Brendan Dassey's Habeas Corpus Petition Granted

[BigCityAccountant]

I ask myself that all the time. Why do SA & BD supporters bring up cases of wrongful conviction? You only have to go back a couple of pages on this thread. There is one post containing about dozen names including KF. It is a pointless exercise, imo. It has nothing to do with the evidence in this case.

I feel very sorry for Teresa's family that her murder is being used as a platform for wrongful convictions. I'm all for those who are wrongfully convicted being exonerated. I am against this case being used as the platform. The evidence, imo, dictates that they were both lawfully convicted.

The other cases were brought up because Hoosen_Fenger stated "a jury found Dassey guilty based upon the evidence presented to them". I simply pointed out that each and every wrongful conviction was based upon "evidence presented to a jury" and how silly that sounds to say that statement.

People are not using TH's murder as a "platform for wrongful convictions" (RIP TH :rose Some people including myself feel SA and BD were wrongfully convicted. We are entitled to our opinion, just as you are entitled to believe what you believe.

I once had a boss who used to argue with me that there isn't just black and white. I used to get so mad at him because in my opinion it could only be black and white. But, come to think about it, there is grey (ironically made up of black and white mixed together) There is so much grey in this case, that I don't believe the majority of us here, can 100% be certainly that SA and BD were not wrongfully convicted. I think most everyone is waiting to hear more evidence one way or another, to make a call as to whether they believe the are guilty or not guilty. Some lean more toward the NG vs G and some are still undecided. In any event, I think most believe they could not convict SA and BD based on the evidence they have seen thus far.

All JMHO.

 

[IDK]

The trial transcripts contain some interesting information. For example, at BD's trial, investigators explained that they found literally thousands of hairs in SA's trailer. It would have taken them years to test them all let alone find one that still had the root attached to make it testable. Even more interesting is that many were found in his vacuum and carpet cleaner.

If you are implying that that is suspicious, I do not agree. Of course a vacuum cleaner and carpet cleaner would be full of hair, that's their purpose, to remove dirt and detritus from carpets, etc. It's normal to shed ~100 hairs/day. So that is ~1000 in ten days, three thousand/month. It would be more suspicious if hair wasn't found in the trailer. If TH suffered violent injuries while in the trailer, it would be much more likely that she lost blood or body tissue than copious amounts of hair. But since you brought it up, did the investigators test the sheets for hairs? If not, why? If so, were any of TH's hairs found? Were the sink drain traps checked? If not, why?That would be much more interesting to me than hair in the vacuum.

 

[dexter75]

I ask myself that all the time. Why do SA & BD supporters bring up cases of wrongful conviction? You only have to go back a couple of pages on this thread. There is one post containing about dozen names including KF. It is a pointless exercise, imo. It has nothing to do with the evidence in this case.

I feel very sorry for Teresa's family that her murder is being used as a platform for wrongful convictions. I'm all for those who are wrongfully convicted being exonerated. I am against this case being used as the platform. The evidence, imo, dictates that they were both lawfully convicted.

Well, I feel sorry for Teresa's family as well. ( this has been gone over, and over again ) IMO MANITOWOC COUNTY should have followed PROTOCOL to the LETTER..in 1985 and in 2005. If they had, no doubt in MY mind they wouldn't be reliving this pain now...over 10 years later.

Edited to add: because protocol was deliberately NOT followed..it blows my mind and IMO is pointless to follow any of the " evidence " in this case.

 

[missy1974]

IMHO, it seems to me like they are just rehashing the same old stuff. Conveniently, leaving out parts of his confession that don't fit "their" narrative. Oh, that would be the parts in which "they" believe he lied. You know the change of story, time and time again was left out~~just included the parts that fit their narrative.

I wonder what his confession would sound like if it was read based off only his first statements? Maybe, I'll go back and do that and post it here.

I can't even finish reading it right now.... I am about half way and it's just ticked me off, I walked away. I haven't read anything yet that shows me that Duffin's ruling wasn't based on the law and precedent and the "totality of the circumstances". Duffin pointed out more than once IIRC that it was the totality of the circumstances. I might not read the rest until after work tomorrow, we'll see how late I'm up tonight, might be good reading material to put me to sleep

 

[missy1974]

The trial transcripts contain some interesting information. For example, at BD's trial, investigators explained that they found literally thousands of hairs in SA's trailer. It would have taken them years to test them all let alone find one that still had the root attached to make it testable. Even more interesting is that many were found in his vacuum and carpet cleaner.

can you post a link to that please. A page number? is it in the CASO report? is it in the evidence list?

