Michael O'Kelly

[ksterling3408]

Inana, I couldn't get the Gazette Review article to hot link either but I did find this...the writer refers to the Gazette Review when talking about O'Kelly. A lot of the information in the article is already well known but there are several links scattered throughout that I found interesting.

http://www.thetroublewithjustice.com/tie-a-yellow-ribbon-round-the-ole-avery-tree/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Thank you for this. I sincerely mean it when I say you took the words right out of my mouth.

Stepping back for a minute, looking at the BIGGER picture, ( as many have pointed out time and time again ) LOOK, at the threads created in regards to each person in this case. ( And there are MANY, obviously, who are not listed/talked about ) Sure there are opinions thrown around in all different directions. There are also many, MANY facts, along with documented transcript/links/etc. for ALL to see that ( speaking for myself ) when questioning ANY person involved in this case there is pretty darn good reason to, isn't there?

I do not personally lay awake at night trying to find things wrong with the Sheriffs Dept.,SC, KK, AC, GK, JL, O'Kelly, Kachinsky ( sp ), etc.

Heck, even the FBI guy didn't test ALL he should have and everything about that was questionable..

FWIW, I 100% believe O'Kelly was feeling the pressure on that tape. Most likely, the pressure of saving his own @$$!

Lack of professionalism is being to kind,

JMO

Hi Dexter :wave:

You kind of bring up a very good point. At what point do you stop the investigation? After all, they had many items to convict, the blood, bones, car, etc. (not going there guys)--but hear me out. At what point do you stop investigating? When you have enough evidence to convict? After all there is a cost associated with continuing to investigate. Personally, I haven't come across 1 person in my lifetime that says hey, I don't pay enough taxes (albeit Warren Buffet, but I have never met him) I think with financial pressures local governments face and the backlash from the community to stop raising taxes and control costs, I think there has to be a point where not all the evidence is tested, when every lead is not followed, and things might get overlooked. I guess my question is when is the fine line between Hey we are wasting taxpayer money continuing this, when we have enough to convict.

 

[ZOOL]

Please check out this article I found on Mike O'Kelly. I didn't realize he was an expert for hire! That changes my opinion slightly, and not for the better. I wonder what Kachinsky paid O'Kelly? A paid expert is at about the same social level as a mercenary. Its even more amazing that he expressed such tender sensibilities with his tears, being such a seasoned investigator/ polygraph/ cell phone expert--very familiar with the courtroom. Excellent up-date on the sleazy O'Kelly.

gazettereview.com/2016/01/happened-michael-okelly-making-murderer-update/

(couldn't get the link to link)

Good article, Inana. I merely copied and pasted the link into my browser and received what you wanted me to read.

In 2001, the Sacramento Daily Recorder ran an article about Michael O’Kelly. In short, the article explained how O’Kelly was one of “a dozen elite practioners” of a “truth detecting technique,” SCAN, which relied on exploiting linguistic deviations in statements. In the article, O’Kelly claims his technique is more dependable than a polygraph. An example of his technique is that if one were to say, “when I was a kid,” then that person was probably molested. Also, if you say the number 3, you’re probably lying.

O'Kelly's "technique" seems on par with the discredited practice of Facilitated Communication I was amazed to read that O'Kelly receives payments for his "truth detecting technique" of tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars! :shame:

 

[Justiceseeker35]

Good article, Inana. I merely copied and pasted the link into my browser and received what you wanted me to read.


O'Kelly's "technique" seems on par with the discredited practice of Facilitated Communication I was amazed to read that O'Kelly receives payments for his "truth detecting technique" of tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars! :shame:

I still continue to be in complete and utter shock that Professional people behave the way they did in this case. O'Kelly, KK. LK, SC, Factbender and the whole crew. People the lay person expects to behave better than they did.

 

[Justiceseeker35]

woops

 

[ksterling3408]

Zool...you're on point mentioning facilitated communication. While watching O'Kelly with Brendan I half expected him to snatch the pen from BD's hand and say "here, just let me draw it for you." It was like watching an exasperated teacher trying to get a child to do classwork and wanting so badly to just take the pen and do it for the child. (Or like me when I sit with my 8 year old trying to get him to plod through his homework!) O'Kelly was hovering over BD so much I thought at one point he was going to put his hand over Brendan's to "facilitate" his answers, like moving the planchette on a Ouija board. The fact that this "confession" was allowed is beyond me. I can't wrap my head around it, how a judge could watch this and not think that it was coereced.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[ksterling3408]

I did some more reading about coerced confessions and found this article to be really comprehensive and detailed. I thought the points made about mental competency and police action to be especially relevant. It almost read as a checklist with regards to BD's confession. It also makes me wonder if BD even had the mental capacity to understand his Miranda rights. (Assuming they were read to him.)

