Brendan Dassey's Habeas Corpus Petition Granted

[IDK]

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

If I were innocent of a crime, no way in H*LL would I take a plea deal. And if my lawyer encouraged me to, I would seek alternative legal representation. Can anyone here honestly say that they would not do the same?

 

[IDK]

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.

So what about TH's hairs? Were they or were they not found in the bedding material, drain traps or sewage tank?

 

[IDK]

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:

Thanks for the reminder about dog hair. No wonder the vacuum was full of hair

 

[missy1974]

So what about TH's hairs? Were they or were they not found in the bedding material, drain traps or sewage tank?

I would also like to see a link that states or confirms that his bedroom was rearranged between Monday and Friday. I do recall Jodi saying something about the bed being by the window at some point, but she wouldn't know if it was on the Monday because she was in jail and had been there for awhile I think. She didn't get out until sometime in 2006, I vaguely recall that in MaM.

 

[missy1974]

The phone calls....... We don't have ALL of his conversations with his family to really make an informed opinion, IMO. We have the few that the prosecution used against him, I would love to hear them all. We do have all of the police interviews with Brendan though, with the exception of the February 27th late night hotel interview, which is probably the most telling one anyway. Jmo

 

[CoolJ]

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.

The conviction was overturned. There is not much else to say about it . The conviction that ruled him guilty has been overturned. Brendan Dassey is now presumed innocent. Folks are free to pick and choose whether they agree with that decision, but that is the decision. Steven Avery is next. Justice is coming. The crooked ones better get used to losing and being outed because that is the trend. The compassionate and honest folks with integrity are taking back control. My advice for everyone paying attention; choose wisely who you align yourself with. JMO

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

If I were innocent of a crime, no way in H*LL would I take a plea deal. And if my lawyer encouraged me to, I would seek alternative legal representation. Can anyone here honestly say that they would not do the same?

I would agree. However, as Brendan was involved he had already confessed before Kachinsky was appointed. The best position was to go for the plea deal once he was. I have said it before, his family did not help him and gave him bad advice because Avery had convinced them all he was being set up.

 

[IDK]

I would agree. However, as Brendan was involved he had already confessed before Kachinsky was appointed. The best position was to go for the plea deal once he was. I have said it before, his family did not help him and gave him bad advice because Avery had convinced them all he was being set up.

Or, Brendan was NOT involved and was coerced into confessing to a crime he did not commit. SA rightly knew he was being set up....as had happened before. SA might not have the highest IQ out there, but he had been framed before and knew it was happening again. IMO.

PS: not to be nit picky, but shouldn't you be adding "IMO" to the bolded above? Brendan's conviction has been overturned and he is now presumed innocent, according to the laws of the land.

 

[CoolJ]

I would agree. However, as Brendan was involved he had already confessed before Kachinsky was appointed. The best position was to go for the plea deal once he was. I have said it before, his family did not help him and gave him bad advice because Avery had convinced them all he was being set up.

Please don't persecute his family as well. He is in prison, right where you want him. Why go after his family now too?

 

[Karinna]

The conviction was overturned. There is not much else to say about it . The conviction that ruled him guilty has been overturned. Brendan Dassey is now presumed innocent. Folks are free to pick and choose whether they agree with that decision, but that is the decision. Steven Avery is next. Justice is coming. The crooked ones better get used to losing and being outed because that is the trend. The compassionate and honest folks with integrity are taking back control. My advice for everyone paying attention; choose wisely who you align yourself with. JMO

BBM, Exactly. It's because people have had enough IMO, and rightly so. The world has been a*s backwards and it's now time for changes that we want to see for the best for all of humanity. Even though there is a ways to go there is a shift in people's consciousness.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

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.

If I remember correctly there was a conflict of interest with a few members on SA's jury. I'm not sure if the same holds true for BD's appointed jury members or not. IMO that's a HUGE reason to question the jury's decision and compare other cases.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Please don't persecute his family as well. He is in prison, right where you want him. Why go after his family now too?

I was making the point that his mother & grandfather, leant on him to not take a plea deal.

Think about it for a minute.

Let us use your narrative. He has just admitted to a crime he did not commit. A Lawyer is then appointed. This Lawyer, knowing of the confession, quite rightly thinks that a plea deal is the best course of action for his client. Dassey's mother & grandfather, tell him not to take the plea deal.

So why did they not say to the Lawyer, "Hey, he did not do anything and you need to work on that basis, as the statement was coerced."

Why allow the time from March 1st to May 2006 pass without shouting from the rooftops that this was coerced? Why not inform Brendan that he is not to speak to anyone about what happened until he has a Lawyer with him. Why allow him to make two further statements about what happened, if the first one was coerced?

