Brendan Dassey and False Confessions

New Posts

MaxManning said:
Agreed. I also think it's plausible to believe that even kayla's statement originated from media/school/family information. Which is the whole reason Brendan gets sucked back in.

Which is why I have interest in that first interview. For any kid, being in the back of a squad car is going to be impactful. So if someone is talking to you about what they think your uncle did and accusing you of hiding something, that would seem reasonable for a kid to be worried about something like that happening again in the future. No kid wants to go through that. Also , might lead a kid to wonder about if his uncle would do such a thing, and that might be traumatic as well.


I don't know what the best format would be. But I see so often people saying that he said *something* and how could he have known that ?

So one post shows everything he was told first, which I assume is a massive list, compared to a rather small list of what he offered FIRST. Would drive home the point that he knew very little until told.

Then I guess that list could then be expanded to maybe include a number by each detail, indicating the interview it was first mentioned -- so we know when he first heard it.

So maybe 1 = squad car, 2 = school 2/27 , 3 = police station 2/27, 4 = hotel 2/27 etc

That way we get a feeling for how early he was exposed to these things and it's quick reference to find that dialog.

That's a big part of why I have been referring back to your notes, so I can find the dialog easily as opposed to searching through pdfs each time. But I might have to check multiple posts to find the first occurrences of a given topic.

I think the people new to the case, seeing that kind of data very early on, can quickly expose them to how much was fed to him, without digging and doing the work you already have done.
Click to expand...

Is the squad car interview online? I know we don't have the 2/27 hotel one (but I could go through the trial transcripts and see at least what LE testified to). I can start working on these things later tonight- I'd like to try and get as much done before I go back to school as my time will unfortunately be much more limited once that happens, as I have a pretty full semester.
 
I just wanted to add a quick thought. To me, it seems like Brendan might think that he can't go home (and watch Wrestlemania) until he tells them some story about his uncle and Teresa. All he wants is to go home and watch his favourite show. So he thinks this is the entire deal, with his IQ. "If I tell them this story they want me to say, I'll go home and watch TV." I don't think he's even thinking about jail for himself, it seems his imagined bargain is only a short-term situation.
 
Ellie9 said:
I just wanted to add a quick thought. To me, it seems like Brendan might think that he can't go home (and watch Wrestlemania) until he tells them some story about his uncle and Teresa. All he wants is to go home and watch his favourite show. So he thinks this is the entire deal, with his IQ. "If I tell them this story they want me to say, I'll go home and watch TV." I don't think he's even thinking about jail for himself, it seems his imagined bargain is only a short-term situation.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely. He believes LE is on his side, that they know the truth and once they get it they will take care of him. So he guesses at the answer they want so he can go back to class (he has a project he needs to present). They promise him over and over they'll take care of him, they'll go to bat for him, just tell them the truth. So he continues to try and give them "the truth". It nearly breaks my heart when they tell him in the 3/1 interview that they have to arrest him and he goes "just for tonight?" It is so beyond obvious that he has no idea that hes just confessed to first degree murder, first degree sexual assault, and mutilation of a corpse, and no, he isn't going to be going home, not any time soon. That part of the interview was almost impossible for me to read through it was so upsetting.
 
Found a new court document, see post 16 of thread, Documents: Brendan Dassey - No Discussion

Excerpt (p67-68)

In an email dated April 27, he asked Kachinsky to “protect” that evidence “for the prosecution in Avery’s case” because it could “corroborate [Brendan’s] testimony and color him truthful.” (R.192:43-47; R.170:64.)

Kachinsky e-mailed this information directly to D.A. Kratz and Wiegert on May 5 – adding, moreover, that O’Kelly’s information “may go a long way toward getting you...PC for another search of the Avery salvage yard.” (R.173:338; R.189:237; R.190:11; R.181.) (App. 487.)

Crucially, Kachinsky disclosed this information to the State without his client’s knowledge or consent. (R.189:237.)

