Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

12-08-2017 , 09:39 AM
A website resource with analysis of this complex case.

[WARNING: contains information the prosecution doesn't want you to know.]

Welcome! Thank you for visiting us at Need Less Things


Please enjoy an incredibly simple website dedicated to exploring the incredibly labyrinthine cases of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey, both made popular by the Netflix documentary series 'Making A Murderer.'

https://preliminaryguilt.jimdo.com/
12-08-2017 , 10:01 AM
Quote:
You'd pretty much have to be off your rocker to think that Occam's razor favours your position here.
Advocates itt don't know what terms or words actually mean. Such as "coercion" "false", "promises", "leniency" and "evidence"...
12-08-2017 , 10:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Advocates itt don't know what terms or words actually mean. Such as "coercion" "false", "promises", "leniency" and "evidence"...
True enough - advocates for the prosecution don't know what they mean, and they don't want to know.

Judge Duffin lays it out for them:

However, the state courts unreasonably found that the investigators never made Dassey any promises during the March 1, 2006 interrogation. The investigators repeatedly claimed to already know what happened on October 31 and assured Dassey that he had nothing to worry about. These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Brendan Dassey’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is GRANTED.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lega...nd%20Order.pdf
12-08-2017 , 11:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile Making a Murderer
Agreed completely- nice to see you don't see a "coerced" confession as equating to a "false" one though like your fellow "clear thinker" Eddy btw.

Dassey wasn't tortured or coerce though or given a false promise of leniency, hence the reason nobody can provide any explicit examples so it's all good.
You are the one confused as usual. I don't care if it s false or not. It's unreliable. If his mom or a lawyer were present and they didn't tell him what to say and he came up with that story nobody would complain.
When you fish for answer while suggesting what you want to hear the confession become worthless even if it is "true".
For the same reason you wouldn't do that with someone who might want to falsely self incriminate, since it will send the investigation on the wrong path.
12-08-2017 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
You are the one confused as usual. I don't care if it s false or not. It's unreliable. If his mom or a lawyer were present and they didn't tell him what to say and he came up with that story nobody would complain.

When you fish for answer while suggesting what you want to hear the confession become worthless even if it is "true".

For the same reason you wouldn't do that with someone who might want to falsely self incriminate, since it will send the investigation on the wrong path.
In the very first recorded session with Brendan cops aren't treating him like a witness and finding out what he knows - they are already trying to get him to lie.

If cops are allowed to instruct witnesses to change their testimony and telling them what to say they might as well not talk to the witnesses at all.
12-08-2017 , 05:37 PM
It looks like the 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals has rejected Brendan Dassey's petition and reversed Judge Duffin's decision.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gVd...1QF0dwvvZ/view
12-08-2017 , 06:01 PM
Brendan's conviction upheld, 4-3.

http://wgntv.com/2017/12/08/making-a...ds-court-says/


I'll share my previous thoughts on the matter which I still stand by today:

1/2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Like I said before, I believe the flaws the series points out in the Dassey case are a lot more legitimate, and we have the full transcripts so we are able to know a lot more about the trial.

There's a lot of differences between:

the Avery case - all the evidence points to him doing it (and the defense's only case is the evidence was part of a complex conspiracy theory and/or technicalities in how the case was handled)
and
the Dassey case - there's less evidence tying him to the murder, but he confessed to doing it. He definitely wasn't completely telling the truth, although it's still very possible he did murder her too (and he was definitely involved in some way that night).

And honestly, I'm still not sure the jury was wrong to convict him - evidence ties to him being involved in something, and he did confess to doing it, and I haven't read all of the transcripts. But I really don't know what to make of his case and think I would find him not guilty; it all really depends on the whole "false confession" issue and IANAL, so I don't know... We'll see what happens with Dassey's appeal.

8/2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
I agree with Revots for the most part. If you don't think Brendan was at least involved in covering up the murder, you have not correctly analyzed the facts of the case.

Even without the confessions, the facts show that Brendan was involved in covering up the crime through cleaning what "looked like blood" and helping Steven burn the body (whether knowingly or not is then another question - in Brendan's trial, the defense was that it was unknowingly).

Without the confessions though, there is not even close to enough evidence to say that Brendan raped and murdered Teresa.

Note however that the courts did not claim the confessions were false, but rather "involuntary", mainly because of "false promises" of leniency made by investigators. There is nothing wrong with still believing Brendan's confessions (as a whole) just because of a court decision on whether they're legally admissible.