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/miranda-involuntary-confessions.html

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I absolutely get what you mean, and agree. To a point.

I suppose each case will always have it's own set of circumstances. ( look at the C. Anthony trial & the bug expert that was on the stand, forever. etc. )

In some cases though, I'm telling ya. Mistakes are made. Corruption, happens. If it were your loved one?

Hi Dexter :wave:

You kind of bring up a very good point. At what point do you stop the investigation? After all, they had many items to convict, the blood, bones, car, etc. (not going there guys)--but hear me out. At what point do you stop investigating? When you have enough evidence to convict? After all there is a cost associated with continuing to investigate. Personally, I haven't come across 1 person in my lifetime that says hey, I don't pay enough taxes (albeit Warren Buffet, but I have never met him) I think with financial pressures local governments face and the backlash from the community to stop raising taxes and control costs, I think there has to be a point where not all the evidence is tested, when every lead is not followed, and things might get overlooked. I guess my question is when is the fine line between Hey we are wasting taxpayer money continuing this, when we have enough to convict.

 

[missy1974]

Poster on reddit found some exhibits related to post-conviction hearings for BD on PACER. One of them was O'Kelly's handwritten notes, thought some might find it interesting:

https://www.scribd.com/document/339453608/Michael-O-Kelly-handwritten-notes


I do not have a decoder ring big enough to read all of this LOL I used to read medical reports, and it was tough... O'Kelly's is very comparable lol

 

[proudfootz]

Good article, Inana. I merely copied and pasted the link into my browser and received what you wanted me to read.

In 2001, the Sacramento Daily Recorder ran an article about Michael O’Kelly. In short, the article explained how O’Kelly was one of “a dozen elite practioners” of a “truth detecting technique,” SCAN, which relied on exploiting linguistic deviations in statements. In the article, O’Kelly claims his technique is more dependable than a polygraph. An example of his technique is that if one were to say, “when I was a kid,” then that person was probably molested. Also, if you say the number 3, you’re probably lying.


O'Kelly's "technique" seems on par with the discredited practice of Facilitated Communication I was amazed to read that O'Kelly receives payments for his "truth detecting technique" of tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars! :shame:

I know this is old news, but reading this quotation (in bold) is sickening.

Really? One of his 'tells' for someone lying is the use of the number 3?

Use of numerology is pretty grotesque. I wonder why he hasn't brought up astrology as another way to identify criminals?

MOO

 

[Saul Vesalot]

I know this is old news, but reading this quotation (in bold) is sickening.

Really? One of his 'tells' for someone lying is the use of the number 3?

Use of numerology is pretty grotesque. I wonder why he hasn't brought up astrology as another way to identify criminals?

MOO

Because he was probably too busy reading the bumps on their heads.

I understand that this interview will eventually be disclosed to Steve Avery's attorneys. I
would request that I be notified prior to that occurring and that it not occur until after I
have an in-depth discussion with Brendan sometime early next week. Needless to say,
this development will not be disclosed to anyone, particularly Avery's relatives by either
O'Kelly or me. I have also requested that Brendan also not disclose it as well. If you
have any questions or concerns about the above, please let me know at the mobile
number below or by email.
This is signed by LEN KACHINSKY.

--------Page 755 of the CASO-------------------------

So O'Kelly's sketchy nonsense was to be kept quiet for as long as possible. That is the only reference to O'Kelly I found in the CASO. There is more to it, but I didn't find the rest of that page worth quoting.


Here is an interesting excerpt from a webpage critical of SCAN

In any case, those like Avinoam Sapir, who developed what he calls Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), think they've discovered something that goes beyond mere logical and common sense analysis of people's statements.
*snip by me*
Sapir also claims that Magic Johnson got infected with HIV in a bisexual encounter. He knows this because Johnson never said he wasn't a bisexual, only that he wasn't a homosexual, and he said he was certain he got HIV from a woman. According to Sapir, using the word 'certain' indicates "a lack of certainty."

This line of reasoning sounds like something Homer Simpson would say.

And Another

LSI claims that a linguistic analysis of a written statement by a suspect will

solve every case for you quickly and easily. You only need the subject's own words, given of his/her own free will.
SCAN will show you whether the subject is truthful or deceptive, what information the subject is concealing, and whether or not the subject was involved in the crime.*
​

LSI boasts that "while others are out searching for physical evidence, you have already solved the case--using only the subject's own words." And with SCAN you won't have to spend hours doing "stressful interviewing," doing reverse speech analysis, or taking tedious courses in neuro-linguistic programming on "how to read any size body language." Furthermore, anyone can learn the technique in 26 hours for only $600.

Just like any other real skill, it only takes a long weekend and a stack of Benjamins to learn!

And Another

"that truthful people give statements using the pronoun 'I,' which is first person, singular. Any deviation from this norm deserves close scrutiny, for it could be an indication that the person is not totally committed to the facts in the statement and, therefore, is not telling the whole truth." This last claim is based not on any scientific analysis but rather is based on what "investigators have noted."

Oh so it is based on gut feelings. Okay. That is good enough for me!


This is my source, which seems to say all that needs to be said about SCAN. This source contains sources for even further reading if you are interested.
http://skepdic.com/statementanalysis.html

 

[proudfootz]

Here is Brendan's confession - rejected by his own defense team because it didn't make him look guilty enough:

 

[Saul Vesalot]

Here is Brendan's confession - rejected by his own defense team because it didn't make him look guilty enough:

I just want to point out the text printed on the paper itself. Initially I skipped over it to read what Brendan wrote...going back and reading the printed stuff is pretty important. This is not a sheet that just provides a blank space to write on, it starts off accusing the person who is supposed to be using it of being a liar. The Defense attorney gave Brendan a paper that relies on common police interrogation tactics to try to force more information out of him. When that didn't work, they made him do it again to their satisfaction.
It boggles the mind that people think Brendan's confession is legitimate.

 

[proudfootz]

Yes, in this case the interrogator (supposedly an investigator working for Brendan's defense!) tosses this unprompted and uncoached statement from the accused and tells Brendan exactly what he 'should' write.

 

[CoolJ]

Yes, in this case the interrogator (supposedly an investigator working for Brendan's defense!) tosses this unprompted and uncoached statement from the accused and tells Brendan exactly what he 'should' write.

My guess is that MOK and his sidekick Kachinsky (yes MOK wore the pants in that little partnership) are just peasant members of the Cabal doing what they are told by the powers that be. IMO, they worked hand in hand with Kratz and Fallon (Fallon wore the pants in that partnership) to help secure the convictions.

 

[CoolJ]

Time to dig deeper into MOK's past. There is something up with this cat!

 

[proudfootz]

Hm. According to this newspaper article, MOK is a 'cell phone data consultant'.

Not sure why he should be dictating 'confessions' to children targeted by police for prosecution.

A state fund to promote fairness in death penalty cases has so far spent nearly $500,000 on the prosecution and defense of Christopher Coleman, who was sentenced earlier this week to three life terms for strangling his wife and two sons.

...

Among the defense bills were $124,937 to Dr. Harold Bursztajn, a Harvard University psychiatrist, and $24,304 to Michael O'Kelly, a Salt Lake City forensic cell phone data consultant. Neither testified at the trial.



http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_bdb23d40-7d9e-11e0-abc6-0019bb30f31a.html

 

[proudfootz]

Apparently MOK's business address is here:

[h=1]STRONGHOLD CELLULAR FORENSICS LAB, LLC[/h]

STRONGHOLD CELLULAR FORENSICS LAB, LLC was formed on 2013-08-09 in Illinois by MICHAEL J. O'KELLY located at

2020 MANNHEIM ROAD, #1022,
DES PLAINES, IL 60018-0000



https://businessprofiles.com/details/stronghold-cellular-forensics-lab-/IL-03882594

Looks like this is a storage unit:

[h=1]Des Plaines Storage Units[/h] 2020 Mannheim Road
Des Plaines, IL 60018



http://www.safeguardit.com/Illinois-Storage/Des-Plaines-Storage-Units


Sounds legit.

MOO

 

[proudfootz]

Link to text of emails from MOK to Brendan's lawyer LK regarding this case.

No documentation of where MOK is getting his 'information'.

http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Email-from-OKelly-to-Kachinsky-5.9.2006.pdf

 

[dexter75]

Hm. According to this newspaper article, MOK is a 'cell phone data consultant'.

Not sure why he should be dictating 'confessions' to children targeted by police for prosecution.

A state fund to promote fairness in death penalty cases has so far spent nearly $500,000 on the prosecution and defense of Christopher Coleman, who was sentenced earlier this week to three life terms for strangling his wife and two sons.

...

Among the defense bills were $124,937 to Dr. Harold Bursztajn, a Harvard University psychiatrist, and $24,304 to Michael O'Kelly, a Salt Lake City forensic cell phone data consultant. Neither testified at the trial.



http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_bdb23d40-7d9e-11e0-abc6-0019bb30f31a.html

Delete
Delete
""

..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk