BigCityAccountant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,436
- Reaction score
- 247
FYI--what was reported to have happened at Northwestern...
http://dailynorthwestern.com/2015/0...es-northwestern-david-protess-for-40-million/
Brendan Dassey and False Confessions
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
FYI--what was reported to have happened at Northwestern...
http://dailynorthwestern.com/2015/0...es-northwestern-david-protess-for-40-million/
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,875
- Reaction score
- 184
Excellent timeline of who said what first, regarding Brendan's confessions.
NB: this blogger has been following the case from its inception. He has archived a great deal of impressive info. Def a must read.
NB: this blogger has been following the case from its inception. He has archived a great deal of impressive info. Def a must read.
hello people
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2012
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 0
You got to wonder what the cops had on Brendan to butter him up to the idea of the confession. What did they use as leverage? There's a whole subtext to those interviews that are missing in terms of the air in the room...the eye contact...the subtle use of body language...what was said before the camera rolled.
<modsnip>
Maybe it simply went like this: we know your uncle did it...we have DNA this, proof that...all we need is for you to say you saw some toes in the fire...then they expand on that...you'll be a hero Brendan...girls love a hero...you like girls don't you Brendan...you're not gay are you Brendan? Good, that's a good boy. Now be a hero Brendan...get the girls...remember girls love a hero...so go on...tell us more...help us put this bad man away...hmmm...say, Brendan, you've done good but what about the garage...tell us one thing about that...we know you did nothing...but you saw something...you know your uncle did it...to put him away and keep you out of jail we just need you to tell us a bit more...a bit more...a little bit more now...that's it...just one more thing...goooooooood....now just a biiiiiit more.....goooooooooooooooooood
<modsnip>
Maybe it simply went like this: we know your uncle did it...we have DNA this, proof that...all we need is for you to say you saw some toes in the fire...then they expand on that...you'll be a hero Brendan...girls love a hero...you like girls don't you Brendan...you're not gay are you Brendan? Good, that's a good boy. Now be a hero Brendan...get the girls...remember girls love a hero...so go on...tell us more...help us put this bad man away...hmmm...say, Brendan, you've done good but what about the garage...tell us one thing about that...we know you did nothing...but you saw something...you know your uncle did it...to put him away and keep you out of jail we just need you to tell us a bit more...a bit more...a little bit more now...that's it...just one more thing...goooooooood....now just a biiiiiit more.....goooooooooooooooooood
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,985
From what I understand, this all started for Brendan on November 6, 2005. The day prior, his bus driver had met with police at the boundary of the salvage yard to share what she knew. It doesn't seem that they took an official statement on the spot, which is strange, because I think they did with Bobby that same day, November 5, 2005. I cannot find the statement, and in testimony on day 19, she says that she was told to return November 7th to make the actual statement.
Barring having a November 5th statement, we can only guess from Brendan's roadside interview what she told them. The officers tell Brendan:
And you were dropped off. It's such an event that someone's standing in your field taking a picture of that van, that you remember that, too, don't you? The bus driver remembers it, the kids on the school bus remember it. The girl taking pictures, you remember that?
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...dan-Dassey-Interview-Transcript-2005Nov06.pdf
So either they are exaggerating, or she told him that the whole bus was watching TH take pics "in a field." They were very aggressive with Brendan about it, and I wonder if they questioned Blaine that way.
I think that at this point, Brendan knew about her being missing. He knew SA was upset about it. It's apparent that the family had discussed people being on the property with the headlights. Steven was probably afraid he was going back to jail, and Brendan expresses that sentiment in the interview when he says the police want to take Steven away from him. Steven mentioned in a tv interview, I believe, that TH could have run off with friends. It was also apparently attributed to SA in the "joke" about Steve having her in a closet. Brendan also brings up rape, and I think that because Steven went to jail for that before, it might be why Brendan assumes rape was involved. But heck, even I assumed that.
Much of what Brendan volunteers seems to be things the family said or could have discussed after TH came up missing. What he said that I felt was new as of 11/6/05:
They were at the northern cabin to get wood for a bonfire. Brendan said he was helping Chuckie get it, but he also said that his mother got mad at Steve and said they couldn't have the bonfire. From what I understand of what Brendan was trying to say -- they were at the cabin the weekend of 11/5 to gather wood for a bonfire the upcoming Thursday, but then it sounded like he was saying the bonfire was supposed to be 11/3, but it got canceled. So why is Brendan helping chuckie get wood for a canceled bonfire? Was it really a rescheduled bonfire?
Later, page 34, brendan said they were at the cabin to gather wood for hunting. So which is it? For Hunting or for a bonfire?
Brendan also volunteered that Steven came over and asked for help with pushing the Suzuki into the garage. So was the jeep really not always in the garage? that was 7 or 8pm. There is nothing about cleaning. Nothing about a fire that night. I'm kind of amazed they were not interested in talking to Brendan again until February 2006.