The same stance many take on Steven's case, I take on Brendan's case: I think Brendan deserves to go free if the court's decision is upheld, but I still believe he was knowingly involved in the murder.
12-08-2017 , 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
You are the one confused as usual.
Not at all you said the confession was false because it was coerced. You don't know what words mean
Quote:
It's unreliable.
Not according to the 7th circuit court it isn't.
https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news...nies-new-trial
12-08-2017 , 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Brendan's conviction upheld, 4-3.

http://wgntv.com/2017/12/08/making-a...ds-court-says/
The last best hope is that the vigorous dissents from 3 judges will provide a sound basis to appeal this decision.

Quote:
I'll share my previous thoughts on the matter which I still stand by today:

1/2016

Originally Posted by PoorSkillz

Like I said before, I believe the flaws the series points out in the Dassey case are a lot more legitimate, and we have the full transcripts so we are able to know a lot more about the trial.

There's a lot of differences between:

the Avery case - all the evidence points to him doing it (and the defense's only case is the evidence was part of a complex conspiracy theory and/or technicalities in how the case was handled)

and

the Dassey case - there's less evidence tying him to the murder, but he confessed to doing it. He definitely wasn't completely telling the truth, although it's still very possible he did murder her too (and he was definitely involved in some way that night).
I quite agree - there's a world of difference between the two cases.

Full disclosure: I think Brendan was involved in attending a completely innocent bonfire.

Quote:
And honestly, I'm still not sure the jury was wrong to convict him - evidence ties to him being involved in something, and he did confess to doing it, and I haven't read all of the transcripts. But I really don't know what to make of his case and think I would find him not guilty; it all really depends on the whole "false confession" issue and IANAL, so I don't know... We'll see what happens with Dassey's appeal.
Despite the final ruling from the 7th Circuit Court I still stand with Judge Duffin and the dissenting judges: the statements that make up the 'confession' were coerced and the transcripts show that the incriminating details were fed to Brendan by his interrogators.

Clearly there is room for disagreement.

Quote:
8/2016

Originally Posted by PoorSkillz

I agree with Revots for the most part. If you don't think Brendan was at least involved in covering up the murder, you have not correctly analyzed the facts of the case.
While I appreciate and fully understand your position, I disagree. I think the dissenting judges have correctly analyzed the facts in the case, and I also think that I have.

Quote:
Even without the confessions, the facts show that Brendan was involved in covering up the crime through cleaning what "looked like blood" and helping Steven burn the body (whether knowingly or not is then another question - in Brendan's trial, the defense was that it was unknowingly).
If Brendan unknowingly helped, then I can't see how he could be held legally liable even if Steven did in fact commit some crime against Teresa.

Quote:
Without the confessions though, there is not even close to enough evidence to say that Brendan raped and murdered Teresa.
I fully agree with what you say here.

Quote:
Note however that the courts did not claim the confessions were false, but rather "involuntary", mainly because of "false promises" of leniency made by investigators. There is nothing wrong with still believing Brendan's confessions (as a whole) just because of a court decision on whether they're legally admissible.
Nor is there anything wrong with believing that the so-called 'confession' is false given what we know about the sessions involving police interrogators.

Quote:
The same stance many take on Steven's case, I take on Brendan's case: I think Brendan deserves to go free if the court's decision is upheld, but I still believe he was knowingly involved in the murder.
While I agree that if the so-called 'confession' was coerced Brendan should go free (as that is pretty much the whole case against him), I have no compelling to believe Brendan was in any way involved.
12-08-2017 , 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I think this will end in either a 4-3 or 5-2 decision in favor of the state. I think its pretty clear there are 2 huge advocates for BD on the panel and it maybe the only two that will vote his way, could explain why there were so vocal to try and convince the others to vote with them.

Its interesting that this hearing wasn't about whether or not the confession was "true" but whether or not it was "voluntary" you would have a tough time imo convincing anyone that BD confession wasn't voluntary but I can see how people may think it was a lie.
Just saying lol.
12-08-2017 , 11:06 PM
[QUOTE]Chief Judge Diane Wood, who was highly critical of Dassey’s interrogation during oral arguments in September, penned a scathing dissent. She was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Ilana Rovner and Ann Williams.

Wood slammed the majority’s decision as “a profound miscarriage of justice.”

“Psychological coercion, questions to which the police furnished the answers, and ghoulish games of ‘20 Questions,’ in which Brendan Dassey guessed over and over again before he landed on the ‘correct’ story (i.e., the one the police wanted), led to the ‘confession’ that furnished the only serious evidence supporting his murder conviction in the Wisconsin courts,” Wood wrote. (Parentheses in original.)

The Seventh Circuit’s chief judge said Dassey’s confession was clearly coerced and should not have been admitted into evidence.

“Dassey will spend the rest of his life in prison because of the injustice this court has decided to leave unredressed,” Wood wrote.

Dassey’s attorneys, Laura Nirider and Steven Drizin with the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, said in a statement that they “are profoundly disappointed by the decision of four judges…to reverse two prior decisions and deny relief to Brendan Dassey.”

“Like many around the globe, we share the view of the three judges who wrote, in dissent, that today’s ruling represents a ‘profound miscarriage of justice.’ We intend to continue pursuing relief for Brendan, including through a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court,” the attorneys said. “Today’s ruling contravenes a fundamental and time-honored position of the United States Supreme Court: interrogation tactics that may not be coercive when applied to adults are coercive when applied to children and the mentally impaired.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/seven...derer-subject/
[QUOTE]
12-09-2017 , 09:00 AM
Interesting when supporting their stance, the dissenting arguments (p60 of PDF) reference Saul M Kassin, another known shill for criminals who makes factual errors on other cases.

Quote:
Kassin: “Knox was questioned for over 50 hours but none was recorded”.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...s._over_5_days



More on Kassin here.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C831/

Last edited by corpus vile; 12-09-2017 at 09:07 AM.
12-09-2017 , 02:42 PM
For those who think the confession should have been excluded:

1. In our legal system, the jury is supposed to make findings of fact. At Dassey's trial, the confession was presented along with evidence from the defense about Dassey's mental abilities and the phenomenon of false confessions, as well as testimony from Dassey that he made everything up.

What is your argument for why the jury shouldn't have been allowed to weigh all this evidence and make their finding?

Just because you think the jury came to the wrong decision doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't have been presented the evidence in the first place.

2. What techniques would you consider acceptable when police interview a young person of limited mental abilities who may be hiding information about a crime? Should they not be allowed to "bluff" about what they already know? Should they not be allowed to imply that it will be to the interviewee's benefit to tell the truth? Should they not be allowed to use any leading questions at all?

What would have made this interview acceptable in your eyes?

To be sure there are some aspects that are troubling to me, such as statements like "the truth will set you free", but on balance is it enough to throw out the entire confession? I'm not so sure?
12-09-2017 , 03:42 PM
Why do you think judges routinely weigh in on what juries are or are not allowed to hear at trials? Do you think that’s just a process they go through for giggles, or could it be that lay persons aren’t able to set aside their personal prejudices?

Do you know how many people regularly say “people wouldn’t confess to crimes they didn’t commit”. And yet, they do, for lots of reasons.
12-09-2017 , 03:52 PM
Such people's confessions aren't usually supported by forensic evidence or partially to secure search warrants like Dassey's was. Nor was his confession provisionally deemed false anyway but involuntary.

Best thing for him at this point would be to come clean with full disclosure, assuming the state is even feeling generous enough to offer him a reduced sentence for such a condition.
12-09-2017 , 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Why do you think judges routinely weigh in on what juries are or are not allowed to hear at trials? Do you think that’s just a process they go through for giggles, or could it be that lay persons aren’t able to set aside their personal prejudices?

Do you know how many people regularly say “people wouldn’t confess to crimes they didn’t commit”. And yet, they do, for lots of reasons.
What materials the jury is allowed to hear is often decided out of earshot of the jury. So I don't think they way courts now function is to just let everyone and anyone present anything they want so the jury can try and sort out the wheat from the chaff. Lie detector? Sure. Psychics? Why not?

Sometimes materials are kept from the jury to protect the rights of the citizens involved - which is probably why Duffin cited case law in granting Brendan Dassey relief.

I understand there are a lot of folks who thinks citizens shouldn't have any rights when they are suspected or accused of a crime. I am not one of them. I like that we have rights and that the founders of the United States made sure to include them in our Constitution.
12-09-2017 , 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Why do you think judges routinely weigh in on what juries are or are not allowed to hear at trials? Do you think that’s just a process they go through for giggles, or could it be that lay persons aren’t able to set aside their personal prejudices?

Do you know how many people regularly say “people wouldn’t confess to crimes they didn’t commit”. And yet, they do, for lots of reasons.
Are you arguing against the jury system in general?

Also wouldn't your logic apply to all confessions? Since citizens can't be trusted to accept the possibility of false confessions, no confessions should ever be admitted? Couldn't you apply the same logic across the board to all classes of evidence? Citizens can't be trusted to believe that the police might make a mistake, so police testimony should be disallowed?