No. They didn't. They should have been doing their utmost to ensure he kept his mouth shut. Let's face it, if he could be coerced easily, then having his Mum telling him to shut up and say nothing until a lawyer is there, should be easy to achieve?

His family let him down. That needs putting out there. It is only when the magnitude of what was going on hit them, that he began to try and redact his confession, by which time, his family had ensured it was too late by confusing him into thinking he could beat the courts by denying everything.

I will say this though. Dassey was quite clearly exploited by Avery and as neither of them told the truth, it is impossible to get to the bottom of what happened. Because of their lies, neither of them can be trusted to give the real version of events. So even if Dassey began to give the 'real version' of what happened that day, he would not be believed.

 

[missy1974]

I think, like Judge Duffin did in his decision, we have to look at the totality of the circumstances.

Len Kachinsky screwed over Brendan before he even spoke to him when he talked to the media and said that he was legally and morally responsible. BEFORE Brendan even had a chance to tell his laywer he lied or confessed to a crime he didn't commit. From what I understand, when the family realized that Kachinsky was not on "Brendan's side" they were encouraging him to not only get a new lawyer, they were telling him to not take a plea deal. I can't say I wouldn't do the same if it was one of my own kids in that situation and I believed that they were coerced or being railroaded.

After Kachinksy was appointed, it was pretty much out of Barb's hands IMO Kachinsky is the one that set up meetings with O'Kelly and Wiegert/Fassbender in May 2006, it's not like they called Barb and asked her for permission, and Brendan was in custody at that point. I think it was in the recorded call that Barb told Brendan that nobody calls her and tells her anything (I believe LE and Kachinsky were not legally obligated to do so, Brendan was the client/suspect, not Barb). It was Kachinsky's job at that point to look out for Brendan's rights and IMO he failed to do so. He failed Brendan. Let's not forget.... Kachinsky WAS removed as his lawyer for allowing Brendan to be interviewed without him. article: http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...-removes-kachinsky-dasseys-attorney/78439834/

Hoosen_Fenger, you wonder why they weren't screaming from the rooftops, I wonder if anyone would have listened to it anyway, especially after not only KK's unethical press conference along with his own lawyer saying he was guilty in early March 2006. Saying they should have told him not to speak to anyone until a lawyer was with him is always easy to say in hindsight, but lets be real here.... there are many witnesses or suspects that are far more educated than Barb and Brendan that have spoken to LE without a lawyer believing that they didn't need one. According to the State, they were interviewing Brendan as a 'witness', not a 'suspect'.

I also think it's ironic that you feel that Brendan could be exploited and coerced by Steven to help him commit rape and murder and burn the evidence, yet you feel there is no way that he was exploited and coerced by LE. JMO

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

I also think it's ironic that you feel that Brendan could be exploited and coerced by Steven to help him commit rape and murder and burn the evidence, yet you feel there is no way that he was exploited and coerced by LE. JMO

I was actually trying to use the 'Coercion' argument as a way of making my point. i.e., if people say he was coerced in the interviews, then surely it was easy for his family to do like wise. In accepting that he is not the sharpest tool in the box, I see how people can think he was manipulated.

The rest of your post makes a solid argument about the involvement of Kachinsky being less than ideal in certain respects. If you can accept that Kachinsky's first day on the job was to work out what to do with someone that had just admitted to a heinous crime, then let's step forward as to what happened next.

I agree that Barb is pushed out - but she knows her son has admitted to being involved. (Kachinsky is working on the premise the confession is sound - no harm there.)
The meeting with O'Kelly is set up and the plan is to get the confession to support a plea deal. It was a horrible interview and Dassey should have had representation, if his March 1st confession was not his most accurate account of the events of 31/10. (Kanchinsky messes up majorly here, and this is reason enough for him to be removed.)
The following two interviews, conducted with Wiegert/Fassbender, were further proof that Kachinsky had not done his homework. (Again reason enough for him being removed for both interviews.)

Now I agree before this, Dassey was a Witness, but once March 1st came along, everything changed. Kachinsky did not help him, but the March 1st interview was undertaken before he was taken on and the two afterwards, were not used at trial.

I am going to stick with Dassey not being coerced, but say that there should have been a concerted effort to get Kachinsky to work properly. I agree with him thinking about a plea deal being the best course of action when he took the case up, but he clearly did not do his homework on the March 1st confession, nor take on board the theory Dassey was bullied/ coerced, during it.

This leaves us with Kachinsky not doing the best job he could, which led to Dassey first asking for him to be discharged & being refused, before eventually Kachinsky being dismissed months before the actual trial.

Hopefully you can see what I am getting at. I agree with some of your points, but I cannot get the early lies out of my mind. Why were Avery & Dassey doing that?

 

[missy1974]

Kachinsky did somewhat get on board with the theory that he was bullied/coerced though, so much so that there was a Motion to Suppress his 'confession'. IMO when he figured his argument wasn't good enough, (because IMO, it was a half-assed attempt) is when he put the O'Kelly interview, and then the Fassbender/Wiegert interview into motion, in hopes to get a good plea deal. It's obvious that Kachinsky believed Brendan was guilty, he did from the moment he was appointed his lawyer, even before talking to Brendan. It's sad really, had Brendan been appointed a competent lawyer, or at least one that would have spoke to him before the media, maybe all of this would have been put to rest in 2006.

Kachinsky in his reaction to Judge Duffin's decision, pats himself on the back and believe's it's because of his half-assed attempt in May 2006 to Suppress the confession that allowed Duffin to make his decision.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a47682/len-kachinsky-brendan-dassey-overturned/

"In the sense that [the confession] was an instance that I preserved for appeal, before I was off the case, I was in sense gratified because the fact that that was the basis for magistrate judge Duffin's decision, it shows that I did my job," Kachinsky said. "Without a confession, the state didn't really have anything of a case. It was an issue that was clearly available to appeal."

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I think, like Judge Duffin did in his decision, we have to look at the totality of the circumstances.

Len Kachinsky screwed over Brendan before he even spoke to him when he talked to the media and said that he was legally and morally responsible. BEFORE Brendan even had a chance to tell his laywer he lied or confessed to a crime he didn't commit. From what I understand, when the family realized that Kachinsky was not on "Brendan's side" they were encouraging him to not only get a new lawyer, they were telling him to not take a plea deal. I can't say I wouldn't do the same if it was one of my own kids in that situation and I believed that they were coerced or being railroaded.

After Kachinksy was appointed, it was pretty much out of Barb's hands IMO Kachinsky is the one that set up meetings with O'Kelly and Wiegert/Fassbender in May 2006, it's not like they called Barb and asked her for permission, and Brendan was in custody at that point. I think it was in the recorded call that Barb told Brendan that nobody calls her and tells her anything (I believe LE and Kachinsky were not legally obligated to do so, Brendan was the client/suspect, not Barb). It was Kachinsky's job at that point to look out for Brendan's rights and IMO he failed to do so. He failed Brendan. Let's not forget.... Kachinsky WAS removed as his lawyer for allowing Brendan to be interviewed without him. article: http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...-removes-kachinsky-dasseys-attorney/78439834/

Hoosen_Fenger, you wonder why they weren't screaming from the rooftops, I wonder if anyone would have listened to it anyway, especially after not only KK's unethical press conference along with his own lawyer saying he was guilty in early March 2006. Saying they should have told him not to speak to anyone until a lawyer was with him is always easy to say in hindsight, but lets be real here.... there are many witnesses or suspects that are far more educated than Barb and Brendan that have spoken to LE without a lawyer believing that they didn't need one. According to the State, they were interviewing Brendan as a 'witness', not a 'suspect'.

I also think it's ironic that you feel that Brendan could be exploited and coerced by Steven to help him commit rape and murder and burn the evidence, yet you feel there is no way that he was exploited and coerced by LE. JMO

WOW! Great Post Missy! :yourock::yeahthat: I couldn't have said it any better!!!

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Kachinsky did somewhat get on board with the theory that he was bullied/coerced though, so much so that there was a Motion to Suppress his 'confession'. IMO when he figured his argument wasn't good enough, (because IMO, it was a half-assed attempt) is when he put the O'Kelly interview, and then the Fassbender/Wiegert interview into motion, in hopes to get a good plea deal. It's obvious that Kachinsky believed Brendan was guilty, he did from the moment he was appointed his lawyer, even before talking to Brendan. It's sad really, had Brendan been appointed a competent lawyer, or at least one that would have spoke to him before the media, maybe all of this would have been put to rest in 2006.

Kachinsky in his reaction to Judge Duffin's decision, pats himself on the back and believe's it's because of his half-assed attempt in May 2006 to Suppress the confession that allowed Duffin to make his decision.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a47682/len-kachinsky-brendan-dassey-overturned/

"In the sense that [the confession] was an instance that I preserved for appeal, before I was off the case, I was in sense gratified because the fact that that was the basis for magistrate judge Duffin's decision, it shows that I did my job," Kachinsky said. "Without a confession, the state didn't really have anything of a case. It was an issue that was clearly available to appeal."

I read that too~~makes me sick uke:

So, lets see~~how does that go? I think I'll help the prosecution convict my client, so that it can be appealed, I think we have a good appeal based upon a false confession? WHAT????

 

[missy1974]

I read that too~~makes me sick uke:

So, lets see~~how does that go? I think I'll help the prosecution convict my client, so that it can be appealed, I think we have a good appeal based upon a false confession? WHAT????

To be fair.... Kachinsky didn't set up those interviews until after the Motion to Suppress hearing. But it was the day after IIRC. And then I do think he was doing it in hopes to get a plea deal. The problem was, Brendan was still trying to get someone to hear him or listen to him when he said he did not tell them the truth.

Brendan's situation makes me ill to be honest. I should reiterate that I have 2 teenage sons, and it just makes me sick to read/listen to those interviews. It's really hard for me to fault Barb or his family for trying to help Brendan or for their lack of help in the beginning, after seeing the interviews, and after seeing what Kachinsky did to him, I think they had every reason to be concerned about Kachinsky looking out for Brendan's best interest at that point. It's JMO, but I think LE set out on Feb 27th with a goal, and that goal was to implicate Brendan in some way to make sure he was not an alibi witness for Steven. I just have so many issues with the whole situation!

One thing that I have never been able to figure out is that on the night of Feb 27th, they take Brendan and Barb to a hotel for the night. No conversations that night are recorded. They said that they did it to preserve the investigation and to protect Brendan. Brendan and Barb went back home the next day. So they did more investigating overnight? Are there reports to back that up? And to protect Brendan, from who? Steven was in jail. And for what.... 18 hours? what about when they let him go home, they were no longer worried about his safety? c'mon now.... I think we are all smarter than that. I want to know what happened in that hotel room that evening. JMO

 

[BigCityAccountant]

To be fair.... Kachinsky didn't set up those interviews until after the Motion to Suppress hearing. But it was the day after IIRC. And then I do think he was doing it in hopes to get a plea deal. The problem was, Brendan was still trying to get someone to hear him or listen to him when he said he did not tell them the truth.

Brendan's situation makes me ill to be honest. I should reiterate that I have 2 teenage sons, and it just makes me sick to read/listen to those interviews. It's really hard for me to fault Barb or his family for trying to help Brendan or for their lack of help in the beginning, after seeing the interviews, and after seeing what Kachinsky did to him, I think they had every reason to be concerned about Kachinsky looking out for Brendan's best interest at that point. It's JMO, but I think LE set out on Feb 27th with a goal, and that goal was to implicate Brendan in some way to make sure he was not an alibi witness for Steven. I just have so many issues with the whole situation!

One thing that I have never been able to figure out is that on the night of Feb 27th, they take Brendan and Barb to a hotel for the night. No conversations that night are recorded. They said that they did it to preserve the investigation and to protect Brendan. Brendan and Barb went back home the next day. So they did more investigating overnight? Are there reports to back that up? And to protect Brendan, from who? Steven was in jail. And for what.... 18 hours? what about when they let him go home, they were no longer worried about his safety? c'mon now.... I think we are all smarter than that. I want to know what happened in that hotel room that evening. JMO

I'm not so sure anything happened that night. To me, it was more of a "butter him up" kind of deal. In an area where most motels/hotels run $50.00 a night~~they take him to the most expensive and exclusive place in the area. Obviously, Barb and BD could never afford to stay there on their own. To me, it was to get BD in their court by buttering him up. Of course, JMO.

ETA: Website
http://foxhillsresort.com/

 

[dexter75]

To be fair.... Kachinsky didn't set up those interviews until after the Motion to Suppress hearing. But it was the day after IIRC. And then I do think he was doing it in hopes to get a plea deal. The problem was, Brendan was still trying to get someone to hear him or listen to him when he said he did not tell them the truth.

Brendan's situation makes me ill to be honest. I should reiterate that I have 2 teenage sons, and it just makes me sick to read/listen to those interviews. It's really hard for me to fault Barb or his family for trying to help Brendan or for their lack of help in the beginning, after seeing the interviews, and after seeing what Kachinsky did to him, I think they had every reason to be concerned about Kachinsky looking out for Brendan's best interest at that point. It's JMO, but I think LE set out on Feb 27th with a goal, and that goal was to implicate Brendan in some way to make sure he was not an alibi witness for Steven. I just have so many issues with the whole situation!

One thing that I have never been able to figure out is that on the night of Feb 27th, they take Brendan and Barb to a hotel for the night. No conversations that night are recorded. They said that they did it to preserve the investigation and to protect Brendan. Brendan and Barb went back home the next day. So they did more investigating overnight? Are there reports to back that up? And to protect Brendan, from who? Steven was in jail. And for what.... 18 hours? what about when they let him go home, they were no longer worried about his safety? c'mon now.... I think we are all smarter than that. I want to know what happened in that hotel room that evening. JMO

This.
All of it.
Still so many unanswered questions.
IMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk