the prosecutor. Even if Brendan is a minor and his parent's are paying the bill, BRENDAN is the priority. Every decision made should be made w. Brendan's approval, after he has been given all of his options. If Kachinsky is unable to represent his clients fairly because he feels they are guilty, then he has no business being a criminal defense attorney.

    I think that Kachinsky feels he was doing the right thing by trying to get Brendan to confess so he could get a plea, and to be fair, that probably would have gotten him less prison time. The problem w. this is an attorney cannot knowingly allow their client to take the stand and lie- that is an ethical violation. What Kachinsky was doing was trying to get Brendan to take a plea, and he was trying to make O'Kelley help get his story straight, because he wouldn't get the plea unless he gave the State the story they wanted. I don't think he ever tried to look at this objectively, I don't think he ever considered that Brendan could have been coerced into giving false information, and that is where he fails horribly. He should have had serious doubts about why his client couldn't keep his story straight.

    IMO, he should be disbarred for allowing Brendan to talk to investigators w.o him present. To say that he could be reached by phone was laughable. If Brendan was giving a statement to police, he needed to be in that room, right next to him, no questions asked. Even if Brendan was an adult w. an IQ of 120, he needed to be in that room, but he ESPECIALLY needed to be there because Brendan was CHILD w. intellectual disabilities. I honestly have no idea what he was even thinking when he allowed something like this to happen. The fact that this clown is still working as a defense attorney is sickening. He clearly has no idea what being a defense attorney means, and that is what is what really depresses me about this situation. Brendan was a child in a situation that would have been confusing, overwhelming, and stressful, for an adult. He was charged w. the most serious crime you can be face in WI- First Degree Intentional Homicide. There is one person he should have been able to trust was working for him and had his back, regardless of what public opinion was, and that is his defense attorney. Kachinsky absolutely failed this kid, and honestly, I don't know how he can live w. what he did to Brendan. Makes me sick.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,490
    I would love to hear from some of Kachinsky's other clients. (are they called clients when he's appointed to them?)
    I speak fluently in reaction gifs.


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Terri's emails
    By BeanE in forum Kyron Horman Reference and Time Line Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 07:26 PM
  2. Emails
    By christine2448 in forum Brooke Bennett
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 10:31 PM