I don't think you have a tenable position here.

Last edited by lkasigh; 12-09-2017 at 10:06 PM.
12-09-2017 , 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
What materials the jury is allowed to hear is often decided out of earshot of the jury. So I don't think they way courts now function is to just let everyone and anyone present anything they want so the jury can try and sort out the wheat from the chaff. Lie detector? Sure. Psychics? Why not?

Sometimes materials are kept from the jury to protect the rights of the citizens involved - which is probably why Duffin cited case law in granting Brendan Dassey relief.

I understand there are a lot of folks who thinks citizens shouldn't have any rights when they are suspected or accused of a crime. I am not one of them. I like that we have rights and that the founders of the United States made sure to include them in our Constitution.
I'm not talking about in general. Obviously there are rules that disallow testimony by psychics, and for good reason.

I'm talking about this specific case. Why shouldn't the jury have been allowed to hear Dassey's confession and decide what weight to give it?
12-09-2017 , 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
I'm not talking about in general. Obviously there are rules that disallow testimony by psychics, and for good reason.

I'm talking about this specific case. Why shouldn't the jury have been allowed to hear Dassey's confession and decide what weight to give it?
According ti Duffin's ruling, the so-called 'confession' was the result of violating Brendan Dassey's Constitutional rights.

All these 'protocols' that law enforcement want to bend and break are there for our protection.
12-09-2017 , 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Are you arguing against the jury system in general?

Also wouldn't your logic apply to all confessions? Since citizens can't be trusted to accept the possibility of false confessions, no confessions should ever be admitted? Couldn't you apply the same logic across the board to all classes of evidence? Citizens can't be trusted to believe that the police might make a mistake, so police testimony should be disallowed?

I don't think you have a tenable position here.
I don't think EfromPegTown is arguing any of the outlandish things you wrote here.

Making up strawman arguments to knock down is not a tenable position.
12-10-2017 , 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Are you arguing against the jury system in general?

Also wouldn't your logic apply to all confessions? Since citizens can't be trusted to accept the possibility of false confessions, no confessions should ever be admitted? Couldn't you apply the same logic across the board to all classes of evidence? Citizens can't be trusted to believe that the police might make a mistake, so police testimony should be disallowed?

I don't think you have a tenable position here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
For those who think the confession should have been excluded:



1. In our legal system, the jury is supposed to make findings of fact. At Dassey's trial, the confession was presented along with evidence from the defense about Dassey's mental abilities and the phenomenon of false confessions, as well as testimony from Dassey that he made everything up.



What is your argument for why the jury shouldn't have been allowed to weigh all this evidence and make their finding?



Just because you think the jury came to the wrong decision doesn't necessarily mean that they shouldn't have been presented the evidence in the first place.


.

You contradicted yourself within 5 posts.
12-10-2017 , 08:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
.

You contradicted yourself within 5 posts.
I don't think I did. Can you explain what you mean?
12-10-2017 , 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudfootz Making a Murderer
I don't think EfromPegTown is arguing any of the outlandish things you wrote here.

Making up strawman arguments to knock down is not a tenable position.
I'm just trying to understand his position. In the context of answering why he believes Dasseys confession should not have been presented to the jury, he wrote that

Quote:
"lay persons aren’t able to set aside their personal prejudice",
giving as an example that

Quote:
"many people regularly say “people wouldn’t confess to crimes they didn’t commit”".
It seems to me that this logic would imply that no confession should ever be shown to a jury. I don't think he actually believes this, which is why I called his position untenable.

I was hoping he would clarify his position to show what, in particular, about Dassey's confession should have caused it to be excluded, given that confessions shouldn't be inadmissible as a general principle.
12-10-2017 , 09:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
I'm just trying to understand his position. In the context of answering why he believes Dasseys confession should not have been presented to the jury, he wrote that

giving as an example that

It seems to me that this logic would imply that no confession should ever be shown to a jury. I don't think he actually believes this, which is why I called his position untenable.

I was hoping he would clarify his position to show what, in particular, about Dassey's confession should have caused it to be excluded, given that confessions shouldn't be inadmissible as a general principle.
I'll leave it to E to explain what was meant.

My own position is that the law has accorded citizens certain rights to protect them from government bias and corruption, some enshrined in the US Constitution.

If the obtaining of 'evidence' violates these Constitutional protections (things like coerced 'confessions' as Duffin pointed out) they are rightfully excluded from consideration by the jury.

I see no reason to change that.

In the case of Brendan Dassey the whole of the case against him was the so-called 'confession'.

      
m