 

[missy1974]

If you are implying that that is suspicious, I do not agree. Of course a vacuum cleaner and carpet cleaner would be full of hair, that's their purpose, to remove dirt and detritus from carpets, etc. It's normal to shed ~100 hairs/day. So that is ~1000 in ten days, three thousand/month. It would be more suspicious if hair wasn't found in the trailer. If TH suffered violent injuries while in the trailer, it would be much more likely that she lost blood or body tissue than copious amounts of hair. But since you brought it up, did the investigators test the sheets for hairs? If not, why? If so, were any of TH's hairs found? Were the sink drain traps checked? If not, why?That would be much more interesting to me than hair in the vacuum.

I do believe they did test the drains, and I think they even drained the septic tank, but I could be wrong, so I will say JMO because I am not looking for a link at the moment ;-)

 

[dexter75]

I can't even finish reading it right now.... I am about half way and it's just ticked me off, I walked away. I haven't read anything yet that shows me that Duffin's ruling wasn't based on the law and precedent and the "totality of the circumstances". Duffin pointed out more than once IIRC that it was the totality of the circumstances. I might not read the rest until after work tomorrow, we'll see how late I'm up tonight, might be good reading material to put me to sleep

YEP..I'm IN bed and my heart is justa flutterin' away:maddening:

 

[dexter75]

If you are implying that that is suspicious, I do not agree. Of course a vacuum cleaner and carpet cleaner would be full of hair, that's their purpose, to remove dirt and detritus from carpets, etc. It's normal to shed ~100 hairs/day. So that is ~1000 in ten days, three thousand/month. It would be more suspicious if hair wasn't found in the trailer. If TH suffered violent injuries while in the trailer, it would be much more likely that she lost blood or body tissue than copious amounts of hair. But since you brought it up, did the investigators test the sheets for hairs? If not, why? If so, were any of TH's hairs found? Were the sink drain traps checked? If not, why?That would be much more interesting to me than hair in the vacuum.

Right..
I have VERY long hair..
I am constantly finding long red hair everywhere,,ugh. And we have the CADILLAC of vacuums, ( as hubby says ) this " Kirby " sucks anything up, right? Well..I'm ALWAYS turning the dang thing over to cut the hair..MY hair from it as it gets wrapped around the rotating brush. My point is..I do this a couple times a week and agree, IDK, it isn't suspicious at all for vacuum cleaners to be full of hair, IMO

 

[missy1974]

Right..
I have VERY long hair..
I am constantly finding long red hair everywhere,,ugh. And we have the CADILLAC of vacuums, ( as hubby says ) this " Kirby " sucks anything up, right? Well..I'm ALWAYS turning the dang thing over to cut the hair..MY hair from it as it gets wrapped around the rotating brush. My point is..I do this a couple times a week and agree, IDK, it isn't suspicious at all for vacuum cleaners to be full of hair, IMO

I have 2 long haired dachshunds.... using my carpet cleaner is a nightmare, I literally have to sit and pick out the long dog hairs from the bristles, it's such a pain in my butt. If there was a vacuum with hair and/or a carpet cleaner, I would imagine the majority of hairs were from his dog, Bear, the german sheppard. JMO

I would be more curious if a carpet cleaner had any sort of biological material in it, for example, blood! Surely they could have done some sort of presumptive testing.

But they didn't need to test for it, because IMO they knew they wouldn't find any. JMO

 

[dexter75]

The other cases were brought up because Hoosen_Fenger stated "a jury found Dassey guilty based upon the evidence presented to them". I simply pointed out that each and every wrongful conviction was based upon "evidence presented to a jury" and how silly that sounds to say that statement.

People are not using TH's murder as a "platform for wrongful convictions" (RIP TH :rose Some people including myself feel SA and BD were wrongfully convicted. We are entitled to our opinion, just as you are entitled to believe what you believe.

I once had a boss who used to argue with me that there isn't just black and white. I used to get so mad at him because in my opinion it could only be black and white. But, come to think about it, there is grey (ironically made up of black and white mixed together) There is so much grey in this case, that I don't believe the majority of us here, can 100% be certainly that SA and BD were not wrongfully convicted. I think most everyone is waiting to hear more evidence one way or another, to make a call as to whether they believe the are guilty or not guilty. Some lean more toward the NG vs G and some are still undecided. In any event, I think most believe they could not convict SA and BD based on the evidence they have seen thus far.

All JMHO.

I used to be the same way, BCA... NO ROOM for GREY in my YOUNG & NARROW mind. I was awful. I was NEVER wrong & would argue with myself just for arguments sake:blushing: I know just what ya mean..

 

[dexter75]

I have 2 long haired dachshunds.... using my carpet cleaner is a nightmare, I literally have to sit and pick out the long dog hairs from the bristles, it's such a pain in my butt. If there was a vacuum with hair and/or a carpet cleaner, I would imagine the majority of hairs were from his dog, Bear, the german sheppard. JMO

I would be more curious if a carpet cleaner had any sort of biological material in it, for example, blood! Surely they could have done some sort of presumptive testing.

But they didn't need to test for it, because IMO they knew they wouldn't find any. JMO

YEP..was thinking the same thing my friend! Aint gonna find nothin but dog hair in that thing..lol!! I LOVE your doggies btw..the breed, in my top 3:heartluv:

 

[Limaes]

If you are implying that that is suspicious, I do not agree. Of course a vacuum cleaner and carpet cleaner would be full of hair, that's their purpose, to remove dirt and detritus from carpets, etc. It's normal to shed ~100 hairs/day. So that is ~1000 in ten days, three thousand/month. It would be more suspicious if hair wasn't found in the trailer. If TH suffered violent injuries while in the trailer, it would be much more likely that she lost blood or body tissue than copious amounts of hair. But since you brought it up, did the investigators test the sheets for hairs? If not, why? If so, were any of TH's hairs found? Were the sink drain traps checked? If not, why?That would be much more interesting to me than hair in the vacuum.

Yes, every vacuum cleaner and carpet cleaner contains hair and yes, humans can shed up to 100 hairs a day. However, they didn't find 100s of SA's hairs around the floor, bed coverings and furniture did they? What I am implying is that, as the investigators have stated, he had 5 days to clean up and that is what the lack of 100s of his hairs suggests to me that he did. Add the rearranging of his bedroom furniture between the Monday and the Saturday and it bolsters my opinion that the correct perpetrators are in prison.

This is also information that BD's jury were presented with at his trial so it is even more strange that Duffin would conclude that they only convicted him based on his confession.

 

[Limaes]

can you post a link to that please. A page number? is it in the CASO report? is it in the evidence list?

As stated, it was testimony at BD's trial. IIRC it was Weigert's testimony.

 

[Limaes]

The other cases were brought up because Hoosen_Fenger stated "a jury found Dassey guilty based upon the evidence presented to them". I simply pointed out that each and every wrongful conviction was based upon "evidence presented to a jury" and how silly that sounds to say that statement.

People are not using TH's murder as a "platform for wrongful convictions" (RIP TH :rose Some people including myself feel SA and BD were wrongfully convicted. We are entitled to our opinion, just as you are entitled to believe what you believe.

I once had a boss who used to argue with me that there isn't just black and white. I used to get so mad at him because in my opinion it could only be black and white. But, come to think about it, there is grey (ironically made up of black and white mixed together) There is so much grey in this case, that I don't believe the majority of us here, can 100% be certainly that SA and BD were not wrongfully convicted. I think most everyone is waiting to hear more evidence one way or another, to make a call as to whether they believe the are guilty or not guilty. Some lean more toward the NG vs G and some are still undecided. In any event, I think most believe they could not convict SA and BD based on the evidence they have seen thus far.

All JMHO.

But that is true though. His jury found him guilty based on the information they were presented with. I'm not sure where the grey area or silliness is there or why other cases are used when disagreeing with the jury's decision? In my opinion, debating or disputing the evidence they were presented achieves more than bringing other cases into it.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Duffin overturned the conviction and stated BD's constitutional rights were violated. So, according to the law, he is now considered innocent. I am not a lawyer but to me, that means "not guilty".

No my friend, it does not mean he is 'Not Guilty.'

It means that unless the State would like to provide evidence to the contrary, ask for a retrial, or ask for a higher court to decide, then in his opinion, there are reasonable grounds that the convictions are not safe.

However, it is only his opinion. That he admitted relief for Kachinsky's behaviour was not possible, should set alarm bells ringing in the ears of people who think Dassey is getting out any time soon.

To recap, Kachinsky took over Dassey's case after Dassey had confessed on March 1st. Kachinsky realised that given the confession, the best course of action for his client was to take a plea deal. People need to blame the Avery family for this not happening. Especially Barb.

This ruling states that in Duffins opinion, Brendan was coerced to confess. However, at trial and on the subsequent appeal, this idea was thrown out. Duffin has given himself an out, because the State can (and will) go to the 7th Circuit. Then and only then, will Dassey's fate be decided. I for one, am pinning my colours to the mast that he will remain in prison.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Snipped by me... The other cases were brought up because Hoosen_Fenger stated "a jury found Dassey guilty based upon the evidence presented to them". I simply pointed out that each and every wrongful conviction was based upon "evidence presented to a jury" and how silly that sounds to say that statement. .

That is a bit harsh my friend. My understanding is that is what happens in a court. A jury gets presented with two sides of a story, and has to make a decision on the evidence in front of them.

I get there are wrongful convictions, but let me ask a very simple question. Why, on 6th November, were Avery & Dassey so disingenuous with their answers, if they had nothing to hide?

They are both guilty of differing levels of involvement in this crime. I believe Avery was the instigator and dragged Dassey into it. The only thing that did not happen that should have happened ahead of the trials, was Dassey should have testified against Avery to get a lesser sentence. However, he was scared of Avery and also, his own Mother & Grandfather told him not to take a plea as it would hurt Steven.

That my friend, is the real travesty in this case.

 

[missy1974]

No my friend, it does not mean he is 'Not Guilty.'

It means that unless the State would like to provide evidence to the contrary, ask for a retrial, or ask for a higher court to decide, then in his opinion, there are reasonable grounds that the convictions are not safe.

However, it is only his opinion. That he admitted relief for Kachinsky's behaviour was not possible, should set alarm bells ringing in the ears of people who think Dassey is getting out any time soon.

To recap, Kachinsky took over Dassey's case after Dassey had confessed on March 1st. Kachinsky realised that given the confession, the best course of action for his client was to take a plea deal. People need to blame the Avery family for this not happening. Especially Barb.

This ruling states that in Duffins opinion, Brendan was coerced to confess. However, at trial and on the subsequent appeal, this idea was thrown out. Duffin has given himself an out, because the State can (and will) go to the 7th Circuit. Then and only then, will Dassey's fate be decided. I for one, am pinning my colours to the mast that he will remain in prison.

Duffin's opinion was that Kachinsky’s conduct was inexcusable both tactically and ethically. His decision, was based on the law and what was presented to him in the petition for relief, the decision states: federal law prohibits the court from granting Dassey habeas relief on the first claim he presented to this court.

With regards to Kachinsky, Duffin goes into detail about the difference between Sullivan and Strickland in his decision, and IMO suggests that if they had petition under "Strickland", he may have been able to grant relief, but they used "Sullivan" which limited the scope of what the judge could look at, and they failed to show a direct connection between Kachinsky and the State which would show a conflict of interest. JMO

 

[missy1974]

That is a bit harsh my friend. My understanding is that is what happens in a court. A jury gets presented with two sides of a story, and has to make a decision on the evidence in front of them.

I get there are wrongful convictions, but let me ask a very simple question. Why, on 6th November, were Avery & Dassey so disingenuous with their answers, if they had nothing to hide?

They are both guilty of differing levels of involvement in this crime. I believe Avery was the instigator and dragged Dassey into it. The only thing that did not happen that should have happened ahead of the trials, was Dassey should have testified against Avery to get a lesser sentence. However, he was scared of Avery and also, his own Mother & Grandfather told him not to take a plea as it would hurt Steven.

That my friend, is the real travesty in this case.

The State filed their appeal yesterday. According to the State, when they interviewed BD on February 27th, he was not a suspect. His earlier interview on November 6th was NOT the reason they went back to talk to Brendan... well, not according to that appeal.

 

[missy1974]

As stated, it was testimony at BD's trial. IIRC it was Weigert's testimony.

I have to go to work, so maybe you could find me a page number or something.... even the day? I just don't have the time to find it and I'm curious.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Duffin's opinion was that Kachinsky’s conduct was inexcusable both tactically and ethically. His decision, was based on the law and what was presented to him in the petition for relief, the decision states: federal law prohibits the court from granting Dassey habeas relief on the first claim he presented to this court.

With regards to Kachinsky, Duffin goes into detail about the difference between Sullivan and Strickland in his decision, and IMO suggests that if they had petition under "Strickland", he may have been able to grant relief, but they used "Sullivan" which limited the scope of what the judge could look at, and they failed to show a direct connection between Kachinsky and the State which would show a conflict of interest. JMO

Well Missy1974, Duffin had no business giving an opinion on Kachinsky as it was outside the remit of his decision. The bizarre decision by him to guide Dasseys legal team is really puzzling. Kachinsky tried to do the best for Dassey by getting him a plea deal. That he was not present in the May interview is reprehensible, but not grounds for a conviction to be overturned. He should have been reprimanded though.

My take, is someone should be taking the Avery family to task. That his mother & grandfather sold him down the river by saying no to a plea deal, believing it was the best course of action, is disgusting. The thing is my friend, I do not see people shouting from the roof tops about that.

I am guessing that the 7th Circuit will take a few months to decide - I have no detailed knowledge of how they operate without researching, and like you, I am off to work!

EDIT: Typo's