Netflix to stream new documentary on Steven Avery

[Fred J Walsh]

I've now been granted access to the trial transcripts of the complete Dassey trial, Days 1 through 9 (formerly, 4).

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Day 6
Day 7
Day 8
Day 9

Additionally here is the transcript of O'Kelly speaking with Brendan Dassey (05-12-06)

and a transcript of a phonecall from Brendan Dassey to his Mom Barb Janda (05-13-06)

Dassey Trial Timeline
April 16 - Dassey, now 17, goes on trial.
April 20 - Prosecutors play Dassey's videotaped confession for the jury.
April 23 - Dassey testifies in his own defense, saying he lied when he gave the statement but doesn't know why. Avery does not testify at Dassey's trial.
April 25 - After 4-½ hours of deliberation, the jury, which was selected in Dane County, convicts Dassey of being party to first-degree intentional homicide, mutilation of a corpse and second-degree sexual assault.
SOURCE: (for above timeline only) http://www.gmtoday.com/news/special_reports/halbach_murder/dassey_trial.asp

 

[chaleigh26]

Hi Max, did Steven Avery attempted to abduct his cousin, or did he only point an unloaded gun to try to frighten her, so she would stop spreading rumours about him?

 

[stephsb]

Thank you so so so so much for uploading them! I had already read summaries of each day of trial online but am excited to see the actual transcripts. I'm also so overjoyed someone got ahold of the O'Kelly transcript. Before reading it, my guess is this was a rehearsal for his clearly rehearsed May 13 interrogation, and I can't wait to see.

One quick question, that I'm hoping you know the answer to- Barb Janda's statement about the what Brendan told her about the bleached jeans was not used at trial, correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

Transcript of a phonecall from Brendan Dassey to his Mom, Barb Janda (05-13-06)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ubsv7f29l7j4e1b/dassey_mom_5_13_06.pdf?dl=0

I am 1 day into the trial -- were these phone calls in the trial ?


Very troubling stuff there. None of us have heard this kind of stuff, am I right ?

I did post the blurb from earl the other day about steve telling earl , 14 or 15 years old at the time, to have sex with his wife while he was in jail.

It's not painting a pretty picture of Avery.

 

[Fred J Walsh]

One quick question, that I'm hoping you know the answer to- Barb Janda's statement about the what Brendan told her about the bleached jeans was not used at trial, correct?

Good question, and one that I share:

How exactly Fassbender was alerted to this idea of the bleach-stained blue jeans. (Note that I really need to review Dassey's interviews, for more info on this, as well.)

In the pre-trial, criminal complaint against Dassey, it's asserted that Brendan's Mom had told Fassbender she'd observed stains on her son's jeans that night, Oct 31, 2005, and that when questioned about it, he said he'd gotten the stains from cleaning Avery's garage floor:

On February 27, 2006, your complainant [Thomas Fassbender] spoke with [Brendan's mother] Barb Janda. Barb Janda stated on October 31, 2005, when Brendan Dassey returned from Steven Avery's residence, Dassey had bleach stains on his jeans. Barb Janda asked Dassey what happened to his jeans, he told her that his jeans were bleached while he was helping Steven Avery clean his garage floor with bleach. On March 1, 2006, Investigator Wiegert recovered the jeans worn by Dassey on October 31, 2005. Investigator Wiegert noted that the jeans contained bleach spots and other stains.

However. At trial, in Fassbender's account offered in cross, this notion that Brendan's Mom told him about it is completely left out. Instead, Fassbender offers that he had "received information about Mr. Dassey having some bleach stains on some jeans, and that being a result of uh, cleaning Steven Avery's garage floor" -- leaving out the identity of the alleged source of the information.

Q. Describe for the jury how [the topic of bleach stains came up in a Feb 27, 2006 interview with Dassey], please?
A. Well, I received information about Mr. Dassey having some bleach stains on some jeans, and that being a result of, uh, cleaning Steven Avery's garage floor. Acting on that information, I went to the motel where Mr. Dassey's mother and his brother were located, and I inquired about that, and Mr. Dassey advised that, uh, yes, he had some jeans that he was wearing that evening, October 31, 2005...

Obviously the version in the criminal complaint -- wherein Brendan's Mom allegedly volunteered a story about her son having gotten bleach stains on his jeans while cleaning Avery's garage the night of Oct 31, 2005 -- is more damning, but the story wasn't related like that in the trial testimony. Why? Is it possible Fassbender fabricated the idea in the criminal complaint, that Brenda's Mom Barb has told him about the jeans? Or, by trial, perhaps the Prosecution understood that Barb Janda would not support this version of events -- either because it was ********, or because it was true but she was not about to damage her son's case further -- and so Fassbender airbrushed it out? But then, why would the State/Fassbender back off a more damning version of events? Not sure.

 

[Fred J Walsh]

Transcript of a phonecall from Brendan Dassey to his Mom, Barb Janda (05-13-06)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ubsv7f29l7j4e1b/dassey_mom_5_13_06.pdf?dl=0

I am 1 day into the trial -- were these phone calls in the trial ?

Very troubling stuff there. None of us have heard this kind of stuff, am I right ?

I'm not positive (I haven't read all the trial transcipts yet) but IIRC from Making a Murderer that phone call was heard at trial. We hear parts of it in the docu-series.

Reading the full transcript of the call, it's easy to see how it might be most persuasive to a jury.

 

[MaxManning]

Hi Max, did Steven Avery attempted to abduct his cousin, or did he only point an unloaded gun to try to frighten her, so she would stop spreading rumours about him?

I'll look back for details on this. My recollection was that there was talk that he was going to abduct her - maybe that came from cousin and he didn't admit - but there was a child in the car and so he stopped.

Now, I will admit that I am not 100% sure on the details, so I will look back to get those.

But the whole "spreading rumours" thing, means zero to me in terms of his actions. Now I see her hate for him might be a motive for her to try and make the situation look worse or in the future influence someone towards treating him unfairly -- ie rape conviction. But he was convicted of pulling a gun on her.

Are you suggesting that the motive being stopping her from spreading rumors would somehow make him pulling a gun less troubling a detail ? Any pulling of a gun on someone is highly troubling to me, because it shows that someone has the capability to be dangerous.

But I will check the documentary and other sources. I can't remember what the actual conviction was, but I know I have seen multiple renditions of how it went down. I will post all that I find.

 

[MaxManning]

I'm not positive (I haven't read all the trial transcipts yet) but IIRC from Making a Murderer that phone call was heard at trial. We hear parts of it in the docu-series.

Reading the full transcript of the call, it's easy to see how it might be most persuasive to a jury.

Yeah, if a jury hears that, that's not just a small detail to leave out of that documentary. I've been saying that from the moment i finished the documentary, that there just had to be more to all this.

I am just a little troubled at the moment about the lack of a transcript for the 2/27/2006 interview in the evening. Is there a recording as well ? I thought that was the law to have a recording. On day 1 there is mention of this interview and it's a very important interview because it's where brendan first talks about the bleach on his pants.

The court testimony has the detective stating that brendan first reveals that what he was cleaning up was red. He could tell because the towels turned a reddish color. He was at one point thinking it was oil.

The detective did say he asked if brendan thought it might be blood, but insisted it was AFTER brendan revealed it was red. So is that leading to ask if it was blood at that point ? I'm not sure, but I'd likely ask that question. But maybe he should have said , what do you think it was given it was red ? but doesn't that sound leading too

anyways, that phone conversation is quite jarring, and we all know we didn't hear that in the documentary. Why ?

Certainly a jury hears that and they aren't thinking about brendan being coerced by detectives anymore, but certain he was abused by avery even before this murder.

 

[MaxManning]

Obviously the version in the criminal complaint -- wherein Brendan's Mom allegedly volunteered a story about her son having gotten bleach stains on his jeans while cleaning Avery's garage the night of Oct 31, 2005 -- is more damning, but the story wasn't related like that in the trial testimony. Why? Is it possible Fassbender fabricated the idea in the criminal complaint, that Brenda's Mom Barb has told him about the jeans? Or, by trial, perhaps the Prosecution understood that Barb Janda would not support this version of events -- either because it was ********, or because it was true but she was not about to damage her son's case further -- and so Fassbender airbrushed it out? But then, why would the State/Fassbender back off a more damning version of events? Not sure.

Yep, I've been saying all along this little bit is very important. We need to know if it's true or not.

So the question is, how did they know about the pants then ? Even if the mother didn't tell them. How would they know ? Clearly they confiscated the pants with bleach stains on 3/1, right ? If they knew of them before then, why not get them when avery is arrested ? why wait till march 2006 ???

Also, remember that Scott Tadych was aware of them via the avery appeal doc. He states that one of the dassey boys had blood on his pants that got mixed in with his laundry - to a co-work on the day avery was arrested. So it's also possible he mentioned that ?

Otherwise, what are the theories as to how the police knew of the pants ?

 

[MaxManning]

I have notes on reading the first day of the dassey trial, going to wait to post most of them them because I want to hear about the garage floor first as again, it's a big area of importance to my opinions.


But one question i have now is about these cadaver dogs. If there was Steve Avery blood in the garage and we are to believe that bullet was there from 10/31/2015 under a compressor with teresa halbach's blood, then why didn't the cadaver dog get a hit on that the on those first 2 days of the investigation whenever the dogs were present ?

They say they searched Avery's trailer and garage 11/5 & 6 - if they had a cadaver dog, shouldn't they have found that ???

So that would point towards planting of bullet and brendan being used to identify it existed in the garage. Unless there is an explanation ? anyone ?

 

[stephsb]

Since the Janda statement was used in the criminal complaint there has to be some evidence for it to be in there. As it states she told them in an interview on 2/27, the statement would have come AFTER the first interview w. Brendan. This is important, in that the investigators contradicted themselves on the stand about the reasoning for questioning Dassey. Fassenbender said the bleached pants, while the other one (can't think of name off top of my head, but with a W) said it was due to statements from Kayla, which I also believe are mentioned in the complaint.

The reason Barbara's name couldn't be used in court by Fassenbender is I suspect due to hearsay. He can't testify to something Barb told him the defendant said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MaxManning]

Hi Max, did Steven Avery attempted to abduct his cousin, or did he only point an unloaded gun to try to frighten her, so she would stop spreading rumours about him?

Ok, here's where I read about what I describe as a borderline abduction.

http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/

The bad blood thickened between Avery and the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department in January 1985, when Avery ran a deputy’s wife off the road at gunpoint and tried to force her into his car. The woman, Sandra Morris, was Avery’s cousin and a friend of Manitowoc County Deputy Sheriff Judy Dvorak. Morris had complained to police that Avery had exposed himself in his front yard on several occasions when she drove past his house. Avery let the woman go when she told him her infant daughter was alone in her car.

Avery admitted running Morris off the road and brandishing a rifle. He was sentenced to six years in prison for endangering the safety of another person.

Now, if this is true -- it is NOT mentioned in the Making A Murderer transcript and do you think it's relevant to mention he was convicted to 6 of those 18 years in prison based on that incident ?

He ran her off the road , and pulled a gun on her. I don't care if it was loaded or not, that's a dangerous individual. jmo

I will see if I can verify this conviction.

 

[stephsb]

The conviction is as far as I understand is legit. It should be easily verifiable via CCAP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stephsb]

And sorry I haven't read your posts in chronological order Max so I just saw the question about the bullet now: the purpose of planting a bullet and using Brendan to identify it is they have to put the gun in someone's hand. Hence their back and forth and Brendan's completely inconsistent testimony on who actually fired the gun and where it was fired. As soon as they told Brendan she was shot, and something happened in the garage, and there were shell casings in the garage, they lost their opportunity for corroborating his confession. If he had come up with that on his own, it would have given both pieces of evidence more weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chaleigh26]

Thanks for the reply Max. I must of missed that detail and, Yes it makes a difference to me.

 

[MaxManning]

Since the Janda statement was used in the criminal complaint there has to be some evidence for it to be in there. As it states she told them in an interview on 2/27, the statement would have come AFTER the first interview w. Brendan. This is important, in that the investigators contradicted themselves on the stand about the reasoning for questioning Dassey. Fassenbender said the bleached pants, while the other one (can't think of name off top of my head, but with a W) said it was due to statements from Kayla, which I also believe are mentioned in the complaint.

The reason Barbara's name couldn't be used in court by Fassenbender is I suspect due to hearsay. He can't testify to something Barb told him the defendant said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that's the case, then why was what kayla said not defined as heresay ? Am I misunderstanding something here ?

I think the chain of events is -

1. kayla tells them counselor at school about brendan crying and moving a body -- Now, I have read somewhere the counselor denied being told that, so we should verify - maybe in these transcripts ?
2. On 2/27 they interview brendan at school in morning based on that statement - either from counselor or kayla ? I'm guessing she was interviewed then ?
3. On 2/27 evening they interview brendan at police department.
4. Barb Janda mentions bleached pants and brendans explanation that night at the motel police put them in
4. 2/27 based on janda information they interview brandon - we have no transcript or video to my knowledge. - brendan gives details about the pants/cleanup
5. 3/1 brendan gets interviewed and then arrested.

now it's important to understand that their were THREE interviews of brendan on 2/27. School, Police Dept, and Motel

One was in the morning at his school -- we have transcript of this.
One was the evening at police department - we have video and transcript of this.
One was the late evening at the motel the janda family was put in for that night. we don't have transcript or video , but only court testimony so far as I can tell.

So not sure if this properly explains why both were noted as prompting interviews. Thoughts ?

 

[MaxManning]

And sorry I haven't read your posts in chronological order Max so I just saw the question about the bullet now: the purpose of planting a bullet and using Brendan to identify it is they have to put the gun in someone's hand. Hence their back and forth and Brendan's completely inconsistent testimony on who actually fired the gun and where it was fired. As soon as they told Brendan she was shot, and something happened in the garage, and there were shell casings in the garage, they lost their opportunity for corroborating his confession. If he had come up with that on his own, it would have given both pieces of evidence more weight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, I see what you are saying, but I guess I still want to go through this trial so I can try to get a better idea of how it all happened or at least a better idea of how both prosecution and defense are describing how it happened and what evidence they had and when.


Already I have seen a significant amount of new evidence, some not as important but still helps clarify things we wonder about. Like I had no idea that the car was confirmed locked by the women that found the Rav4 by them attempting to open the door(s) with a tissue.

I also didn't know that cuffs and leg irons were ALSO found at the janda/tadych residence in barb jandas bedroom on 3/1 when the picked up Brendans pants, jacket, and shoes.

 

[stephsb]

Both statements could be used in the complaint, but in court, you can't use a statement you heard someone else say as proof of that statement (they are inadmissible due to the hearsay rule). So Fassenbender (spelling?) can't testify that Barb told him that Brendan came home in bleached pants and said it was from cleaning Steven's garage, he didn't say it. Barb also can't testify because she made the statement because it was about something she heard but didn't witness or say herself and that can't be used as proof that brendan did use bleach to clean Stevens garage, and that's why the pants were bleached. This statement would also be especially likely to be inadmissible since it is a statement allegedly made by the defendant being used against him, which is violates his rights. At trial, Kayla testified about statements she made specifically. She can verify those statements were made because she made them, hence why they are admissible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stephsb]

Max- to answer the earlier questions you asked, I don't believe all of Dassey's confessions are garbage, but the bulk of the one that matters (3/1) is useless. They did not have probable cause for an arrest until the 3/1 statement is made, and it is BY FAR the most concerning of the statements, based on the sheer volume of false statements Dassey makes on crucial info that would connect him to the crime. The 5/13 statement's purpose is to basically coerce Dassey into retracting the parts of his statement not consistent w. their evidence. This confession was suppressed and not used during trial (due to lack of attorney) but info from it still formed the opening/closing arguments for the State. He can't identify the knife (because it doesn't exist) can't figure out how many times the gun went off, or what gun it was, or even that it was used w.o help, would not have been able to connect himself to the garage w.o help, can't keep the order of raping, stabbing, choking, throat cutting, hair cutting, punching, and shooting straight, and is prompted for just about everything used in that criminal complaint. Without the confession, he wouldn't have been arrested w.o something more.

I do think their was enough to evidence to convict Avery, although it wouldn't surprise me if CA or EA were involved either. I'm confident, however, the killer was one of the residents of that property. Avery's case is completely separate from Dassey's, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ava Adore]

I hear you. But it's also troubling to me, because it could be true! The problem with the cognitively impaired is that they are trying to please you to some degree, and follow orders. But just because that is so, does that mean EVERYTHING he said was false ? And that he wasn't ever deceptive ? That's what I am struggling with at the moment.

Barb Janda's statement as I keep saying is the reason I struggle with his confession and in some ways believe that it's not all complete horseshit. Determining what is horseshit/coerced etc and what is real, is hard. I will agree that as the interview goes on and the story expands, the harder and harder a time I have with believing it's the truth.

But if I listen to how things evolved on 2/27, I ask myself how much do I think is lie/truth ? because I KNOW he didn't tell them about the bleach on his pants that his mother talked about and the cleaning of steve's floor. So was he deceptive ? was he holding back at that point ? If so, was he being coerced or holding back ?

Do we believe that brendan was crying ? having trouble sleeping ? if so, why ? maybe it truly was that he just missed his uncle. That's actually something I think is plausible. Could that be the reason he didn't want to say that he was helping steven clean up the garage ? Because he knew the implications on some level to steven ? Had steven threatened him about telling someone ?

You realize that all these things are somewhat plausible. But they don't change that brendan didn't tell investigators about this, so was he holding back ?

i admit. I don't know, and it's what keeps me from just saying - all that he said is meaningless.

Right, but how do you know what's true and what isn't?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk