Brendan Dassey's Habeas Corpus Petition Granted

[Karinna]

All good listening to it now,

 

[missy1974]

Haven't had a chance to listen to it myself, but i've read that the judges have asked some very penetrating questions of the lawyers.

The best question is in the first minute, IMO One of the judges interrupted the State and asked about the "truth will set you free" comment that Fassbender (I think) said to BD during his 'interview'. Nirider was asked if there was any physical evidence suggesting BD had something to do with the murder... she was able to say THERE WAS NOT!

There was something else that stood out to me that the State said, it's trivial, but it was something to do with testing of BD's intellect... he said he was told a story and then asked questions or something and he didn't understand or didn't do well, then the State guy said... "he's not book smart.. but..." <<< I thought he had just said he was told a story, that means orally. There are lots of kids that can't read and retain the information, but if they hear it or are orally taught something, they "get it", some of that IMO comes down to reading comprehension and spelling, etc. I need to go back and listen to that part and then see if I can find anything about it. All JMO.

I need to listen to it again, I was tired earlier, waiting for everyone to go to bed here and will listen ;-)

 

[Saul Vesalot]

Listening to it now. 46 minutes long.
About 5 minutes in, the lawyer is arguing that Brendan is fully capable of understanding the legal wiggle room the police left themselves.
[paraphrased]
"Do you think the police telling him they were not functioning as police when they questioned him might have influenced his answers?"
"You see, there is a distinction between an interrogation and just bringing him in for questioning."

 

[Saul Vesalot]

The lawyer claims the police did not get frustrated with him when not giving the right answers and did not praise him for giving answers they wanted.


Later
Judge: I believe it only takes on incidence of planting information to taint a confession.


I would not like being this lawyer.

He said that it is legitimate to confront a suspect with details of a crime...but didn't he say Dassey was offically just a witness at the time?

 

[Chris1982]

The lawyer claims the police did not get frustrated with him when not giving the right answers and did not praise him for giving answers they wanted.


Later
Judge: I believe it only takes on incidence of planting information to taint a confession.


I would not like being this lawyer.

He said that it is legitimate to confront a suspect with details of a crime...but didn't he say Dassey was offically just a witness at the time?

i couldnt believe the lawyer made that claim regarding being frustrated...he was clearly frustrated

 

[missy1974]

i couldnt believe the lawyer made that claim!

His claim that KA (the cousin) was lying on the stand and it was clear because she was crying on the stand literally made me go :shocked2: (with a few other choice words lol)

 

[missy1974]

Nice to see you posting Chris1982! ;-)

 

[missy1974]

The lawyer claims the police did not get frustrated with him when not giving the right answers and did not praise him for giving answers they wanted.


Later
Judge: I believe it only takes on incidence of planting information to taint a confession.


I would not like being this lawyer.

He said that it is legitimate to confront a suspect with details of a crime...but didn't he say Dassey was offically just a witness at the time?

a judge (not sure if the same one you are talking about above) does mention later that the investigator WERE frustrated, and IIRC is when the "I'm just going to ask, who shot her in the head" is brought up.

 

[Saul Vesalot]

a judge (not sure if the same one you are talking about above) does mention later that the investigator WERE frustrated, and IIRC is when the "I'm just going to ask, who shot her in the head" is brought up.

I believe that was the same one. The guy lawyer said that they can't ALWAYS get the relevant information from a suspect even though it was preferable. Then later he admitted some information was available through the media and he could not supply a list of specific pieces of information that were only known due to Dassey's confession.


Later, Dassey's lawyer (around the 30:00 mark) seems to be implying the police hid information from a judge. That the source of some information was deemed to be fruit from the poisonous tree and they did not inform the court of that fact. Unless I am confused, that is a pretty big deal.

 

[Chris1982]

Nice to see you posting Chris1982! ;-)

Thanks,its a rare occurance since i cant compete with the knowledge that a lot of you have on this case,i like to stick to reading and absorbing the info

 

[Karinna]

Just finished listening and i thought Nirida did an excellent job of putting forth her case for BD.

 

[Karinna]

Hopefully we won't have to wait too long for a decision on it all.

 

[missy1974]

I believe that was the same one. The guy lawyer said that they can't ALWAYS get the relevant information from a suspect even though it was preferable. Then later he admitted some information was available through the media and he could not supply a list of specific pieces of information that were only known due to Dassey's confession.


Later, Dassey's lawyer (around the 30:00 mark) seems to be implying the police hid information from a judge. That the source of some information was deemed to be fruit from the poisonous tree and they did not inform the court of that fact. Unless I am confused, that is a pretty big deal.

I listened to it once this afternoon... so don't take my word for it but...

The State lawyer, Berg, said that he did NOT have a list of what was available in the media before the interview. When Nirider got up, she said in fact they do and it was part of the record and cited where.

The fruit from the poisonous tree was in reference to the call that BD made to his mother. IIRC the judge asked if the May 13th interview was not admitted by the State or did the Court rule it inadmissible. And if it wasn't used because it wasn't reliable, then how did the call to his mother get into the trial? (it was the fruit... from the poisonous tree, the unreliable May 13th interview) The same judge even recalls the investigators saying "you better call your mother before we do" (I loved her tone when saying this btw lol). Nirider said that BD's defense didn't know the full totality of the circumstances of that call until post conviction hearings. Kachinsky didn't turn over the O'Kelly interview to his new attorneys. (The May 13th interview came after the defense investigator, O'Kelly's, interview with Brendan and then Kachinsky allowed the investigators to interrogate BD AGAIN without him)

I almost got the feeling that the court, or at least one judge, may find that there WAS ineffective counsel. Like Duffin, the judge asked why didn't they go for a Sullivan instead of Strickland (or vise versa lol). I do believe that is something that the courts could find, and that is where the de novo talk comes in.

ALL JMO... and subject to change after I listen again LOL

 

[Karinna]

I too like when the Judge referred to BD never having any previous run ins with LE, and asking about any evidence against BD of having committed a crime against TH.
There is absolutely no forensic evidence against BD of having anything to do with this crime, None.

 

[missy1974]

Thanks,its a rare occurance since i cant compete with the knowledge that a lot of you have on this case,i like to stick to reading and absorbing the info

ohhhh don't feel that way!!!! Thoughts, opinions, questions, answers, and discussion are all welcome Join in whenever you want!


What did you think about the hearing?

I felt like one judge seemed to lean towards the State... another towards BD... and one I didn't have a clue about. That being said... I had a really hard time telling the difference between the 2 female judges LOL I'm hoping someone types up a transcript and it will be easier to figure out ;-)

 

[Karinna]

Thanks,its a rare occurance since i cant compete with the knowledge that a lot of you have on this case,i like to stick to reading and absorbing the info

Hi Chris & Welcome to the thread. I haven't been on here that long either following this case, but i have learnt much from the others here that have followed it from the start. The more the merrier,

 

[Saul Vesalot]

I listened to it once this afternoon... so don't take my word for it but...

The State lawyer, Berg, said that he did NOT have a list of what was available in the media before the interview. When Nirider got up, she said in fact they do and it was part of the record and cited where.


I almost got the feeling that the court, or at least one judge, may find that there WAS ineffective counsel. Like Duffin, the judge asked why didn't they go for a Sullivan instead of Strickland (or vise versa lol). I do believe that is something that the courts could find, and that is where the de novo talk comes in.

ALL JMO... and subject to change after I listen again LOL

BOLDED: I feel like...that would be a kinda important thing to have? If you want to argue Dassey provided new and good information to an investigation, shouldn't you you know...know what that information is? Perhaps not having a list on hand was intentional, since the list would only have unverifiable information such as she was naked and crying). Thoughts on this idea?

 

[Karinna]

If BD was "just a witness" why was he mirandised?

 

[missy1974]

BOLDED: I feel like...that would be a kinda important thing to have? If you want to argue Dassey provided new and good information to an investigation, shouldn't you you know...know what that information is? Perhaps not having a list on hand was intentional, since the list would only have unverifiable information such as she was naked and crying). Thoughts on this idea?

My thought is, there was a list compiled by the defense and it's in the court records, but it's not a list that the State made or has probably ever agreed with. BUT the State at some point along the way, should have and could have made their own list of all the things Dassey came up with on his own... unless, of course... there was nothing they could put on the list? LOL

I liked the Nirider also added the fact that as a family, because of another family member involved, discussed the case too. I have always felt that part was ignored. I can't imagine that they didn't discuss it at all from November until Feb/March and whether they talked about what could have happened, what evidence they had against SA, etc.

JMO

 

[Saul Vesalot]

My thought is, there was a list compiled by the defense and it's in the court records, but it's not a list that the State made or has probably ever agreed with. BUT the State at some point along the way, should have and could have made their own list of all the things Dassey came up with on his own... unless, of course... there was nothing they could put on the list? LOL

I liked the Nirider also added the fact that as a family, because of another family member involved, discussed the case too. I have always felt that part was ignored. I can't imagine that they didn't discuss it at all from November until Feb/March and whether they talked about what could have happened, what evidence they had against SA, etc.

JMO

Berg's examples of details Dassey gave were appallingly weak. I have to imagine if he was going to throw things out there, he wouldn't pick something especially bad. I mean, a woman who was at that point kidnapped and raped was crying? Doesn't take much imagination.
The body burning smelling bad? Brendan has been to/around Avery bonfires before where tires were used. It doesn't take any imagination at all, just a memory of a prior bonfire.

I think the lack of a list might have something to do with giving the state wiggle room. It keeps their own claims of what is true and what isn't a little more fluid. The less exacting they are in what they claim to be true, the harder it is to pin them down and argue a point. They can move the goalposts, so to speak, when someone gets near one.