He also mentioned Bobby goes Geese hunting every day. I did not get that it was a daily activity, did you guys?
My take right now is that Brendan might have thought if he agreed to seeing Teresa and seeing Teresa leave, then the police might back off and leave the family alone. But once he started answering the questions, he might have felt he had to find the answers to the questions that followed. That's my first opinion about this interview. He probably believed SA that she left and so he went ahead and confirmed it to help Steven.
But correct me if I'm wrong about the information they got from Brendan being new information as of 11/6.
Barring having a November 5th statement, we can only guess from Brendan's roadside interview what she told them. The officers tell Brendan:
And you were dropped off. It's such an event that someone's standing in your field taking a picture of that van, that you remember that, too, don't you? The bus driver remembers it, the kids on the school bus remember it. The girl taking pictures, you remember that?
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...dan-Dassey-Interview-Transcript-2005Nov06.pdf
So either they are exaggerating, or she told him that the whole bus was watching TH take pics "in a field." They were very aggressive with Brendan about it, and I wonder if they questioned Blaine that way.
I think that at this point, Brendan knew about her being missing. He knew SA was upset about it. It's apparent that the family had discussed people being on the property with the headlights. Steven was probably afraid he was going back to jail, and Brendan expresses that sentiment in the interview when he says the police want to take Steven away from him. Steven mentioned in a tv interview, I believe, that TH could have run off with friends. It was also apparently attributed to SA in the "joke" about Steve having her in a closet. Brendan also brings up rape, and I think that because Steven went to jail for that before, it might be why Brendan assumes rape was involved. But heck, even I assumed that.
Much of what Brendan volunteers seems to be things the family said or could have discussed after TH came up missing. What he said that I felt was new as of 11/6/05:
They were at the northern cabin to get wood for a bonfire. Brendan said he was helping Chuckie get it, but he also said that his mother got mad at Steve and said they couldn't have the bonfire. From what I understand of what Brendan was trying to say -- they were at the cabin the weekend of 11/5 to gather wood for a bonfire the upcoming Thursday, but then it sounded like he was saying the bonfire was supposed to be 11/3, but it got canceled. So why is Brendan helping chuckie get wood for a canceled bonfire? Was it really a rescheduled bonfire?
Later, page 34, brendan said they were at the cabin to gather wood for hunting. So which is it? For Hunting or for a bonfire?
Brendan also volunteered that Steven came over and asked for help with pushing the Suzuki into the garage. So was the jeep really not always in the garage? that was 7 or 8pm. There is nothing about cleaning. Nothing about a fire that night. I'm kind of amazed they were not interested in talking to Brendan again until February 2006.
He also mentioned Bobby goes Geese hunting every day. I did not get that it was a daily activity, did you guys?
My take right now is that Brendan might have thought if he agreed to seeing Teresa and seeing Teresa leave, then the police might back off and leave the family alone. But once he started answering the questions, he might have felt he had to find the answers to the questions that followed. That's my first opinion about this interview. He probably believed SA that she left and so he went ahead and confirmed it to help Steven.
But correct me if I'm wrong about the information they got from Brendan being new information as of 11/6.
BigCityAccountant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,436
- Reaction score
- 247
FYI~~~
That interview took place in Marinette County NOT Maintowoc. Their cabin is located in Marinette County which is why BD might have been mixed up about wood for a fire at the cabin vs the salvage yard.
IMHO, BD is autistic and autistic children have a hard time generalizing. I don't think BD could relate what happened at the salvage yard vs what was happening at the cabin. Remember there was a huge Marinette police presence there that day talking to the entire family. This family was shaken up and felt they were being harassed by the police. They impounded their cars, talked to each member that was there. The family just wanted to enjoy a little time together and a few beers on their own property and perhaps a bonfire at their cabin. I know we have a campfire and a few beers each time we go to our cabin. It is likely the same for their family as well.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,985
I'm just drawing on inconsistencies and what he volunteered versus what was fed to him.
I don't know about the Marinette presence or really anything about what went on at the cabin. There are frankly too many police agencies involved, if you ask me. I don't know and it's not relevant to me what the family's reason was for being there, except if what you say is accurate that Brendan means having a bonfire up there or some sort of fireside evening up there.
To me, this is the first time anyone mentions a fire to the police -- unless they'd already talked to the guy -- I can't think of his name -- who lived nearby and claimed to see a fire on the property near Steven's.
If it is accurate that they were planning to have or did have a fire at the cabin, that's a whole bunch of fires to be planning within a week. The police were confused by what Brendan meant in relation to all these bonfires, and I frankly am, too. At one point, Brendan articulates in this interview that the fire was supposed to be in Steven's backyard.
For myself, I need to be clear about what he meant. I want to understand whether the gray jeep was in the garage or not, and I'd like to know if Bobby went hunting every single day at 3pm or not. I'm also of the belief that Brendan thought he was helping his family by going ahead and agreeing that he saw her LEAVE, so that the police would look elsewhere.
I'm trying to trace how this all got so far out of hand with Brendan. He might or might not be able to articulate what happened. I'm just saying what I gather from what he said and asking others if what I gathered from it makes sense.
I am not trying to judge Brendan or blame Brendan for anything he said. I'm only trying to figure out what got the police to go the way they went with him because he falls off the grid until February.
I don't know about the Marinette presence or really anything about what went on at the cabin. There are frankly too many police agencies involved, if you ask me. I don't know and it's not relevant to me what the family's reason was for being there, except if what you say is accurate that Brendan means having a bonfire up there or some sort of fireside evening up there.
To me, this is the first time anyone mentions a fire to the police -- unless they'd already talked to the guy -- I can't think of his name -- who lived nearby and claimed to see a fire on the property near Steven's.
If it is accurate that they were planning to have or did have a fire at the cabin, that's a whole bunch of fires to be planning within a week. The police were confused by what Brendan meant in relation to all these bonfires, and I frankly am, too. At one point, Brendan articulates in this interview that the fire was supposed to be in Steven's backyard.
For myself, I need to be clear about what he meant. I want to understand whether the gray jeep was in the garage or not, and I'd like to know if Bobby went hunting every single day at 3pm or not. I'm also of the belief that Brendan thought he was helping his family by going ahead and agreeing that he saw her LEAVE, so that the police would look elsewhere.
I'm trying to trace how this all got so far out of hand with Brendan. He might or might not be able to articulate what happened. I'm just saying what I gather from what he said and asking others if what I gathered from it makes sense.
I am not trying to judge Brendan or blame Brendan for anything he said. I'm only trying to figure out what got the police to go the way they went with him because he falls off the grid until February.
missy1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 10,142
- Reaction score
- 31,356
Just going off of memory here wasnt_me...
Brendan's talk about the fire in that early interview was a fire that they were supposed to have on the 3rd. He was inviting a girl and some other friends IIRC. Sometime during the week, Barb and SA had an argument and Barb told the boys that they weren't allowed to go over there for a fire,so it got cancelled. (also, IIRC, the Barb/SA fight was something about SA calling Barb a terrible mother and she should spend more time with her kids and they were dumbasses).
JRandant ... the neighbour, talked to police on the 5th about the fire he saw, he described it as in a barrel, he says that LE wanted him to say it was much bigger than it was.
The first mention of a fire, I believe was in Scott Tadych's interview, might have been November 11th or 15th or something like that. His version of that day changed over time though too.
I would have to go look at that first interview, but I think Brendan maintained that he didn't see TH that day, UNTIL the cop told him 'what if I told you that the bus driver and ALL the kids said she was there', then he changed his story, numerous times, because IMO he didn't see her that day at all.
I will say JMO because I'm not sure of the dates and I'm on my first cup of coffee haha
Brendan's talk about the fire in that early interview was a fire that they were supposed to have on the 3rd. He was inviting a girl and some other friends IIRC. Sometime during the week, Barb and SA had an argument and Barb told the boys that they weren't allowed to go over there for a fire,so it got cancelled. (also, IIRC, the Barb/SA fight was something about SA calling Barb a terrible mother and she should spend more time with her kids and they were dumbasses).
JRandant ... the neighbour, talked to police on the 5th about the fire he saw, he described it as in a barrel, he says that LE wanted him to say it was much bigger than it was.
The first mention of a fire, I believe was in Scott Tadych's interview, might have been November 11th or 15th or something like that. His version of that day changed over time though too.
I would have to go look at that first interview, but I think Brendan maintained that he didn't see TH that day, UNTIL the cop told him 'what if I told you that the bus driver and ALL the kids said she was there', then he changed his story, numerous times, because IMO he didn't see her that day at all.
I will say JMO because I'm not sure of the dates and I'm on my first cup of coffee haha
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,985
Right, but if Randant mentions a fire, then he's the first one to mention it in any way, shape or form in the case. Correct?
So on 11/06, when they talk to Brendan, idea of a fire is in their information bank, regardless of size. Brendan becomes the next person, then, to mention a fire. Brendan is confusing about when this fire was supposed to take place. It can't be 11/3 if he just told investigators that he is at the cabin right now because they are getting wood for the bonfire. I think it's very fair to the police to be confused by the statement and then be more confused when,later, he said they were gathering wood for hunting.
At this point, it is of no consequence to me if Brendan understands what he's saying, if he realizes what's going on. I'm strictly looking at how the police could interpret what he is saying because I'm interested to follow the history of how Brendan wound up in this position. In other words, I am looking at this mostly from LE view apart from Brendan. I think that helps me to see why they were on him like they were.
I think Brendan had been listening to adult family conversations, and he was scared that Steven would be framed or taken away again. I believe Brendan feared he might get taken away, too, because if they did it to Steven before, they could do it to Brendan now. I see how he was pressured into saying he saw TH, but I'm also looking at other info he volunteers.
For example, he never says anything about checking the mail. I don't know how the mail got involved later. For example, he says bobby goes hunting everyday 3pm. Why does he say that when bobby and scott make it sound like it was a one-time occurrence? He says Mike usually goes with bobby. Okay. Do they meet there? Does Mike come to the house and then they go?
Because if Bobby was looking out the window, waiting for Mike, that's significant. What's also significant, but off topic, is that Scott has a green SUV. Could the petrol man have seen Scott drive out of there? I don't know.
Some of what Brendan says in this interview is relevant. Also relevant is him saying the gray jeep was outside the garage. Why is he talking about moving it and not talking about cleaning?
Barb claims she saw his jeans that night with the bleach on them, but let Scott and her tell it, she wasn't even home. So did he come home and barb saw bleach on his pants at 9 or 10pm? BTW, can't find his mother's feb 27 interview about these jeans. This whole thing is fishy because as I looked for this interview, I saw Lisa, someone Scott worked with, state that Scott had told her that one of the boy's clothes had blood on it and got mixed up with scott's laundry.
I have a problem with scott saying this.
So on 11/06, when they talk to Brendan, idea of a fire is in their information bank, regardless of size. Brendan becomes the next person, then, to mention a fire. Brendan is confusing about when this fire was supposed to take place. It can't be 11/3 if he just told investigators that he is at the cabin right now because they are getting wood for the bonfire. I think it's very fair to the police to be confused by the statement and then be more confused when,later, he said they were gathering wood for hunting.
At this point, it is of no consequence to me if Brendan understands what he's saying, if he realizes what's going on. I'm strictly looking at how the police could interpret what he is saying because I'm interested to follow the history of how Brendan wound up in this position. In other words, I am looking at this mostly from LE view apart from Brendan. I think that helps me to see why they were on him like they were.
I think Brendan had been listening to adult family conversations, and he was scared that Steven would be framed or taken away again. I believe Brendan feared he might get taken away, too, because if they did it to Steven before, they could do it to Brendan now. I see how he was pressured into saying he saw TH, but I'm also looking at other info he volunteers.
For example, he never says anything about checking the mail. I don't know how the mail got involved later. For example, he says bobby goes hunting everyday 3pm. Why does he say that when bobby and scott make it sound like it was a one-time occurrence? He says Mike usually goes with bobby. Okay. Do they meet there? Does Mike come to the house and then they go?
Because if Bobby was looking out the window, waiting for Mike, that's significant. What's also significant, but off topic, is that Scott has a green SUV. Could the petrol man have seen Scott drive out of there? I don't know.
Some of what Brendan says in this interview is relevant. Also relevant is him saying the gray jeep was outside the garage. Why is he talking about moving it and not talking about cleaning?
Barb claims she saw his jeans that night with the bleach on them, but let Scott and her tell it, she wasn't even home. So did he come home and barb saw bleach on his pants at 9 or 10pm? BTW, can't find his mother's feb 27 interview about these jeans. This whole thing is fishy because as I looked for this interview, I saw Lisa, someone Scott worked with, state that Scott had told her that one of the boy's clothes had blood on it and got mixed up with scott's laundry.
I have a problem with scott saying this.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,985
So I'm back over on the confessions, and I'm really mad. I'd laugh at it if it wasn't fiction, but it's real. I just can't understand how anyone took the one where Brendan finally makes himself an accomplice as serious. I really wish we knew what they talked to him about a that hotel and I wish we knew what they were talking about when they apologized to him about being rough or in his face or something like that during the school interview the previous day.
It's my first read through and I haven't watched it, but my first impressions are that he has him and steven killing TH in every way you can except drowning--but they'd apparently considered it before "shooting" her! It's just outrageous.
I would have told Brendan, if I were the cops, "All right. You can't be serious. We are doing a real investigation. Just go back to class."
Where are his mother's interviews? Why don't we have those? How could she keep just letting them interview her son alone and over and over and over. I don't get that.
It's my first read through and I haven't watched it, but my first impressions are that he has him and steven killing TH in every way you can except drowning--but they'd apparently considered it before "shooting" her! It's just outrageous.
I would have told Brendan, if I were the cops, "All right. You can't be serious. We are doing a real investigation. Just go back to class."
Where are his mother's interviews? Why don't we have those? How could she keep just letting them interview her son alone and over and over and over. I don't get that.
missy1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 10,142
- Reaction score
- 31,356
wasnt_me... I was just reading the transcript from the 6th with Brendan. It's pretty clear to me that he is talking about the bonfire on the Thursday night (the 3rd). Baldwin clarifies it with him, asks on this past Thursday or the Thursday coming up, he says last week, and even goes on to explain why they didn't have the bonfire. Right before that Baldwin asks why they came up north... he says to get firewood ... IIRC they were getting wood for the winter but I don't think that is from BD's interviews.
It could just be that these are the facts as I know them now though after reading everything else so it just seems clearer.
I have always wondered if there was anything in BD's interviews that was questionable, then why did they wait 3 1/2 months to interview him again? Why did they wait until SA had a competent lawyer? I still think it was all about his settlement/hiring Strang/and BD was SA's alibi witness for that evening.
It could just be that these are the facts as I know them now though after reading everything else so it just seems clearer.
I have always wondered if there was anything in BD's interviews that was questionable, then why did they wait 3 1/2 months to interview him again? Why did they wait until SA had a competent lawyer? I still think it was all about his settlement/hiring Strang/and BD was SA's alibi witness for that evening.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,985
Again I do appreciate you and everyone who is willing to muck through it with me. I can get OCD about points and then glaringly overlook something I should have seen.
Yes, I completely agree about Brendan. And to me, he actually said things on the 6th that I would have investigated, but as you can see, I would investigate EVERYTHING. Wouldn't be a piece of gravel I didn't try to look at. So for them not to bother focusing on anyone else or anything else until after that feb 14th ruling--that's fishy as hell.
To me, Brendan isn't clear about the fire. He said two different things. He said what you said he did, but then he also said that was the reason he was there -- to collect wood for the bonfire. So to me, "there" is the cabin. Seeing as he went to the cabin on the 5th, I don't understand why he said he was "there" to collect wood for the bonfire. The police was confused by it, too, and he clarified it, right? Not looking at it right this second to be sure. But then he also said later that he was "there" to collect wood for "hunting."
I do not hunt. Why do you need wood to hunt?
I'm not saying he is or he isn't confused or he is saying these things because of his intelligence level, meaning he doesn't articulate what's on his mind well. That might very well be true, but I don't want to take his mental capacity into consideration yet because hindsight is 20/20. I'm just trying to see what the police saw that made them do this. To me, these would be questions I'd have if I was an investigator interviewing Brendan on the 6th. It's damn strange the police didn't follow up on those confusing statements, regardless of Brendan's mental capacity.
I do believe Brendan is highly suggestible, and I do think Brendan lies. The police asked his brother that if Brendan lied, and Bobby affirmed it. They asked if Bobby thought Brendan would lie in this kind of situation. Bobby said no, but obviously -- at least to me -- Brendan WOULD lie in this type of situation. He wouldn't be where he is if he didn't lie.
But I blame Barb and Scott for this. I really think they had something to do with him lying. Maybe he got convinced that SA was guilty and he just needed to help provide details, so it wasn't lying. Maybe he was told he was helping his mom's drug case by telling all he "knew" about Steven. I don't know but it really seems that way because of how they keep saying, "We already know. We can't say it. We need you to say it," type of stuff.
Somewhere in here, and we can't see it because we don't have all the interviews, but somewhere in here Barb and Scott turned on Steven. I think they influenced the sons to change their stories. I don't know why they did that, but there is no excuse for Barb letting go on what went on with Brendan unless she had something in her mind that was told to her would happen. Maybe it was the thing about them saying Steven abused Brendan. I haven't read into that yet, but they got this family to turn some kind of way.
Maybe the police bluffed them and started acting like another son was a suspect, like Bobby, who didn't have an alibi. Maybe it was Barb's weed case you mentioned. I am of the mind right now that they convinced barb that her sons just needed to place TH there, and they'd take care of big, bad Steve. Barb couldn't have had any idea that Brendan would say what he did. But I don't know why she trusted them with her son like that.
I really want to see Barb's interview and i really want to know what happened after the record at that hotel. They said they put Brendan and Barb there to keep them safe--from who? Steven was in jail, right? I don't like that at all.
Yes, I completely agree about Brendan. And to me, he actually said things on the 6th that I would have investigated, but as you can see, I would investigate EVERYTHING. Wouldn't be a piece of gravel I didn't try to look at. So for them not to bother focusing on anyone else or anything else until after that feb 14th ruling--that's fishy as hell.
To me, Brendan isn't clear about the fire. He said two different things. He said what you said he did, but then he also said that was the reason he was there -- to collect wood for the bonfire. So to me, "there" is the cabin. Seeing as he went to the cabin on the 5th, I don't understand why he said he was "there" to collect wood for the bonfire. The police was confused by it, too, and he clarified it, right? Not looking at it right this second to be sure. But then he also said later that he was "there" to collect wood for "hunting."
I do not hunt. Why do you need wood to hunt?
I'm not saying he is or he isn't confused or he is saying these things because of his intelligence level, meaning he doesn't articulate what's on his mind well. That might very well be true, but I don't want to take his mental capacity into consideration yet because hindsight is 20/20. I'm just trying to see what the police saw that made them do this. To me, these would be questions I'd have if I was an investigator interviewing Brendan on the 6th. It's damn strange the police didn't follow up on those confusing statements, regardless of Brendan's mental capacity.
