Brendan Dassey: Guilty of Teresa Halbach's rape, torture, and murder?

Sinsaint said:

I don't believe this child was involved in or witnessed anything, including cleaning up blood or seeing a body in the fire after the fact. His third confession at the very end, after discussing how he and Avery did all these terrible things, the investigators asked him how he felt. Brendan's response? He's sad because he thought for three or four months Avery hadn't murdered Halbach. How could he possibly think that if he'd participating in or helped clean up a murder scene?

Click to expand...

I really wish I could be so sure, BD's involvement (or lack of) is the one thing that really troubles me with this case.
The one thing I'm sure of is that the version of events presented in his confessions makes little or no sense and I'm at a loss as to how he could have been convicted on that basis.
I do believe that there was a clean up in the garage that evening though, and FWIW I tend to lean towards the clean up being of something else rather than blood and/or BD having no idea of what he was actually helping with.

fruity said:

I personally believe that a significant amount of doubt was introduced for both suspects - more than enough to satisfy legal 'reasonable doubt'.

But I am much more concerned with the treatment of two people who have a documented IQ of 70. even though they are both on the higher end, it is still a significant factor IMO. Surely the US legal system has safeguards to protect the legal rights of people with intellectual disabilities? Why weren't these safeguards in place for this case? It is well known that legal procedures need to be adapted to ensure a fair trial for people with intellectual disabilities. The real life functioning of these two people (who clearly show signs of maladaptive behaviour) is an issue which is separate to their guilt or lack of guilt, but the fact that it doesn't seem to have been a factor in this case is troublesome from a legal perspective.

Click to expand...

I so much agree with you but also feel the reason more people did not "thank you" for your reply is for the simple fact they have not raised or are close to children that have that kind of iq. Most with low iqs that I personally know of do not automatically think to disbelieve what another says. That includes believing children or adults but when the other person is an adult they will not push the issue as they have found through out their life, adults usually know better than them. It is an innocence and gullibility and reliance on authority combination. Most adults in their life are good to them with beneficial direction in their lives. The police were authority figures that took advantage of this situation. Even Brendans' mother did not understand when he tried to explain what was happening to him. It really got me when both of them did not know what inconsistent meant. Brendan was trying to understand and even his own mother could not help him.

I have a lot of trouble believing the confession was not coerced, as it really does appear to me than BD is looking for the 'correct' answer to give the investigators. (I'm paraphrasing but it was like, Investigators: "What did you do to her head?" BD: "We slit her throat" Investigators: "What else?" BD: "We cut her hair" Investigators: "What about shooting her in the head? Did you do that?" BD: "Yes")

Regardless of whether he did commit the crime or did not, whether or not the confession was coerced or not, there is not enough evidence to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he was involved and he deserves a new trial, and that's not even taking into account his previous counsel.

I voted for Probably not guilty, his confession was coerced and Not guilty, full stop, his conviction should be vacated

SoBeCzar said:

I so much agree with you but also feel the reason more people did not "thank you" for your reply is for the simple fact they have not raised or are close to children that have that kind of iq. Most with low iqs that I personally know of do not automatically think to disbelieve what another says. That includes believing children or adults but when the other person is an adult they will not push the issue as they have found through out their life, adults usually know better than them. It is an innocence and gullibility and reliance on authority combination. Most adults in their life are good to them with beneficial direction in their lives. The police were authority figures that took advantage of this situation. Even Brendans' mother did not understand when he tried to explain what was happening to him. It really got me when both of them did not know what inconsistent meant. Brendan was trying to understand and even his own mother could not help him.

Click to expand...

And at the trial when he did not understand the difference between yards and feet. That, and the "inconsistent" part made me realise how young he really is in his mind and doesn't understand the gravity of it all.

IMO,

What happened with Brendan, is just further confirmation in my mind, at the lengths these men would go to, to CRUSH Steve's alibi.

They were going to CONVICT SA at ALL costs.

BD was insurance.

Pathetic, IMO

Sarah said:

I don't see that there can be any doubt about the confession being coerced.
Absolutely appalling treatment and I'm gobsmacked that a child his age and with his IQ could have been interviewed without a parent or guardian present.

However, I also had to put a vote in for "assisted in covering up the crime".
IMHO there's sufficient evidence to support the belief that there was a clean-up in the garage that night - BD's (admittedly inconsistent) statements, the call with his mother where he talks about helping SA clean up the garage, the bleach stains on his jeans and the luminol results showing a large bleached patch on the garage floor.

What I'm not sure about is what exactly was cleaned up.
The possibilities that come to mind are :

1. The clean up was totally unrelated to the crime and SA really is the unluckiest man alive to have picked that night to spruce up the garage along with all the other coincidences.
2. The version of events in BD's confession is true and it really did happen as he said it did. (Given that other evidence just doesn't fit with that narrative, I also find that particular version of events very hard to believe.)
3. BD was involved in the crime and something relating to it (but not as described in his confession) took place in the garage that required a clean up.
4. Something related to the crime (but not as described in BD's confession) took place in the garage, requiring a clean up. BD is ignorant of what actually occurred and helped his uncle clean up in all innocence.

Click to expand...

My sons IQ is the same as BA's ... No doubt in my mind this boy is innocent! One thing I find is it seems they "can't" lie.. They are not good liars.. Well, my son is not anywAy.. Also. You can get my son (13 now) to tell you his hair is blonde although it is brown.. All you have to do is raise your voice and look at him sternly he will tell you anything you want to hear.. Kills me that THIS could happen to him..
I think they all should be charged with abusing BA.. All the way up to the Judge... I believe the Judge is in the prosecution pocket..
if you have any questions on what it is like to raise a child with 71% IQ.. I can try to answer you (on how my son would react or respond)

I too have experience with a low IQ child. My brother, now deceased, had an IQ maybe a couple points higher than BD. He could read and he could write and he could do simple math, but his reasoning skills were greatly affected, he was like an eternal 14 yr old, and he never seemed to understand or anticipate consequences of his actions. He was able to live alone as an adult, but needed supervision as he could not be trusted to handle money.

However, he absolutely could lie and, in fact, did on several occasions. I was an eyewitness to his lying. He knew right from wrong, he knew a lie from the truth, though he was also easily led and manipulated by others because he would trust people even when they hurt him. He figured out that lying would buy him some time if he was in trouble. Eventually the truth would come out though, it always did.

Blanket statements, as if everyone who has a similar IQ has the exact same capabilities in all areas of their cognitive abilities is simply false. People are unique and even those with lower IQs are unique with differing abilities. And yes, someone with an IQ below 80 can lie, depending on the person. So, unless any of us personally know BD and have seen any tests done on him, it's time to put away the "BD would never do that..." statements.

{ And before someone jumps down my throat here, no I would most certainly not have ever wanted my brother to face a police interrogation. I'm quite clear about that. He never did, thank goodness. I have stated on several occasions I do not think BD should have been alone when questioned/interrogated by police and I've also gone on record there should be guidelines in place across the country that every police jurisdiction has to follow where minors and cognitively challenged people should have a guardian or legal counsel with them }.

Sorry, you no longer have your brother.

Madeleine74 said:

I too have experience with a low IQ child. My brother, now deceased, had an IQ maybe a couple points higher than BD. He could read and he could write and he could do simple math, but his reasoning skills were greatly affected, he was like an eternal 14 yr old, and he never seemed to understand or anticipate consequences of his actions. He was able to live alone as an adult, but needed supervision as he could not be trusted to handle money.

However, he absolutely could lie and, in fact, did on several occasions. I was an eyewitness to his lying. He knew right from wrong, he knew a lie from the truth, though he was also easily led and manipulated by others because he would trust people even when they hurt him. He figured out that lying would buy him some time if he was in trouble. Eventually the truth would come out though, it always did.

Blanket statements, as if everyone who has a similar IQ has the exact same capabilities in all areas of their cognitive abilities is simply false. People are unique and even those with lower IQs are unique with differing abilities. And yes, someone with an IQ below 80 can lie, depending on the person. So, unless any of us personally know BD and have seen any tests done on him, it's time to put away the "BD would never do that..." statements.

{ And before someone jumps down my throat here, no I would most certainly not have ever wanted my brother to face a police interrogation. I'm quite clear about that. He never did, thank goodness. I have stated on several occasions I do not think BD should have been alone when questioned/interrogated by police and I've also gone on record there should be guidelines in place across the country that every police jurisdiction has to follow where minors and cognitively challenged people should have a guardian or legal counsel with them }.

Click to expand...

Madeleine74 said:

I too have experience with a low IQ child. My brother, now deceased, had an IQ maybe a couple points higher than BD. He could read and he could write and he could do simple math, but his reasoning skills were greatly affected, he was like an eternal 14 yr old, and he never seemed to understand or anticipate consequences of his actions. He was able to live alone as an adult, but needed supervision as he could not be trusted to handle money.

However, he absolutely could lie and, in fact, did on several occasions. I was an eyewitness to his lying. He knew right from wrong, he knew a lie from the truth, though he was also easily led and manipulated by others because he would trust people even when they hurt him. He figured out that lying would buy him some time if he was in trouble. Eventually the truth would come out though, it always did.

Blanket statements, as if everyone who has a similar IQ has the exact same capabilities in all areas of their cognitive abilities is simply false. People are unique and even those with lower IQs are unique with differing abilities. And yes, someone with an IQ below 80 can lie, depending on the person. So, unless any of us personally know BD and have seen any tests done on him, it's time to put away the "BD would never do that..." statements.

{ And before someone jumps down my throat here, no I would most certainly not have ever wanted my brother to face a police interrogation. I'm quite clear about that. He never did, thank goodness. I have stated on several occasions I do not think BD should have been alone when questioned/interrogated by police and I've also gone on record there should be guidelines in place across the country that every police jurisdiction has to follow where minors and cognitively challenged people should have a guardian or legal counsel with them }.

Click to expand...

When I said "can't lie" - I meant he would be caught lying.. As he can't make up a good or reasonable lie to go with his action... Hope that makes more sense...

Surely Brendan - or anyone else - should have been arrested and processed according to the law of the land. AT THE POINT OF HIS ARREST AND SUBSEQUENT TREATMENT he should have been accorded his rights. He wasn't.

FWIW I do not believe a minor is capable of understanding anything when suddenly hit up by LE. We've all seen the film. But from the very first moment he was cuffed, Brendan was denied his rights. IMHO.

It's a known fact that LE in the US and else where for that matter will plant evidence to make a charge stick.This could happen to anyone at anytime,how can you trust the crown prosecutor in this case,look what he got dumped for,sexting what a piece of work.that whole case is a set up,let them out of jail......

In the transcripts of Brendan's questioning where there's just a blank space, is that something that's been redacted? Sometimes there's a "......." and sometimes there's a blank where it seems like the detectives respond to something he said afterwards. If it's redacted, any idea why?

Couple of examples -

zerbert said:

In the transcripts of Brendan's questioning where there's just a blank space, is that something that's been redacted? Sometimes there's a "......." and sometimes there's a blank where it seems like the detectives respond to something he said afterwards. If it's redacted, any idea why?

Couple of examples -

Click to expand...

I'm guessing it might have something to do with him being a minor.

Police Officers need to be given more credit for the job they do. Here we had a missing girl, last seen on someones property, scheduled to meet one of the suspects, who's remains were found right next to his house.

In the immediate days afterwards, not under caution, both the main suspect and his alleged accomplice, talk to officers about what they know. If both of them are really innocent, then the narrative they are clearly trying to establish would not be needed. They were both lying to O'Neill in the Marinette County interviews, and given that a girl was missing, the police were right to try and get to the bottom of it.

I don't think the emails are that damning really. Prosecutors know they did it and need to prove it. Brendan shot himself in the foot in his very first interview. Not co-erced. not under caution. He just lied and trotted out his Uncle's mantra about TH being there 5 minutes.

The attempt at a plea bargain was hindered by Dassey himself. Misplaced loyalty to an Uncle that was controlling him before the police got near him.

Both of them guilty in my humble opinion.

I think those "......" are just when BD didn't respond. There is corresponding videotapes to these transcripts, and as far as I know, there is nothing "edited" out, although I have read concerns over the tapes being edited, but not in the way your quote is zerbert.

I don't doubt this for a minute. In fact, you now have me wanting to dig deeper, into cases where this has happened in the past. I'm sure it has to be documented somewhere.

canadaman said:

It's a known fact that LE in the US and else where for that matter will plant evidence to make a charge stick.This could happen to anyone at anytime,how can you trust the crown prosecutor in this case,look what he got dumped for,sexting what a piece of work.that whole case is a set up,let them out of jail......

