Anything posted below a sentence like this can be completely invalidated due to the fact that whoever wrote it is a complete imbecile, drunk, high, a shill, or any combination of the 4.

You know that the totality of the various interrogations should be looked at to come to the conclusion that they were involuntary as stated by the judge:

Duffin goes on to say:

If you disagree with the court, say why. You can't expect to just dismiss it by saying you find it unreasonable and demand other, proper evidence of coercion. The judge lays out exactly why he finds the confessions involuntary.

What you are saying is that you don't care about the actual legal definition of "coercion", you also want us to show you coercion based on your own personal definition. Why would anyone care about your personal definition?

These techniques by the police, combined with the fact that Dassey was inherently vulnerable - he was 16 years old, didn't have an adult present and had various intellectual and social deficiencies, go towards the decision.

The law is there to protect especially vulnerable people - Dassey is a fairly textbook example - and I see no reason why it was not applied properly in Duffins ruling.

It still amazes me that anyone can read the transcripts we do have of interrogations of Brendan that these statements add up to anything.

The exchange where the cops get so frustrated with their leading questions they have to flat out tell Brendan that Teresa was shot in the head, then they ask why he didn't tell them that before.

'Because I couldn't think of it!'

Brendan couldn't think of it because as far as he knows it didn't happen. Brendan didn't know it because he had nothing to do with any crimes against Teresa.

Brendan also stated he felt sorry for Steve because he thought Steve didn't do it either.

Occam's Razor would indicate that Brendan's first statement was the truest - he never saw her and doesn't know what happened to her.

If Brendan did know anything about what happened to Teresa Halbach, they cops wouldn't have to supply him with all the answers.

Even in the transcript of the very first interview the cops are telling Brendan what he remembers, and rejecting what he says until he tells them what they want to hear:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2005Nov06.pdf

The first thing that jumps out is that the cops do most of the talking, and most of that talk consists of calling Brendan a liar when he responds spontaneously and telling him what they 'know really happened'.

Nope.

There is zero evidence Teresa was was bound, raped, had her hair cut, or stabbed.

And there is zero evidence linking Brendan to Teresa, let alone any crimes that might have been committed against her.

I'm curious who forced corpus vile to post in this thread in the first place?

Is he being held hostage somewhere?

^^ All of this

Not sure, maybe we can ask god to tell us where he is.

Someone should check his phone records...where is RH?

Do a search for my SN ITT and read some of my posts where I reference the transcripts, video and audio with specific times down to the second.

Better yet, search the screen name 5ive and read his thorough dismantling of what you call a legit confession.

Here's some proof of my proof that proves manitowoc's proof of a confession actually disproves their proof that SA and BD committed any crime at all.

Just a little taste because I'm not going to bite and spend time doing research you should have done on your own:

Exactly. So according to Irving Copi's book appropriately titled "Introduction to Logic" - Absence of evidence WOULD obviously be evidence of absence in this case.

Nothing further.

Well he did say something relevant as Avery's sweat was found under the hood of the car, I don't think it's wildly speculating to opine that his DNA on Teresa's key likely came from his sweat, again considering they found his sweat under the hood.

No, because Teresa was burned. Dassey mentions the handcuffs and handcuffs are found which is either a coincidence or supports his confession. Within the context of a murder investigation, that can and will be used as evidence against you.

To go with his other guesses re the sweat, .22 and handcuffs? And of course his lie to his mother on the phone, since he's innocent? And his coincidental asking of the cops about rape on Nov 06? On top of the coercion by the cops and and lies by his cousin? I like you Goater. You're a decent guy and a good poster. But with respect you're taking a piecemeal approach to this case here mate, no offence intended.

Which statement? He'd already asked the cops about the rape on Nov 6. He confessed a few times, do you mean the one on youtube where he's told no false promises can be made, given soda and a sandwich and offered a lawyer as well as have an admission against interest explained to him and then encouraged to tell the truth even if the truth is terrible? That one?
Yet the state claims that such techniques used by Weigert/Fassbender have been accepted by courts time outa number. Are they lying?

No it hasn't. I have seen no quotes which say
Or Or Or
I've seen none of that sorry. So no the cops don't provide him with specific these details, please cite where they mention these specifics if you disagree.

My apologies- went over it again he didn't mention the battery but he did say that Avery went under the hood and again had mentioned he was sweaty and Avery'sweat was found under the hood. But I'll withdraw the disabling of the battery. The point re the sweat however remains.

So they mention the sweat under the hood? They mention the .22, cuffs and tires?

No it isn't, he'd already provided this info before anyway in his first confession. If anything, it's Duffin who strikes me as arbitrary.

That's how confessions are elicited, suspects rarely start confessing right off the bat. According to the state such techniques have been accepted numerous times by numerous courts. If true then that implies that all of these accepted cases were coerced too. otherwise it's not coercion and yeah cops kinda have to get confessions to line up with the evidence so obviously they'll ask open ended questions. An admission against interest is considered evidence against you. There is no requirement that everything else the person says be consistent with the admission, or that the admission be supported by other evidence.


With respect, you haven't given me a credible explanation as to how Dassey's confession is supported by evidence. His statements were used to support the application for the warrant that was issued in March 2007 that lead to the discovery of a bullet that was conclusively matched to Avery's .22 rifle and yielded Teresa Halbach's DNA. He told police that Avery shot Ms Halbach on the left side of her head. A fragment from the left side of her skull showed two bullet holes. He also said that he helped Avery clean a large reddish brown stain on the garage floor using gasoline, bleach, and some other product; there was an approximate three-foot patch that reacted to luminol and a bleach bottle found in the garage.

First of all tell me why one judge is correct throwing out a confession used as evidence that a trial court accepted and a jury, and after all his appeals had been exhausted?
The public defender who originally represented him was apparently trying to work a plea deal. Then he was replaced by private counsel and recanted his statements. He had the opportunity to convince the jury that his admissions were coerced, but they didn't buy it. Having read the transcripts of the interrogation, that's not surprising. Maybe his original lawyer knew something you don't.

Secondly, in what regard? Coercion? I already posted the definition earlier itt and have posted it here in this post and don't see how it's remotely comparable to Dassey's situation and it's simply untrue to suggest otherwise. Or do you mean his reasoning re his report in general?

No he didn't. This is the standard definition.
Show me where this occurred via the page transcripts. And no, the cops saying "we'll go to bat for you/we'll stand behind you " doesn't count re influence. No promises of actual leniency are made to Dassey and cite a specific example re promises of no prison time where this occurs.
Again according to the state the same techniques have been accepted a bunch of times. So by extension a bunch of cases need reviewing cuz they were all coerced too. Explain his cousin's statement and his confession to his mother and his masking about rape in a previous interview.

Yeah. My apologies for that. I regard this
:http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/05/prweb12701214.htm
...as a worrisome phenomenon. It's by no means unique to, but really seems to have taken hold in the 21st century. I regard such a phenomenon as immoral and wrong, with potentially serious implications for our societies and I regard Brendan Dassey as qualifying in this regard. I regard him as such after reading the transcripts and watching the entire interviews which again, I went into leaning towards innocence or at the very least coercion. After viewing/reading and reading other sources/documents, I have come to the conclusion that Brendan Dassey is factually guilty of rape and complicit in murder. I don't think he's in the same league as Avery and as someone who believes in the concept of rehabilitation, the actual severity of his sentence doesn't sit right with me.
But he did it.
Innocence fraud is not always easy to fight. It often gets disheartening and frustrating and often I'd really rather simply waffle online about horror flicks tbh which is what I used to do before becoming aware of this phenomenon and cottage industry too I might add. And I'm as fallible as the next guy when it comes to losing the rag at times so again my apologies.

I have the height of respect for your opinion, I wish you to know that. Oski's too and Smacc. But with respect you guys are wrong on this one. I have hopes and am somewhat optimistic that Duffin's irresponsible ruling will be overturned and if I'm wrong then so be it. Hopefully the confession from prison can be admissible as evidence against him for a retrial, but if he walks then again so be it and the Halbach's will have my sympathies.
But you're wrong on this. Brendan Dassey is guilty and Steven Avery couldn't be guiltier if he tried.
I sincerely hope you go over those transcripts again in their entirety, critically mate. Innocence Fraud is real and it needs people like you and Oski to stand up against it and counteract it with the truth. I sincerely hope you change your mind on this one but if not, as always I respect your opinion and no hard feelings on my end, we'll agree to disagree.
Cheers mate, pleasure as always.

Not interested in your blustery waffle but only if you can provide the evidence I asked you for a bunch of times, you blow hard little murderer groupie. Still getting crickets.

And none of that happened to Dassey provide examples of force and his will being bended, page numbers of the interrogation transcripts will be great, thanks.

Sorry Goater just caught this now. Dassey isn't especially vulnerable and Duffin seems ever so slightly inconsistent in this regard, considering that Dassey can read novels according to his testimony, read regular media accounts like non "especially vulnerable" people and can and also retain info and make "logical guesses" as well as apparently manipulate two seasoned detectives to boot by telling them what they wanna hear after retaining this info and making logical guesses, according to the Duffster.
Dassey also attended regular classes, didn't have a carer and went to school unaccompanied so how is he especially vulnerable again? It's not his low IQ, is it? Which somehow gives offenders a freepass for some reason?

Guess we better posthumously pardon this guy so, seeing as the law is there to protect the especially vulnerable in our midst.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottis_Toole
I take it he was coerced too?

You've got a very long way to go. Lesson #1 is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS DNA FROM SWEAT.

Do you know the definition of "implied"?

How about "or"?

Do you know what a comma is?

I will ask you the same question, does the voice mail thing point to avery? Keep in mind the voice mail thing wasn't brought up until closer to trial by the defense. Police may not have known at the time and if it doesn't point to avery, it should be pretty obvious why it isn't relevant. Think about it. Pretend you are a detective.

You find

option a: Car hidden on suspects property, Blood of both the victim and suspect found in the car, human remains of the victim on the suspects property, a key belonging to TH car found in the victims house, burnt items belonging to the victim a few steps from the suspects door and the victim was last seen with the suspect..

vs


option b: some unkown person who deleted voice mails. Lets think about it for a second.

Who is more likely to have committed this crime? I am not asking you if you think option a is enough proof that the suspect killed her. but who is more likely? We are talking about a police investigation here, not a trial.



What part of this do you not agree with/understand?



You are missing the point here. It doesn't matter if you or I agree God directed her. Your argument about this God thing and others itt is that it is illogical to think God guided her to the car. Thats fine, that is not the conclusion we have to draw to believe her testimony. All we have to believe is that she (as a christain) believes this good fortune was provided to her by God.

LOL. Please never be responsible for anything ever. The world will be a better place.

The way you are wording your questions and statements is not understandable. What is a "voice mail thing"? Police "may not have known" what?

I'm glad to see that you agree that the police regarded anything that did not point to Avery as irrelevant.

blah blah blah....

I really have no clue what these options are about but why are we even talking about a car? You try to justify RH's criminal actions as all being part of "trying to find his missing friend" then you give me ridiculous scenarios that take place when she was no longer missing.

You can think about it if you'd like but I don't see the point in thinking about this weird hypothetical that has nothing to do with what should have been a missing persons case. Obviously, the phone records should have been one of the most carefully scrutinized pieces of evidence in the entire case and should have been investigated immediately. The fact that one of most likely and obvious suspects admits to tampering with these records as opposed to alerting authorities is a massive red flag. KZ agrees. Quit being a fish.

We are not talking about an unknown, we talking about an ex-boyfriend with which the deceased had a relationship over several years.

I see why your are asserting this person as "unknown" but therein lies my point. If you change "unknown" with "known ex-lover with years of history" then the answer to this ridiculous hypothetical is extremely obvious.

Lets say that we truly do not know who accessed and altered her phone records. I'll even play your little pretend-I'm-a-detective game. The should-be suspects and known facts are:

A) Current or ex-lovers of any kind.

B) Anyone who stood to gain financially from her death. (as an aside - I've never found an answer to whether or not she had life insurance)

C) Last person known to have seen her alive: Steven Avery. - Called her company to request her photographic services on has done so on multiple occasions as a regular customer over the last 2 years for the sale of his vehicles at the junk yard. Had her visit in the middle of the day and states she left in the middle of the day after her work was done. No evidence contrary to any of his statements. Completely cooperative and story has never changed.

D) An unknown that has recently accessed and deleted her voicemails or otherwise tampered or altered her communication records for the time period of moments before her disappearance. This could be any of the above three as well.

Obviously the answer is D.

Everything else that has lead to the answer being C here is the entire point of the documentary and subsequently this thread. The answer out of the gate should have been A and it was not. To compound this egregious omission, A also happens to admit to being D lending even more credence to a "tunnel vision" type of investigation. To further this point, it is not even entirely clear that Steven Avery is C as yet another suspect that was not investigated could have been the last person to see her alive, if only she could get her story straight (where as Avery's has NEVER ONCE waivered).





There's just too many things wrong with this paragraph, I can't tell if it's just a troll or an actual justification for PoG. I don't ever have to believe someone's testimony because they claim to be religious, especially if it defies probabilities and logic. And the problem is that probabilities and logic. "All we have to believe is that she believes in god"...sorry, that's not how a murder investigation should ever operate. That is patently ridiculous.

Corpus vile you are super dense, there s a reason why what happend to dassey would be illegal in many country in the world, a police officer (authority figure) interogating a minor without legal guardian or a lawyer and taking a confession like that wouldnt fly in france or UK and many other country, it s super scummy.
It s the same reason why a teacher isnt supposed to **** a minor because the minor isnt mature enought to deal with the situation but in murica some cops sending a 16 years old in jail for 11 years is nobd but dare a 23 years old **** a 17 years old and he or she will be a predator all her life.

No, this is what I am saying.

After they found the following...

Her remains, car (with his blood inside the vehicle), and her key all at the same place she was last seen, there is NO REASON to investigate anyone else. At this point, all they need to do is gather enough evidence to meet the threshold that would convince a jury. That is what I am saying.

Lots of people were investigated before this stuff was found, once this stuff was found within a few days after finding the car, there is only one suspect. So asking why the ex (who was obviously close to her, her family and all her friends) isn't investigated further after this evidence was found is not a good question.


Also, it is unkown if someone deleted vm's from her phone. Her brother claims to have accessed her voicemails but doesn't recall deleting any. It is also not entirely known if vm's were even deleted. I think there are good reasons to believe some were, I do not think its as important as you would like to think it is, because it is much more likely the brother just deleted some on accident rather than the killer deleting important information.



No, I am saying that you don't have to believe God actually pointed her to the car. It can be explained without any divine intervention. But she believes it was God because she is a Christian. She probably also believes that when a DR cures a patient of cancer that it is God, this doesn't mean you believe the patient wasn't cured of cancer, you just apply different reasons for the cure.. IE: Medicine or whatever.

You and other itt have falliciously argued that just because we don't find anything wrong with her testimony we have to actually believe God came down and pointed her to the car.

Okay.
Was it illegal in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin law doesn't require a guardian present for a minor.
https://pdf.countyofdane.com/juvenil...in_the_Law.pdf
Let's have a look at that previous subsection, shall we?
I don't think Duffin has shown this for Dassey. Do you? you reckon the court will?

Did it fly in Wisconsin?
Did it convince a jury after the defence argued against it?
Was Duffin's ruling after Dassey had exhausted all of his appeals?
Does a potentially (un)successful habeas corpus submission equate to factual innocence/exoneration?

Yeah. I guess the moral of the story is... don't commit crimes in America so? At least not in Wisconsin anyway. Cuz they'll drop kick your ass into prison and effectively throw away the key, wouldn't you agree?
Dassey was considered mature enough. It's why he's doing a hefty prison sentence. He shoulda taken the plea deal imho.

Right, so mental impairments and the law existing to protect the especially vulnerable don't apply to ole Ottis but do apply to Innocent Brendan, yeah?
Why?It's not the whole child murder and alleged cannibalism thing with Ottis is it? Cuz y'know maybe his confession was coerced and like he didn't have a guardian present and the cops fed him info? I mean cops frame people right? If your bunch of links irrelevant to Teresa's case are supposed to indicate, so why not with the late and not particularly great Mr Toole? I mean he had a low IQ too, poor guy and that seems to give a free pass when it comes to committing crimes for some reason nobody had really explained.
I guess Brendan (and railroaded framed up Stevie of course) are just special little guys deserving of special attention, is that it?

When its a normal suspect they are supposed to investigate every potential suspect. When your main suspect is suing you already either you hope to get away by making sure you incriminate him hard by any
Possible mean or you do a spotless investigation. We know what option is often picked in WI

Oh really? Lots? I guess KZ has no idea what she's talking about then. Thanks for clearing it up.

Sucks though that your reasoning for dropping all suspects happens to revolve around every piece of alleged planted evidence. Makes it tough to justify your own tunnel-visioned investigation when you are the one that planted the evidence that begets tunnel-vision.


Guess we'll never know. Yet another incredibly obvious reason NOT to tamper with evidence.

Well obviously this is incorrect. Me and others ITT and various lawyers and scholars involved and not involved in the case argue that there are more than just the two options: Pure Luck and Divine Intervention. There's a third option where PoG is lying through her christian teeth in order to make sure another avery isn't allowed to further expand the gene pool. And hey, its okay because I'm sure she's acting on Gods orders to fight the Devil incarnate in SA.