Is this the transcript you're referring to https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwgcpqtc/Transcript - 05-12-2006 - Dassey and O'Kelly.pdf?dl=0?
Because, reading that is even more painful that watching it on TV.
So I read 14 pages of the first interrogation, do you want me to read everything? And what in particular you want me to pay attention to? Because it's the same thing... The same routine by Fassbender and Wiegert.
Maybe if you gave us a couple of specific examples. I started reading the transcript just scanning for Dassey's responses and they were all virtually one line where he agreed (or disagreed) with the investigators. So unless he gets a lot more chatty later on, which would be surprising, I'm not sure how it was even possible for him to give any incriminating responses, except in reply to a leading question.You should read whatever you feel you need to. To me the March 1 interview is most probative. As I posted earlier, there are a number of areas in which he made admissions without prompting that were both incriminating and corroborated by physical evidence, and in other places he refused to admit to things (particularly the shooting) despite their clear desire that he do so. Reading that really changed my view of whether he might be guilty.
Maybe if you gave us a couple of specific examples. I started reading the transcript just scanning for Dassey's responses and they were all virtually one line where he agreed (or disagreed) with the investigators. So unless he gets a lot more chatty later on, which would be surprising, I'm not sure how it was even possible for him to give any incriminating responses, except in reply to a leading question.
The problem I have with him putting her body inside the car while in the garage is that it means he has to have killed her somewhere IN THE HOUSE, or IN THE GARAGE. Then proceed to clean all the blood up from the killing, while leaving the bullet fragment that supposedly killed her. Then, dragged her corpse into the bedroom, chain her up, then dragged it to the garage and then have his retarded cousin come over to help burn the body that the kid repeatedly said wasn't present in the pit, despite the lead on by Fassbender and Wiegert... All the while leaving the door of his garage opened, according to Branden's "testimony".
So, where did he kill her? How? With what? When?
If you were a DA, would you have prosecuted Avery based on Brendan's testimony?That is not the narrative described by Brendan. For purposes of discussion, at least, consider what he says happened. They rape Teresa in the house, cut her throat and stab her, then take her to the garage, where Avery shoots her several times to ensure she is dead. They put the body in the cargo area of the RAV4, before Avery decides, instead, to burn her in the fire pit. They then put her in the fire pit and burn her, using some tires in the fire to mask the smell and create more heat. They also burn the sheets (including, at least potentially, a rubber mattress pad that might have prevented seepage into the mattress) and Avery's clothes. Avery then uses a shovel to break up the bones. They use bleach to clean the blood off the garage floor (and, keep in mind, there probably wouldn't be much of it, since she was very likely dead by the time she was brought into the garage).
The only part of that narrative that sounds at all far-fetched to me is the absence of blood evidence in the trailer. I don't have expertise in that area, but would certainly have expected there to be blood there. I don't know whether it's possible to have committed a murder of this type, with Teresa bound to the bed, without blood escaping the immediate area of the bed. As I said, I would think a rubber or plastic mattress pad would have stopped it seeping through to the mattress, but I don't know if there would have been significant blood outside of the bed if Brendan's account were accurate.
If you were a DA, would you have prosecuted Avery based on Brendan's testimony?
Let's assume the DA was not aware of any evidence tampering, and just had the evidence presented to him (including, among other things, the evidence identified in the series, as well as the fact that Avery had been semi-stalking Halbach, and had bought handcuffs and leg irons within weeks of the murders). On those facts I would think any competent DA would have brought a murder case, with or without the allegations made by Brendan.
Certainly Brendan's allegations, which were largely corroborated by the evidence (including not only the bullet but the presence of Steven Avery's sweat DNA on the RAV4's under-the-hood latch, which was only identified after Brendan stated that Avery had opened the hood to disconnect the battery), would have increased my resolve to bring a case.
Let's assume the DA was not aware of any evidence tampering, and just had the evidence presented to him (including, among other things, the evidence identified in the series, as well as the fact that Avery had been semi-stalking Halbach, and had bought handcuffs and leg irons within weeks of the murders). On those facts I would think any competent DA would have brought a murder case, with or without the allegations made by Brendan.
Certainly Brendan's allegations, which were largely corroborated by the evidence (including not only the bullet but the presence of Steven Avery's sweat DNA on the RAV4's under-the-hood latch, which was only identified after Brendan stated that Avery had opened the hood to disconnect the battery), would have increased my resolve to bring a case.
That's a great example. I think that even if Brendan revealed other information without obvious prompting, we only know what's in the transcripts. I wouldn't put it past these guys to have talked to Brendan extensively off camera. And he is much more chatty in the police station transcript than the high school. I think they probably coached him between the two....
Fassbender: OK what else did he do, he did something else, you need to tell us what he did, after that car is parked there. It's extremely important. Before you guys leave that car
Brendan: That he left the gun in the car
Fassbender: That's not what I'm thinking about. He did something to that car. He took the plates and he, I believe he did something else in that car
Brendan: I don't know.
Fassbender: OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood or anything like that? To do something to that car?
Brendan: Yeah
Fassbender: What was that?
Wiegert: What did he do, Brendan?
Wiegert: It's OK, what did he do?
Fassbender: What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did?
Brendan: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.
Fassbender: He did raise the hood? You remember that?
Brendan: Yeah.
....
I'm told they're everywhereSo, where exactly is Anonymous right now?
I'm told they're everywhere
This is crazy! The documentary is so good that it makes you think. What I want to see is if anonymous really does have some records helping Steven and Brandon. It was supposed to be released yesterday. Maybe they are bluffing. Would be awesome to expose corruption though. One hell of a story.
Avery needed Johnnie Cochran. This case was bullshit. I definitely feel there was reasonable doubt.
Well that just hows the system is wrong then.Let's assume the DA was not aware of any evidence tampering, and just had the evidence presented to him (including, among other things, the evidence identified in the series, as well as the fact that Avery had been semi-stalking Halbach, and had bought handcuffs and leg irons within weeks of the murders). On those facts I would think any competent DA would have brought a murder case, with or without the allegations made by Brendan.
Certainly Brendan's allegations, which were largely corroborated by the evidence (including not only the bullet but the presence of Steven Avery's sweat DNA on the RAV4's under-the-hood latch, which was only identified after Brendan stated that Avery had opened the hood to disconnect the battery), would have increased my resolve to bring a case.
Well that just hows the system is wrong then.
Its perfectly possible SA and Brendan did it but Brendans testimony looks like crap to me. I have done plenty interview but if thats the way police does it its not about getting the truth but getting "results"; that is a narrative that fits the hypothesis. Its not the slightest scientific.
Video filming is step one minor step. But the entire interview job needs to be far more specialized and professional. The retrieval of information like seen here gives garbage.
Garbage in garbage out.
This is why if you're ever arrested, the first, second and third words out of your mouth are "lawyer." Even if you happen to be a lawyer, 'I . . . want . . . a . . . lawyer.' If the cops arrest you, as far as they're concerned, you're guilty and nothing you say is going to change their mind, so the only winning move is to not play the game.This is how prosecution works. Prosecution is about getting a conviction at all costs, not determining if the person is innocent. Judges, Sheriffs, the feds, do whatever they can to get someone to confess. They want a high and quick conviction rate. This is why all these cases come out years later of false imprisonment. They hide evidence that would exonerate the defendant just so they can win their case. I personally think anyone found of doing that should be convicted of doing that themselves and thrown out of the law system and imprisoned.
Innocent until proven guilty is a charade. We are all guilty until we can prove otherwise.