And while he did it without apparent concern for the fact that Brendan was claiming his innocence, he was concerned enough about his own role to request that he “stay unnamed in any affidavit for a search warrant.” (R.181; R.173:338.) (App. 487.)

Brendan, of course, had described handling a knife in his March 1 confession (R.79:34:586-87) (App. 281-82); thus, had it existed, that knife could have yielded damning fingerprint or DNA evidence.

Fortunately, O’Kelly’s hunch was wrong; the State’s investigators went straight to the salvage yard but found no knife at all. (R.193:88.)​

Comment: I honestly do not see how that tainted confession was allowed in the courtroom. Hopefully, an attorney can clarify.
 
stephsb said:
Is the squad car interview online? I know we don't have the 2/27 hotel one (but I could go through the trial transcripts and see at least what LE testified to). I can start working on these things later tonight- I'd like to try and get as much done before I go back to school as my time will unfortunately be much more limited once that happens, as I have a pretty full semester.
Click to expand...

I am unable to find either interview. The dassey trial says they played a tape to the jury, but no transcript. Judge asks for that, and at that time they said it didn't exist. Do the tapes exist somewhere online ? Possibly. I haven't done a big search, but I will do so.
 
Watching Kachinsky makes me feel like I am watching complete fiction, because I just can't believe it's possible for someone to be so slimy. Same with Kratz.

On a lighter note, if there was a movie made on this trial using actors, who would you cast for the roles ? Edit - Maybe this should be another thread

There is no doubt in my mind that'd I want jonah hill to play Kratz.
Martin Freeman would make a good Kachinsky.
 
Safeguard said:
Here is a (lengthy, very informative ) article about false confessions, with special emphasis on the Reid technique that was used on Brendan. I agree with the author's ending recommendations, particularly that the police should not be allowed to lie about evidence. (Especially heinous, when repeatedly calling Brendan a liar whenever he strayed from their script).

http://thepsychreport.com/conversations/coerced-to-confess-the-psychology-of-false-confessions/
Click to expand...

So glad you mentioned the Reid Technique. This is SUCH a poor system for getting the truth, and ultimately, that is what LE should be looking for.

I totally agree that LE should not be able to lie to the person being questioned, this is why everyone should go into a police investigation w. a lawyer. Most common people don't know that it is completely legal for police to lie to you during an interview, while lawyers do. Tactics like the Reid technique aren't likely to be tried in front of an attorney.

In a perfect world, I think LE should be asking open ended questions to try and obtain the most information possible, and then asking questions based off that information. If the suspect is lying, it becomes harder and harder for them to keep their lies straight, especially if both LE officers are asking questions in a rapid fire form. They especially shouldn't be giving the suspect information crucial to the case, because as soon as that info is given, there is no way to tell if the suspect came up w. it on their own or because they were prompted and are trying to give the answers they believe they want. The example of this in Brendan's interview would be when they give him the info that Teresa was shot in the head- information that he clearly couldn't produce on his own but suddenly "remembered" as soon as Wiegert told him.

I think the biggest takeaway from Brendan's case is that as soon as your Miranda rights are being read to you, ask for the attorney. Brendan may have still faced charges based on his earlier statements, but if that 3/1 interview had not happened, he would NEVER have been charged w. First Degree Murder and First Degree Sexual Assault based off his 2/29 statements alone. Far too often people believe that they don't need to ask for an attorney because they didn't commit a crime, and that couldn't be further from the truth. If you ask for an attorney, the worst thing that can happen is people suspect you are guilty (only "guilty" people need attorneys)- let them think that, at least you won't be at risk for confessing to a crime you didn't commit.
 
stephsb said:
So glad you mentioned the Reid Technique. This is SUCH a poor system for getting the truth, and ultimately, that is what LE should be looking for.

I totally agree that LE should not be able to lie to the person being questioned, this is why everyone should go into a police investigation w. a lawyer. Most common people don't know that it is completely legal for police to lie to you during an interview, while lawyers do. Tactics like the Reid technique aren't likely to be tried in front of an attorney.

In a perfect world, I think LE should be asking open ended questions to try and obtain the most information possible, and then asking questions based off that information. If the suspect is lying, it becomes harder and harder for them to keep their lies straight, especially if both LE officers are asking questions in a rapid fire form. They especially shouldn't be giving the suspect information crucial to the case, because as soon as that info is given, there is no way to tell if the suspect came up w. it on their own or because they were prompted and are trying to give the answers they believe they want. The example of this in Brendan's interview would be when they give him the info that Teresa was shot in the head- information that he clearly couldn't produce on his own but suddenly "remembered" as soon as Wiegert told him.

I think the biggest takeaway from Brendan's case is that as soon as your Miranda rights are being read to you, ask for the attorney. Brendan may have still faced charges based on his earlier statements, but if that 3/1 interview had not happened, he would NEVER have been charged w. First Degree Murder and First Degree Sexual Assault based off his 2/29 statements alone. Far too often people believe that they don't need to ask for an attorney because they didn't commit a crime, and that couldn't be further from the truth. If you ask for an attorney, the worst thing that can happen is people suspect you are guilty (only "guilty" people need attorneys)- let them think that, at least you won't be at risk for confessing to a crime you didn't commit.
Click to expand...

Imo, people should ask for an attorney the minute LE wants to question them, and stay silent from there on out. People mistakenly believe miranda is required before questioning, when in reality, it is only required when they're being arrested. LE actually counts on this, as they will try to get as much information out of the person as possible. If challenged, they can simply point out that the individual was free to leave at any time. Even though, said individual may not have felt they were.
 
The article I linked to said that many more people are able to understand why someone would commit suicide, than they can understand those who make false confessions. But the emotional torture of reid is designed to cause a similar sense of inescapable desperation with no other way out. It is illegal in most European countries. Imo, it's a form of torture.
 
shadowraiths said:
Imo, people should ask for an attorney the minute LE wants to question them, and stay silent from there on out. People mistakenly believe miranda is required before questioning, when in reality, it is only required when they're being arrested. LE actually counts on this, as they will try to get as much information out of the person as possible. If challenged, they can simply point out that the individual was free to leave at any time. Even though, said individual may not have felt they were.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I would never go into any sort of police questioning w.o an attorney, but then I've taken criminal and constitutional law classes and understand the limits of Miranda rights. You're right in pointing out it's probably a good idea to have an attorney present at any police questioning, but I think it would be especially crucial to ask for one once your Miranda rights are being read. IMO, I'd prefer to have some sort of statement similar to Miranda read as soon as questioning starts- even if you are free to leave, especially emphasizing anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. I feel that, in Brendan's case, he clearly did not understand that point.
 
stephsb said:
Agreed, I would never go into any sort of police questioning w.o an attorney, but then I've taken criminal and constitutional law classes and understand the limits of Miranda rights. You're right in pointing out it's probably a good idea to have an attorney present at any police questioning, but I think it would be especially crucial to ask for one once your Miranda rights are being read. IMO, I'd prefer to have some sort of statement similar to Miranda read as soon as questioning starts- even if you are free to leave, especially emphasizing anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. I feel that, in Brendan's case, he clearly did not understand that point.
Click to expand...

I don't even think Brendan understood anything about a court of law, so he has no context to even understand anything that was going on. That's why a parent should have been present. It's as simple as that imo.

Sadly, even Barb Janda would be likely convinced that he should talk without a lawyer. She asks about costs of public defenders, and seems to have some context by which you can tell she knows it'll cost money she doesn't have.
 
MaxManning said:
I don't even think Brendan understood anything about a court of law, so he has no context to even understand anything that was going on. That's why a parent should have been present. It's as simple as that imo.

Sadly, even Barb Janda would be likely convinced that he should talk without a lawyer. She asks about costs of public defenders, and seems to have some context by which you can tell she knows it'll cost money she doesn't have.
Click to expand...

I would like to see WI take measures to ensure any minor that is questioned by police have a parent present. It is clearly not enough to notify a parent, as both Brendan and Barb said it was not necessary for Barb to be in the room for the second 2/29 interview. It still shocks me that after knowing her brother had spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, that Barb still allowed Brendan to talk to police w.o her being present. I can see Brendan having no context/understanding of the legal system, but surely Barb must have understood the potential harm the legal system could do to someone. Makes me think that she truly had no idea what Brendan was going to say, or even that he was a suspect, or I doubt she'd have left him in there w.o her being there. JMO
 
Or if not a parent, in the case that the parent is a suspect or something like that... maybe a state children's welfare agent or something? Someone who is an advocate for the minor child in some capacity.
 
I've read that it can actually be worse to have a parent present. LE snows the parent, and the parent pressures the minor too! (Even more effectively), Just be honest, tell them what they need to know ect...
I would like to see a mandated GAL, a qualified mental health proffessional, or something of that nature required to be present.
 
Safeguard said:
I've read that it can actually be worse to have a parent present. LE snows the parent, and the parent pressures the minor too! (Even more effectively), Just be honest, tell them what they need to know ect...
I would like to see a mandated GAL, a qualified mental health proffessional, or something of that nature required to be present.
Click to expand...

Except we have also seen many cases where these people work lock-in-step with authorities. I honestly think this should go one GIANT step forward and make it mandatory that any minors be represented by at the very least a public defender as well as a parent's presence. Although, we see how great a public defender can be (ahem....Kuchinsksy!)

ETA: I also think that it is important that a minor is not only represented by a public defender prior to questioning, he should be allowed a private meeting with the public defender to discuss the case, be completely advised of his rights, etc... But the problem is that many crimes are "solved" because of testimony from extremely vulnerable kids. They sing like canaries! They will turn on their very best friends if it means getting out of trouble. Remember what Ralphie did to poor Schwartz?
 
I love the idea of a advocate for the child- be it mental health, a welfare agent, or someone of that nature.

I'm a little bit wary of using a public defender because there are a lot of children who go into interviews and are never going to be considered suspects, and don't really need an attorney, and public defenders are underpaid and overworked the way it is. The benefit, however, is that the attorney would be the only person in the room who could give "legal advice". An advocate or mental health professional can't tell you it's time for an attorney, nor can LE, nor can they tell you you don't need one, because both are considered legal advice. So it that regard, having a public defender in the room would be the best idea probably.

I think the problem is that we use Miranda with children, and I don't think children understand the meaning of it like adults do. I would love to see a different standard used for children, where they are explained further, so LE can feel certain they do understand.

Lastly, I think investigators need to deal w. Children differently than adults. They should not be allowed to make promises they know they cannot keep to them. When you are telling a child "you need to tell us the truth, we will back you up, we'll go to the prosecutor and make sure he knows what a good person you are, we believe in you, we'll make sure your taken care of" you are making promises you can't keep (LE officers have no control over what is prosecuted, or what they are prosecuted for) and while most adults would be able to see that immediately, to a child, this is LE, who children are taught to trust- why would they lie to them, they are the good guys. I think this has a lot to do with why Brendan confessed to some of the things he did


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MaxManning said:
I don't even think Brendan understood anything about a court of law, so he has no context to even understand anything that was going on. That's why a parent should have been present. It's as simple as that imo.

Sadly, even Barb Janda would be likely convinced that he should talk without a lawyer. She asks about costs of public defenders, and seems to have some context by which you can tell she knows it'll cost money she doesn't have.
Click to expand...

Actually, what Barb Janda said was that she had already asked for a public defender prior to the March 1st interview (she never mention when exactly or for who) but she was turned down because she owned a home. Fassbender or Weigert told her she could try again now because there are different financial criteria for someone charged with murder.

Maybe there should be a change in criteria that any child under the age of 18 is entitled to a public defender regardless of the parent's ability to pay when being questioned/interviewed regarding any crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 238 more.
Total: 4,197 (members: 239, guests: 3,958)

Online statistics

Members online
239
Guests online
3,958
Total visitors
4,197
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,759
Messages
17,974,747
Members
228,889
Latest member
aeb29
Back
Top