I do believe Brendan is highly suggestible, and I do think Brendan lies. The police asked his brother that if Brendan lied, and Bobby affirmed it. They asked if Bobby thought Brendan would lie in this kind of situation. Bobby said no, but obviously -- at least to me -- Brendan WOULD lie in this type of situation. He wouldn't be where he is if he didn't lie.
But I blame Barb and Scott for this. I really think they had something to do with him lying. Maybe he got convinced that SA was guilty and he just needed to help provide details, so it wasn't lying. Maybe he was told he was helping his mom's drug case by telling all he "knew" about Steven. I don't know but it really seems that way because of how they keep saying, "We already know. We can't say it. We need you to say it," type of stuff.
Somewhere in here, and we can't see it because we don't have all the interviews, but somewhere in here Barb and Scott turned on Steven. I think they influenced the sons to change their stories. I don't know why they did that, but there is no excuse for Barb letting go on what went on with Brendan unless she had something in her mind that was told to her would happen. Maybe it was the thing about them saying Steven abused Brendan. I haven't read into that yet, but they got this family to turn some kind of way.
Maybe the police bluffed them and started acting like another son was a suspect, like Bobby, who didn't have an alibi. Maybe it was Barb's weed case you mentioned. I am of the mind right now that they convinced barb that her sons just needed to place TH there, and they'd take care of big, bad Steve. Barb couldn't have had any idea that Brendan would say what he did. But I don't know why she trusted them with her son like that.
I really want to see Barb's interview and i really want to know what happened after the record at that hotel. They said they put Brendan and Barb there to keep them safe--from who? Steven was in jail, right? I don't like that at all.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,985
Back on the confession:
These police officers did a lot of things to shape the narrative, and it's scary. Like I said, I wanted to laugh, and might have laughed, when I read some of this March 1st confession. Then I felt sick because it wasn't a "video" like they kept telling Brendan it was in his head. It was real. Someone is dead, and they had Brendan in there, acting like he was directing a movie of it.
There are so many reasons to disbelieve Brendan's confession, but the biggest one that stood out to me overall was how he kept affirming the actions of that evening with Steven narrating Steven's thoughts and actions. I'm reading it thinking, "Yeah, like Steven is really gonna go back there and say, 'I'm going to stab you. I'm going to tie you up. I'm going to choke you,' or however Brendan put it. Did you notice that? Brendan always seems to know what Steven is thinking because Steven is just talking, talking, talking about it the whole crime long. Not realistic.
Also not realistic to me is Steven doing this in the middle of the damn afternoon. I still can't get over them thinking that was logical. People are coming and going, and Steven's just over there next door, raping and killing like it's a regular day. Dragging TH in and out of the house and garage at dusk, like no one can drive up and see. If Steven can see clear up 147, then Steven knows people can see him from a long distance, too. It makes no dang on sense! If we suspect the police was watching the junkyard even before this happened, of course paranoid Steven thinks it, too! So this crime just doesn't fit for me.
The evidence is damning, but the logic is just not there. I have a lot to say about this, but I can't even know where to start because this confession is just something unbelievable. It so much reminds me of Chuck from Ryan Ferguson's case.
The major difference here, though, is that something is left out. The police had talks with Brendan off the record, and that alone ought to make this confession inadmissible. I want to know what they said to him when they weren't recording. I want to listen to the recordings because I believe I will hear it shut off and restart, especially at those points where they say, "let's back up," and they pull Brendan back to a time earlier in the story. I don't know. I haven't read his overturned conviction case yet, so...
I feel strongly that Brendan was told everything he "did" was excusable because Steven was the adult ringleader and they got Brendan to say that stuff because they had him and Barb believing they were after Steven, not Brendan. They convinced Brendan that all the "legalese" was just a formality and Brendan wouldn't have any problems. I see that from when they told Brendan something like, "I just have to talk to this recorder and narrate everything" as if it was also an irritating formality.
These police officers did a lot of things to shape the narrative, and it's scary. Like I said, I wanted to laugh, and might have laughed, when I read some of this March 1st confession. Then I felt sick because it wasn't a "video" like they kept telling Brendan it was in his head. It was real. Someone is dead, and they had Brendan in there, acting like he was directing a movie of it.
There are so many reasons to disbelieve Brendan's confession, but the biggest one that stood out to me overall was how he kept affirming the actions of that evening with Steven narrating Steven's thoughts and actions. I'm reading it thinking, "Yeah, like Steven is really gonna go back there and say, 'I'm going to stab you. I'm going to tie you up. I'm going to choke you,' or however Brendan put it. Did you notice that? Brendan always seems to know what Steven is thinking because Steven is just talking, talking, talking about it the whole crime long. Not realistic.
Also not realistic to me is Steven doing this in the middle of the damn afternoon. I still can't get over them thinking that was logical. People are coming and going, and Steven's just over there next door, raping and killing like it's a regular day. Dragging TH in and out of the house and garage at dusk, like no one can drive up and see. If Steven can see clear up 147, then Steven knows people can see him from a long distance, too. It makes no dang on sense! If we suspect the police was watching the junkyard even before this happened, of course paranoid Steven thinks it, too! So this crime just doesn't fit for me.
The evidence is damning, but the logic is just not there. I have a lot to say about this, but I can't even know where to start because this confession is just something unbelievable. It so much reminds me of Chuck from Ryan Ferguson's case.
The major difference here, though, is that something is left out. The police had talks with Brendan off the record, and that alone ought to make this confession inadmissible. I want to know what they said to him when they weren't recording. I want to listen to the recordings because I believe I will hear it shut off and restart, especially at those points where they say, "let's back up," and they pull Brendan back to a time earlier in the story. I don't know. I haven't read his overturned conviction case yet, so...
I feel strongly that Brendan was told everything he "did" was excusable because Steven was the adult ringleader and they got Brendan to say that stuff because they had him and Barb believing they were after Steven, not Brendan. They convinced Brendan that all the "legalese" was just a formality and Brendan wouldn't have any problems. I see that from when they told Brendan something like, "I just have to talk to this recorder and narrate everything" as if it was also an irritating formality.
Chakra
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2017
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 20
You can tell by Brendan's body language in the video interviews that he's nervous, unsure of what to say and desperately trying to get out of that room... Most people faced with that situation will say anything that the interrogator wants to hear.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,985
Yeah, I've been holding off actually watching it.
I got to the part of the caso where Brendan claims he saw Steven drop the key in the bedroom while he was in the living room. So, since Brendan lies so much in this interview, can we believe Steven rearranged the bedroom? I don't believe he saw Steven drop the key on the floor and find this detail very ironic since the cops found in on the floor after "vigorously turning" the bookcase.
It makes me wonder who fed Brendan information.
I got to the part of the caso where Brendan claims he saw Steven drop the key in the bedroom while he was in the living room. So, since Brendan lies so much in this interview, can we believe Steven rearranged the bedroom? I don't believe he saw Steven drop the key on the floor and find this detail very ironic since the cops found in on the floor after "vigorously turning" the bookcase.
It makes me wonder who fed Brendan information.
Chakra
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2017
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 20
In the video interviews, you can actually witness the detectives coercing Brendan, basically telling him what to say. At points you can hear Brendan ask the detectives "What do you want me to say?...". Based on that alone, every statement that Dassey ever gave to LE should be thrown out.
wasnt_me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 10,985
I don't recall hearing or reading that. I did finally look at --or at least listen to--some of the confessions on video.
It ought to be thrown out on the basis that the police admit being with Brendan and his family at that hotel on 2/28 all the way up until I think it was 10pm, one of the detectives testified to in BD's trial. That's disgusting and not one record of whatever they were talking about. And still I can't find Barb's february interview. That's fishy.
How did the information about his jeans come about? All I see if the remarking that "someone" told the police about them and then they went to pick them up. I can't see where in the interviews they discovered that Brendan had helped clean the garage.
I don't know if I can believe anything in BD's statements. It was brought up in his trial by defense if the police had bothered to check the patterns on the floor of the bedroom to see if the furniture had been rearranged. That could have worked, unless SA vacuumed out the old carpet lines, but Dassey's lawyer seemed to think there would be wear in places where furniture had once been. They didn't, of course.
The trap the police fell into was believing things happened based on what Brendan said instead of using evidence to prove that what Brendan said was right or wrong. They even got Blaine to admit on the stand to seeing a fire in SA's barrel at 345pm. But how is Th's phone burning at 345, but doesn't shut off until after SA's 435pm call to it?
It ought to be thrown out on the basis that the police admit being with Brendan and his family at that hotel on 2/28 all the way up until I think it was 10pm, one of the detectives testified to in BD's trial. That's disgusting and not one record of whatever they were talking about. And still I can't find Barb's february interview. That's fishy.
How did the information about his jeans come about? All I see if the remarking that "someone" told the police about them and then they went to pick them up. I can't see where in the interviews they discovered that Brendan had helped clean the garage.
I don't know if I can believe anything in BD's statements. It was brought up in his trial by defense if the police had bothered to check the patterns on the floor of the bedroom to see if the furniture had been rearranged. That could have worked, unless SA vacuumed out the old carpet lines, but Dassey's lawyer seemed to think there would be wear in places where furniture had once been. They didn't, of course.
The trap the police fell into was believing things happened based on what Brendan said instead of using evidence to prove that what Brendan said was right or wrong. They even got Blaine to admit on the stand to seeing a fire in SA's barrel at 345pm. But how is Th's phone burning at 345, but doesn't shut off until after SA's 435pm call to it?
