Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by shadowraiths, Jan 14, 2016.
I remember his trial at the end he said I didn’t do anything and I believe that
A young kid like that if he would have done the things he confessed to would not have been able to function like a normal person-I never understood why they even started questioning him-was it just what his cousin said he was acting nervous?
It did start with a cousin... well, that's what LE says lol I think it was a bit of that and a bit of an "easy target" type thing. But JMO.
Hi - newbie here, but I follow the Dassey case for a couple of reasons. First, I'm (nearly) local. Within 90 minutes of Manitowoc. Second, I work with children and young adults with special needs and I understand young adults like Brendan Dassey.
His new lawyer is very vocal and active on Twitter. Her handle is @LauraNirider.
Dassey's appeal to Govenor Evers for clemency was denied on 12/21/19. Wasn't even trying to get his conviction overturned, just get the poor young man out of prison. Brendan isn't eligible for parole until 2048. He will be 59 years old.
You've all debated this before. Brendan's confession doesn't match the evidence. His IQ and demeanor make him susceptible to "confession to please." This is a gross miscarriage of justice.
I just started watching this series and getting familiar with the case. So far I haven't seen or heard anything that would lead me to believe that Brendan Dassey had anything to do with this crime. As a mother of a special needs son I can clearly pick up on the fact that Brendan lacked the mental ability to defend himself to the detectives. He was led to belive that if he told them what they wanted to hear he would be in no trouble and he believed them because he didn't know any better. I think the detectives used his disablities against him and that to me is beyond horrible.
Part 2 of the documentary convinced me that neither defendant had anything to do with the murder. I feel for the victim's family, and also for the defendants' family. Injustice all the way around on this one. MOO
You know, from what I've seen on so many other documentaries other people who claim they're innocent seem to get a retrial when new evidence is found. But this case... there is tons of evidence to prove that Brendan and Steven are innocent. And this judge keeps denying a new trial. The crappy justice system is bound and determined to keep these 2 innocent men in prison. I have no faith in our justice system because of this. Brendan was coerced into confessing with out his lawyer presant. This should have been thrown out immediately.
The fact that they won't even consider a new trial is so suspicious in and of itself. I get that these things cost time and money but many people have been granted a re-trial with far less proof of their innocence so why can't the Avery's? Every time they knock back their re-trials or appeals they are showing they have something to hide and they are all corrupt.
Boils my blood.
As a support worker for people with disabilities and learning difficulties I agree fully with this. Almost every single person I support, I'm almost certain would have done the exact same thing as Brendan in that situation.
Yes, I definitely feel Brendan's confession was coerced and then the prosecution lied about it in court. They said that Brendan told them about his uncle doing something under the hood and that is why they swabbed the hood latch for DNA. But I could've sworn when the show played that part of the interview, it was the investigator that mentioned it after Brendan guessed multiple times. Why did they stop and believe him regarding the hood and not the other parts of the car that he mentioned? It really felt like they knew what they were looking for and led Brendan into the narrative they wanted or needed. I didn't get the feeling that Brendan's confession was real.
Very true - hence my vote…can’t say ‘not guilty.full stop’
I don’t believe he was an ‘accomplice’, I do after reading all transcripts end to end know that there’s a lot more than what Making a Murderer parts 1 and 2 showed to the public. A lot more.
This boy was coerced, but only into admitting to something (I believe) he didn’t directly do - but I believe he was there to know some of the details that were not coerced, and I believe that good old uncle Steve really did do it (but not in the way it was presented in the docuseries…
Part of the 5th Ammendment protects us from being coerced into self-incrimination. Why is the Dassey "confession" not a direct violation of this protection?
This is silly of me, but I think I figured out my own question.
1. If Barb gave Wiegert and Fassbender permission to interview her son, a minor, without a lawyer present AND
2. Brendan was Mirandized, AND
3. Brendan did not ask for an attorney, THEN...
He essentially waived his right to NOT be coerced into self-incrimination. Is that right?
Additionally, what was really said in the conversation between Barb and investigators regarding whether or not Brendan could be questioned? She says she denied their request for an interview/interrogation. They say they had permission. If they got permission for Brendan's first interview, which was no big deal, does that permission transfer to subsequent interviews? Or are they supposed to seek permission each time a minor is questioned?
Did investigators deceive Barb and Brendan by making it seem like it was no big deal? Did they say that it would only be a few minutes? Did they say he'd be going back to school that day? The answers are not in the documentary, but do they exist elsewhere?
I remember being involved in a stressful situation that I brought on myself when I was about 14. It was nothing like this, of course, but my need to stir the pot, cause drama, and seem important got people in trouble that did not deserve it. In hindsight I think I acted like a piece of ****, and I feel guilty. I'm just saying I can relate to the young girl who told investigators to look at Brendan, who had allegedly lost weight and was crying all the time. She came clean at trial, but prosecutors said she was lying on the stand in order to protect her family. I wonder if the mental health community has done research about this tendency for girls to embellish, cause drama, and act petty at that age? An expert witness could help to show that she lied to investigators at first but was telling the truth at trial.