Brendan Dassey's Habeas Corpus Petition Granted

[RANCH]

I agree, and learned much from defense attorney's in the Casey Anthony & Trayvon Martin cases. And the juries in those cases, unconscionable IMO.
But it is what it is i guess, even though it's wrong. I don't know what the answers are, but there have been many innocent people in prisons unfortunately. Perhaps the system needs a huge overhaul in how things are conducted across the board?

I agree that the Casey Anthony jury got it wrong. She was obviously guilty.

In the George Zimmerman trial the jury got it right. The state tried a political case, over charged and lost. I was very happy with that not guilty verdict.

I find it interesting that you brought up two not guilty cases when we are discussing a case where a jury found the defendant guilty.

JMO

 

[missy1974]

Ranch ~ I read the trial transcripts wayyyy back, shortly after watching the show. I really don't think they had any physical evidence linking Brendan. They did have the female cousin, but she got on the stand and said that she lied to investigators.

I'm pretty sure that the defense did try to get the March 1st confession thrown out, so I don't think they should be blamed in light of this recent judgement, which says that it should have been inadmissible and was ruled as an involuntary confession. There were parts of the judgement that sure seemed like he was "spanking" the earlier decisions.

 

[RANCH]

Ranch ~ I read the trial transcripts wayyyy back, shortly after watching the show. I really don't think they had any physical evidence linking Brendan. They did have the female cousin, but she got on the stand and said that she lied to investigators.

I'm pretty sure that the defense did try to get the March 1st confession thrown out, so I don't think they should be blamed in light of this recent judgement, which says that it should have been inadmissible and was ruled as an involuntary confession. There were parts of the judgement that sure seemed like he was "spanking" the earlier decisions.

The point I'm trying to make is without me watching the trial I must assume that either the defense did a poor job or the jury was inept.

It's obvious that the confession was not real. Why didn't the defense use that fact? Or why didn't the jury accept that if it was shown to them?

JMO

 

[missy1974]

The point I'm trying to make is without me watching the trial I must assume that either the defense did a poor job or the jury was inept.

It's obvious that the confession was not real. Why didn't the defense use that fact? Or why didn't the jury accept that if it was shown to them?

JMO

Yep, I hear you!

The defense did try to use it, I think they had some sort of doc testify saying how Brendan was suggestible and his low IQ, etc. And like you said in your earlier post, they used evidence showing SA could have done it to convict Brendan, it's bizarre. And didn't Kratz say in BD's trial too that "only one man murdered Teresa", if that's the case, why show what they had pointing to SA LOL

So I guess it was partly the defense..... but mostly the jury that just got this one wrong IMO. It does make me wonder though.... just how much did the pre-trial conference that Kratz did, and just the media in general played a role in it all. Would love to hear from the jurors in his case.

Interesting to note..... Strang and Buting had a good Dr. lined up to testify in SA's trial because they thought the State was going to put BD on the stand. Kratz didn't use Brendan, so because the Dr. was already paid, he agreed to testify on Brendan's behalf, but the defense didn't use him. I think it's in a post trial document, but I can't remember where at the moment.

 

[Karinna]

I agree that the Casey Anthony jury got it wrong. She was obviously guilty.

In the George Zimmerman trial the jury got it right. The state tried a political case, over charged and lost. I was very happy with that not guilty verdict.

I find it interesting that you brought up two not guilty cases when we are discussing a case where a jury found the defendant guilty.

JMO

BBM, I guess i was comparing IMO anyway just how wrong juries can get things. Where defendents should be found guilty in some cases, with tons of evidence against the perps. they are acquitted and vice versa. Just my take on it anyway.

 

[RANCH]

BBM, I guess i was comparing IMO anyway just how wrong juries can get things. Where defendents should be found guilty in some cases, with tons of evidence against the perps. they are acquitted and vice versa. Just my take on it anyway.

The problem with using Zimmerman as an example is this. His acquittal shows that despite all of the negative press and the enormous power of the state, the jury was able to get it right. It appears to me the opposite happened in this case. JMO.

 

[Karinna]

The problem with using Zimmerman as an example is this. His acquittal shows that despite all of the negative press and the enormous power of the state, the jury was able to get it right. It appears to me the opposite happened in this case. JMO.

Sorry but i don't agree that a lunatic with a loaded weapon that pumped a hollow point bullet into the heart of an unarmed barely 17 yr. old kid that the jury got anything right about that. That was murder not self defence IMO,
If that was my boy i would be extremely angry at such an injustice.
Better get back on topic though.

 

[RANCH]

Sorry but i don't agree that a lunatic with a loaded weapon that pumped a hollow point bullet into the heart of an unarmed barely 17 yr. old kid that the jury got anything right about that. That was murder not self defence IMO,
If that was my boy i would be extremely angry at such an injustice.
Better get back on topic though.

Yes,you are going off topic. Next time use an example that is less controversial.

 

[Karinna]

Yes,you are going off topic. Next time use an example that is less controversial.

Hmm, controversial is an interesting word. I think there are quite a few of murder cases that people discuss that bring a certain amount of controversy though especially depending on circumstances of a case.

 

[dexter75]

Hmm, controversial is an interesting word. I think there are quite a few of murder cases that people discuss that bring a certain amount of controversy though especially depending on circumstances of a case.

Absolutely

 

[Limaes]

The jeans are stained with bleach yes but do the jeans contain
TH blood?
TH body fluids?
TH dna?
None of the above.
The bleach stained jeans are irrelevant. They only proved at some point in the past he cleaned up something that needed bleach. Given he helped out around an auto salvage no doubt he'd get some form of cleaning fluid on his clothes.

They're not irrelevant, not by a long shot. BD testified at his own trial that he changed from his school clothes, shorts and a short sleeved shirt, into those jeans that were clean and he took them from his dresser that afternoon. He also testified that he helped clean up something red coloured that "could have been" blood using bleach and didn't realise his jeans were "dirty" until he got home after 10.00pm and washed them immediately that night. Hard to explain how bleach splashes all the way up to the waistband!

 

[Limaes]

I'm not too familiar with the prosecution of Brendan Dassey. Did the state only present his "confession" to the jury at his trial? Was any other evidence presented to the jury by the state pointing towards his guilt?

The reason why I'm asking is since the confession was thrown out and his conviction overturned I've seen posts here saying that the state has no other evidence besides the confession. If that's all the state had,and it's clear that LE was wrong in obtaining the confession, and there was no other evidence pointing towards his guilt, why didn't his original attorneys point that out to the jury?

There was either more evidence pointing towards his guilt or he had some lame defense attorneys. It seems like I'm missing something in this story. JMO

No, they did not only present the March 1st confession. That is why the Judges opinion is a head scratcher. It makes me wonder if he has even been through the trial documents.

BD admitted at trial, and in his 27th Feb interview, that he collected things from around the yard with his Uncle to put on the fire which included tyres and the van seat (which was presented in the courtroom). Teresa's cremains were intermingled in both the tyres and the van seat which was not public knowledge so he couldn't have seen it in the media as the Judge and MaM claims he got his knowledge. The Prosecution determined that BD had to have seen her body when putting the van seat on top of it.

BD's own family are largely responsible for where he ended up and for how long, not the State, Defense Attorneys or the Jury. Both BD and his Attorneys told the Judge that it was people, other than his Attorneys, that "helped" him to make the decision to testify at his own trial. Much like him not having a parent present during his police interviews, the cops can't be blamed for that. His family are to blame.

 

[missy1974]

I will just leave this here.

Preliminary hearing for Steven Avery. December 6, 2005 (approximately 3 months before they interviewed Brendan)
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Preliminary-Examination-2005Dec06.pdf

May want to skip to page 99, that would be the first mention of bones intertwined within steel belts of tires. The first mention of the van seat is on page 103, and then more questions about said seat follow on page 104.

This was a public hearing.

 

[Karinna]

They're not irrelevant, not by a long shot. BD testified at his own trial that he changed from his school clothes, shorts and a short sleeved shirt, into those jeans that were clean and he took them from his dresser that afternoon. He also testified that he helped clean up something red coloured that "could have been" blood using bleach and didn't realise his jeans were "dirty" until he got home after 10.00pm and washed them immediately that night. Hard to explain how bleach splashes all the way up to the waistband!

So he testified that he changed his clothes after school to help clean up the red that "could" of been blood or whatever it was with bleach. Well that says to me he didn't know what it was, but it could of been, unless he was told exactly what it was.
I don't see anything nefarious about accidentally splashing clothes with bleach, it does happen sometimes. I guess it would depend on how the bleach was dispensed. All IMO.

 

[cottonweaver]

I thought bleach didn't fully clean away blood ?

AFAIK Only oxy 10 type products remove it to the extent it can't be identified forensically later.

 

[Karinna]

I thought bleach didn't fully clean away blood ?

AFAIK Only oxy 10 type products remove it to the extent it can't be identified forensically later.

Yes you're right,

Understanding Bleach And Evidence

To understand how it all works, you have to consider that there are two kinds of bleach that are found in the majority of cleaning products within your home. There are bleaches that are primarily chlorine and there is also oxygen bleach.

Chlorine bleaches can remove a bloodstain to the naked eye but fortunately, forensics experts can use the application of substances such as luminol or phenolphthalein to show that hemoglobin is present. In fact, even if the shady criminal washed a bloodstained item of clothing 10 times, these chemicals could still reveal blood.

With oxygen bleach, the bleach has an oxidising agent, which could be a substance such as hydrogen peroxide. In these instances, hemoglobin is completely removed and can't later be detected. As expected, this presents a unique challenge for forensic scientists. Not only that, but it can significantly compromise an investigation and may mean thatevidence is not properly investigated and used in a trial.
http://www.csitechblog.com/2011/08/detecting-blood-evidence-after-bleaching-.html

So it would depend on what bleach is used.

 

[Sinsaint]

It bothers me greatly if defense attorneys are corrupted and do a crummy job that can cause a person to be put in prison for life.

Why should all of the blame be put on the state? I feel that the defense and the jury deserve more blame. JMO

The prosecution has a duty to ensure they are prosecuting the person who committed the crime. If we, as everyday people, could see Brendan's "confessions" were false there is no reason why the prosecutors, with their presumably higher education, shouldn't have noticed it immediately.

 

[Sinsaint]

I agree, and learned much from defense attorney's in the Casey Anthony & Trayvon Martin cases. And the juries in those cases, unconscionable IMO.
But it is what it is i guess, even though it's wrong. I don't know what the answers are, but there have been many innocent people in prisons unfortunately. Perhaps the system needs a huge overhaul in how things are conducted across the board?

Not sure about the Travon case but the Casey Anythony case made the correct call. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe she was guilty of something but the prosecution didn't prove it was murder. Blame them for overcharging her.

 

[cottonweaver]

Yes you're right,

Understanding Bleach And Evidence

To understand how it all works, you have to consider that there are two kinds of bleach that are found in the majority of cleaning products within your home. There are bleaches that are primarily chlorine and there is also oxygen bleach.

Chlorine bleaches can remove a bloodstain to the naked eye but fortunately, forensics experts can use the application of substances such as luminol or phenolphthalein to show that hemoglobin is present. In fact, even if the shady criminal washed a bloodstained item of clothing 10 times, these chemicals could still reveal blood.

With oxygen bleach, the bleach has an oxidising agent, which could be a substance such as hydrogen peroxide. In these instances, hemoglobin is completely removed and can't later be detected. As expected, this presents a unique challenge for forensic scientists. Not only that, but it can significantly compromise an investigation and may mean thatevidence is not properly investigated and used in a trial.
http://www.csitechblog.com/2011/08/detecting-blood-evidence-after-bleaching-.html

So it would depend on what bleach is used.

so back in 2005 was oxy bleach a common household product in the US? ( It wasn't that common a laundry product in the UK until relatively recently as stain removal powder.)

Have they re-tested those pants for blood?

 

[IDK]

No, they did not only present the March 1st confession. That is why the Judges opinion is a head scratcher. It makes me wonder if he has even been through the trial documents.

BD admitted at trial, and in his 27th Feb interview, that he collected things from around the yard with his Uncle to put on the fire which included tyres and the van seat (which was presented in the courtroom). Teresa's cremains were intermingled in both the tyres and the van seat which was not public knowledge so he couldn't have seen it in the media as the Judge and MaM claims he got his knowledge. The Prosecution determined that BD had to have seen her body when putting the van seat on top of it.

BD's own family are largely responsible for where he ended up and for how long, not the State, Defense Attorneys or the Jury. Both BD and his Attorneys told the Judge that it was people, other than his Attorneys, that "helped" him to make the decision to testify at his own trial. Much like him not having a parent present during his police interviews, the cops can't be blamed for that. His family are to blame.

I personally don't see it that way. Yes, maybe Brendan's family was too trusting and naive. It would have been nice if they realized those law enforcement individuals were devious and dishonest. After what happened to Steven Avery the first time around, you would think it would be glaringly obvious! So they made a mistake. But that does not make what happened to Brendan "their fault", IMO.