BigCityAccountant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,436
- Reaction score
- 247
Good Grief Kachinsky :scared::shame:
Making A Murderer': Len Kachinsky Hopes Appeals Court Establies Law to Help Juvenile Defendants
[FONT="]“I am a convenient target as a known conservative.”~~Clue~~this has nothing to do with your political views. [/FONT]:gaah:
[FONT="]Kachinsky said, adding that the documentary has brought out “a lot of people with a little knowledge and no judgement.”
Really, no knowledge~~~I have no words other than he should really crawl back under that rock.
[/FONT]https://www.**************/4490407/making-a-murderer-len-kachinsky-hopes-appeals-court-establishes-law-to-help-juvenile-defandants/[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Making A Murderer': Len Kachinsky Hopes Appeals Court Establies Law to Help Juvenile Defendants
[FONT="]“I am a convenient target as a known conservative.”~~Clue~~this has nothing to do with your political views. [/FONT]:gaah:
[FONT="]Kachinsky said, adding that the documentary has brought out “a lot of people with a little knowledge and no judgement.”
Really, no knowledge~~~I have no words other than he should really crawl back under that rock.
[/FONT]https://www.**************/4490407/making-a-murderer-len-kachinsky-hopes-appeals-court-establishes-law-to-help-juvenile-defandants/[FONT="]
[/FONT]
dexter75
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2015
- Messages
- 2,209
- Reaction score
- 71
So this " kind of " goes along the lines of what we've discussed over the past year ( plus ) as far as false confessions.
In case any were interested NETFLIX has a new series out titled " The Confession Tapes "
I've almost finished season 1 & it is quite disturbing.
I had never realized how often false confessions happened until MAM.
IMO MAM opened up a door/dialogue and got folks talking.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
In case any were interested NETFLIX has a new series out titled " The Confession Tapes "
I've almost finished season 1 & it is quite disturbing.
I had never realized how often false confessions happened until MAM.
IMO MAM opened up a door/dialogue and got folks talking.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
I watched the full confession video (about two hours in totality). The kid clearly had no idea what was going on. He was nervous, but not at the level you would expect from someone who is aware that they are likely about to get arrested. The detectives repeatedly told him that they were there to help him, and that the only way they could help him would be for him to be honest. He answered nearly every "Yes or no" question with "Yes", and guessed at the more complex questions. He was obviously telling them what he thought they wanted to hear so that they would help him.
You can almost watch his entire thought process play out if you try to get in his head.
You can almost watch his entire thought process play out if you try to get in his head.
BigCityAccountant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,436
- Reaction score
- 247
OH MY~~~
[h=1]“They lied about it:” Prison wardens told ‘fish tale’ to law enforcement[/h]"If you've got a leader that lies, you're not gonna follow 'em. You can't trust 'em," West said.
Michael Dittman (left), Warden at Columbia Correctional Institution. Steven Schueler (right), Deputy Warden and Green Bay Correctional Institution.
He's talking about Michael Dittmann, the warden at Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, and Steven Schueler, deputy warden in Green Bay.
Dittmann and Schueler -- both senior managers of state correctional institutions -- tried to hide the
truth from the DNR. According to narratives detailing the law enforcement encounter, when agents asked how many fish they'd caught that day, both Dittmann and Schueler answered "eleven."
The DNR already knew that the men had been out fishing twice that day, an illegal practice known as 'double-tripping.' But, according to the case file, Dittmann "denied going fishing" in the morning and Schueler said they only caught "seven walleye" in the morning.
In fact, the men had caught their full, 18-fish limit before lunch. Then went back out, on purpose, and hooked 11 more. In Ohio, that's a fourth-degree misdemeanor and a mandatory court appearance.
"All they're doin' is covering their own people," West said.
http://fox6now.com/2017/09/14/they-lied-about-it-prison-wardens-told-fish-tale-to-law-enforcement/
[h=1]“They lied about it:” Prison wardens told ‘fish tale’ to law enforcement[/h]"If you've got a leader that lies, you're not gonna follow 'em. You can't trust 'em," West said.
He's talking about Michael Dittmann, the warden at Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, and Steven Schueler, deputy warden in Green Bay.
Dittmann and Schueler -- both senior managers of state correctional institutions -- tried to hide the
truth from the DNR. According to narratives detailing the law enforcement encounter, when agents asked how many fish they'd caught that day, both Dittmann and Schueler answered "eleven."
The DNR already knew that the men had been out fishing twice that day, an illegal practice known as 'double-tripping.' But, according to the case file, Dittmann "denied going fishing" in the morning and Schueler said they only caught "seven walleye" in the morning.
In fact, the men had caught their full, 18-fish limit before lunch. Then went back out, on purpose, and hooked 11 more. In Ohio, that's a fourth-degree misdemeanor and a mandatory court appearance.
"All they're doin' is covering their own people," West said.
http://fox6now.com/2017/09/14/they-lied-about-it-prison-wardens-told-fish-tale-to-law-enforcement/