Click to expand...

missy1974 said:

I think those "......" are just when BD didn't respond. There is corresponding videotapes to these transcripts, and as far as I know, there is nothing "edited" out, although I have read concerns over the tapes being edited, but not in the way your quote is zerbert.

Click to expand...

I agree that the "...." is when he was silent, but sometimes there's just a blank space, so I was wondering about that, why they wouldn't indicate a non-response, if that's what it was, since they indicate it sometimes. I just haven't had the time to listen to the interviews while reading the transcripts to see if there's something missing from the audio or if it was just a sloppy transcription. I've seen some people post that the timestamp makes a jump at certain times, so I guess neither one would surprise me much.

zerbert said:

I SNIPPED BY ME I just haven't had the time to listen to the interviews while reading the transcripts to see if there's something missing from the audio or if it.

Click to expand...

Once you have mate, then you will get a different feel of how the MaM producers, wanted you to think about how BD was treated. He answered some questions really quickly, at one point, robotically telling the cops what he has been told to say. It completely turns on its head that he was being led by them. If he was led by anyone in this, it was SA.

They start by asking him other questions about what was going on, and he volunteers information about a row between his Mum & SA. ALARM BELL - Steven never mentioned this. That he saw Steven when he got home and he was working. ALARM BELL - Steven said he wasn't working. The fact his Mum wouldn't let him have a Bonfire round the back of SA's on Thursday because of the argument. ALARM BELL - SA never mentions this. Planning a fire in a Burn Pit on a scrap yard, a few days after a girl is last seen on that very same scrap yard..... DING DING DING DING!

He mentions rape, without being prompted, He mentions the lawsuit, without being prompted. He mentions that TH's family might have planted the car, without being prompted. Obviously, he suggests the Police potentially framing SA, that goes without saying.

The speed of his responses is in stark contrast to when he is being interviewed formally, when he knows he is Goosed. So as he sits in the car, what he is saying to O'Neill, who at this point, is just interviewing on behalf of another county, begins to unravel as things get checked. That is why the car door keeps opening. Other officers are making calls and trying to validate that what BD says happened, is plausible.

An example is that he gets off the Bus at 345 with Blaine. The police say that they are going to check the story with Blaine. All of a sudden BD realises he has to say that he has seen her or the RAV4, because he knows that Blaine, who is not involved, could give a different version.

Now there are other kids on the Bus who might have seen something, possibly the Bus Driver. Maybe other people did not seen anything, but he doesn't know for sure. What he does know, is that he has no idea if the police have spoken to someone who has seen either TH or her RAV4 and has given a different version.

BD's first story including sight of TH is that she was there for 5 minutes, then she left. I am no detective, but my first thought would be how does he know this? He did not get home until 345 as he was at school. SA said she was there between 2 & 230. Immediate Red Flag. He is either being told to say this (therefore is lying,) or he did see her, (which also means he is lying about not seeing her.) Either way, what SA said to police, needs to be looked at further as he is the one that said she left before BD got home from school (2-230.) So guess what, he could be lying too.

Add to that the selective memory SA has on certain things. (What TH was wearing, what she looked like, the colour & length of her hair, the type of car she was driving.) Contrasted with the clear memory he had on the denomination of notes he gave her & that the clothes in his trunk where definitely not the ones he was wearing that day. (Despite not being able to recall what he actually was wearing on the Monday.)

I see it as the police trying to find a missing person and all they had to go on to begin with, was the last person she was known to have met that day. It is not quite Occam's Razor, but it did not take a genius to work out that what SA & BD said did not make sense and there was a simpler explanation than someone else other than people living on Avery's land, being involved..

I have mixed feelings about Brendan's story/case. It makes me sad to know a young man / kid could be innocent and serving time for his version of how this played out. I truly hope that if he wasn't given a fair trial that they make it right. Obviously MAM was one sided, but it left me feeling sad for B.

I think Brendan was involved. When he was talking to his mom, she said, "Well, did you do it?" (paraphrased) and he responded, "Not ALL of it." Why would a mother who knew her son was incapable of raping and murdering someone ask him if he did it? And why would he say, "Not all of it."? I do believe Steven Avery is guilty, so that might cloud my feelings about Brendan, but he confessed initially.
Also, his mother DID have the opportunity to be there during questioning and she declined. I agree he likely had some coercion, but I also believe he was involved. Many confessions are received by "pressuring" the interviewee. I don't think most people willingly confess to a crime they had nothing to do with.
.