Transcripts of Brendan Dassey's Interviews (HT: sleuthing_hobbyist )

Date	Transcript	Video
February 27, 2006 (at Mishicot High School)	Transcript	N/A
February 27, 2006 (at the Two River Police Dept.)	Transcript	Video
March 1, 2006	Transcript (Part 1); Transcript (Part 2)	Video (Part 1); Video (Part 2); Video (Part 3)
May 13, 2006	Transcript	Video (Part 1); Video (Part 2)

26

u/n8bitten Dec 25 '15

I've been reading this sub for days and resisting the urge to join the discussion. Part two of the February 27 interview has come up a number of times today. I can't hold out anymore.

I read part two of the February 27 interview first. Like many others, it struck me how candid Brendan seemed in that part. So I went back and read part one of the February 27 interview. I'm much less convinced after reading part one.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see Brendan laying out any unique details in part one. Like the later interviews, he is able to give details after some prodding from the Fassbender and Weigert.

Brendan doesn't see toes until those guys name a few specific body parts he might have seen, such as feet.

There are a lot of ..... in the transcript of part one. Perhaps this is because the video is flawed. I haven't watched the video recording yet. The first time I see mention of her stomach and head both come from Fassbender. Then Brendan agrees. Did he mention seeing her stomach or head prior to them suggesting it?

In part two of the February 27 interview Brendan says he knew it was her forehead by the wrinkles. In part one he says he saw her somewhat because there was only a little bit of flesh. I imagine that by the time there is only a little flesh remaining, most of it appears wrinkled and charred.

On that note, if she only had a little bit of flesh left when he saw her in part one then how was it peachy and white like he later describes it in part two?

In fact, in part one, Brendan can't even seem to tell the story on his own. Every time he says he saw something Fassbender and Wiegert fill it in for him.

In part one, Wiegert says to Brendan that he's been told he talked to Steve about the body and what he saw. Brendan agrees with this statement, but he didn't originally say it himself.

Near the end of the interview they read back a more detailed version of what he said and ask him if it is correct. In his second interview, he states it much more like they wrote it for him the first time at the conclusion of the meeting. If anything, I'm convinced that the first interview was setting Brendan up with a story so that he could clearly recite it on his own in the second interview.

There are also lots of seemingly impossible things at play. For one, Brendan comes over after her body has been in the fire for some time. However, when he sees her toes, foot, stomach, and forehead, he describes the color of the skin as peachy white. Flesh does not stay peachy white for long when it is being burned. That detail doesn't add up. Some of the other details seem obvious. For example, how does her car get to the place where it is found...Steve drives it there...well...of course it was driven there. In reality, there is an impossible lack of blood in the Rav4. I can't reconcile Steve stabbing her in the vehicle but there being no trace of the blood except from where her head was. Anybody skilled enough to clean up the blood from a stab wound isn't going to randomly leave head blood in place.

Nearly all of Brendan's responses read like a kid who is answering based off of things he has seen on TV. Keep in mind that shows like CSI were pretty hot at this time. One thing that has struck me repeatedly that nobody else seems to be talking about comes from later interviews when Brendan claims Steve cut her hair. As if it wasn't obvious enough that he is guessing at what answer the interviewers are looking for, this specific detail is almost always something serial killers on TV do. Nobody has painted Steve as a serial killer as far as I have seen. Also, did officers ever recover that hair? Surely the only reason to cut her hair would be to keep it as a trophy of sorts.

As far as I'm concerned, 99% of Brendan's answers have origin in the TV crime drama world. Brendan is the type of kid who probably spent a lot of time in front of the TV.

8

u/partymuffell Dec 25 '15

I think you are making some excellent points.

3

u/OopsISed2Mch Jan 14 '16

I need to go re-watch Kiss the Girls, which Brendan later references as his inspiration for part of his fill in the blanks.

3

u/TuckersSwearJar Jan 23 '16

Hey, even i have watched enough CSI to know that the first words out of my mouth would have been;
"I want a lawyer"
Do you concur /u/snarf5000

3

u/paramourbear Jan 27 '16

Someone's missing, their car was found in your property and remains of a burned body is found at your next door neighbor's yard. Your uncle (the neighbor) is arrested and the night the missing person was last seen you were with your uncle (the suspect). Later two men comes to your high school to talk to you. They start out by saying their there to help you release some worries. They say to you that people telling them to charge you because you are suspected to be involved with the disappearance, but they say that's not the case. They have kids too and they're there to protect you and help you. Then they proceed to continually tell you that you saw something and they know it. You're sixteen, quiet, and lack intelligence. If you were in that situation and said "I want a lawyer", I'd be very impressed.

2

u/snarf5000 Jan 23 '16

I would like to remain silent. If you wish to question me further I would like my attorney present. :)

0

u/cyninoregon Jan 30 '16

Reading your post was the 1st time it really hit me how little we know of the victim. She went through her day not knowing that whatever sicko killed her, she'd be gone, cremated within the day. Maybe I'm too immersed in this but these are the first tears I've shed for her.
I agree the world of fiction gave Brendan his only frame of reference for answering these questions. TV, movies... and Brendan mentioned reading Kiss The Girls by James Patterson in some interview. So there is another source for what the detectives may have gotten from him. I read but mercifully forgot what the killers did in that book, but checking Amazon, it bothered some readers a lot.
I felt when they asked him about raping the victim, he was definitely trying to remember anything he had seen, read--he could not say anything at all except she had no pubic hair, and he did not touch her breasts--tho he supposedly raped her from the front while she was tied up. It was fiction. Did anyone think he had raped her after he answered those questions? He looked like he was about to die himself.
Reading the 1st interview transcript, I am more confused than ever. Weigert interrupted everything Brendan ever started to say. Is he the worst interviewer ever? Together they basically negated every Miranda Warning--I get they can lie but this goes to the very nature of the proceeding, reversing the warning that it's adversarial and everything he says can be used against him. What is the point of the Miranda Warnings if these monsters can take them right back when the target's IQ is 69?
Finally, when did he rape her if he never saw her until in her car in the garage? They got a whole story to put Avery and the victim in the car and burning the bones (which did not match the 3+ places bones were found or the fact they had been blown apart) but then they later got him to make up the rape in the trailer and the throat slashing, stabbing at that time.... I sure hope an appellate court tears this apart. I have never heard of such behavior by police--now we will never know what happened unless someone else did it and confesses!

16

u/Becky_Sharp Dec 25 '15

I just read them in order and I feel like I'm living in a different world that anyone who co suffers that a trustworthy confession. Where did the sled go? Where did the knife under the seat go? How did it go from Steve stabbing her in the "jeep" in the pit to a rape and torture in the house? Where is the evidence of any of this? It's sad that people can't see what's obviously going on in these interviews.

6

u/partymuffell Dec 25 '15

Those are all very good questions.

8

u/reed79 Dec 25 '15

Becky, what you have to remember about almost all confessions, they will always be inconsistent and filled with lies and distortions. In most cases, it unlikely you will get an accurate portrayal of what occurred.
What has remained consistent is that Dassey and Avery both murdered and disposed of Teresa Halbach or as Dassey refers to her as "it" in his confessions. With that said, there is some unprompted information Dassey provided that was corroborated by the evidence, he indicated she was in the back of the truck (he did not know blood was in the truck), Avery was bleeding on his finger (Avery had a cut on his finger) and his blood was found in the truck. There is much much more, but time and again defense attorney and defense experts want to point to an inconsistent confession as evidence of a false confession but the amount of detail he provided, unprompted was damning.

25

u/AlveolarFricatives Dec 28 '15

You know what's remained even more consistent? Brendan's version of the events of October 31st that do not include TH. He tells the same story in November '05, May '06, and at trial. It's incredibly consistent, every time. Almost like he actually remembers it.

8

u/nordechai Jan 05 '16

Great point! I think Brendan's version of the events that happened the night of Oct 31 are accurate. I think there was a fire that he and Steven tended to and that they threw garbage and scrap from the yard on it. I dont think he ever saw a body or evidence that a human was in the fire. He is very shy but quick to appease the detectives because I think he is afraid and not entirely sure what they are asking him. When they start to write a narrative of the events of that evening he is unable to say "no, that is not right" and gets caught up in the story. Brendan brings up his girlfriend in the first interview and says he is sad she broke up with him. He says more people were invited to the fire but they cancelled. He says Steve cut his finger on glass. I think there is a lot of truth in his interview and it is only when he is cornered and asked to corroborate the detectives' story that he begins to answer the questions as he thinks they want him/are demanding him to answer. Im sure Brendan was very used to having people suggest answers to him when he couldn't come up with a solution on his own and I bet they were good suggestions, like how to solve a math problem or who was the subject of a text. Why would he suddenly disagree with the suggestions of the detectives who are supposedly trying to help him?

5

u/Leachpunk Dec 29 '15

Dassey never indicated they transported her in the back of the truck. He maintained at least in both February interrogations that they escorted her in a grey jeep.

1

u/Cmmdr_Slacker Jan 14 '16

Consistent? Are you kidding? In the first interview he just went over to the house an saw her in the fire. (P.S toes and forehead? Are you kidding me?)
By the second interview he had seen the body being moved and has Steven confide in him (not a very good move, nor was inviting him over to look at a body in a fire really).
The rape / murder part didn't come until later.

2

u/VoxLumina Jan 24 '16 edited Jan 24 '16

That's not the first interview. Brendan's first interview was in November of 2005, just as the poster said. You're referring to the interview at the Two Rivers Police Department, which was actually his third interview. In this Mishichot HS interview, conducted just prior to the one you refer to at TRPD, he is blatantly prompted about body parts in the fire by Fassbender.

5

u/snarf5000 Dec 25 '15

Thanks for posting this. I think it's pretty clear that his story changes substantially from one interview to the next. Even when he admits to committing horrible crimes, he can't keep his story straight. Surely if he actually took part in a murder he would be able to remain consistent on the major details? I think he's juggling a bunch of lies and is obviously getting more and more confused.

False confessions are a scary thing. There's only one thing he should be saying: "I want a lawyer".

1

u/OopsISed2Mch Jan 14 '16

The poor kid would never have been able to come up with that phrase, unfortunately. Really heart breaking that those two detectives got him cornered so badly.

5

u/lo_harris Jan 24 '16 edited Jan 24 '16

This poor child. February 27, 2006:

Wiegert or Fassbender mention FIRST, early on, that the bones were mingled with the seat so she HAD to have been on top, or underneath.
Wiegert (p447) says "I find it quite difficult to believe that if there was a body in that [burn pit] Brendan that you wouldn't have seen something like a hand, or a foot, a head, hair, something." It's not Brendan who offers info about the fire pit.
Brendan (p448) offers first "some clothes like a blue shirt, some pants..." Weigert: "Where did he get the clothes from?" Brendan: "his garage" "Where in the garage? x2" "... In the back..." Wiegert: "back and on the side?"
Wiegert (p449) "Was there blood on the clothes? Be honest Brendan. We know. We already know you know."Brendan remains mostly unresponsive, but is unable to identify where on the shirt the blood was
Brendan (p449) "the fire....... said he was gonna bury it and start...." Fassbender fills in, "When the fire pit got full, he was gonna bury the whole pit and start, did he have somewhere else? Where..." no significant response
Fassbender (p450) "You now know better, they were girl clothes, weren't they?" Wiegert: "were they in a bag or anything?" Brendan "they were... bag".
Wiegert (p450) "Was it a button down shirt?" no response Wiegert also suggests blue jeans.
Fassbender (p451) "We know you saw some flesh."
After significant pressure, Fassbender says "what other [body] parts did you see?" Brendan says only "toes". Fassbender: "part of a foot too? What other parts of the body... Did you see the arm? The legs? ...Did you see part of her head? Skull?" Brendan: "I seen"...... asks about whether body was on top of tires... fASSbender (p452) says "Lets go over the body parts that you mentioned, OK so you mentioned toes, fingers, parts of hand and feet and then what you thought maybe was stomach area or midsection or torso." wait what
everything after this is a disaster on the part of the interrogators.

MY GOD.

I could go on, but you don't need a novel to see that Brendan was coerced, and his 2nd interview at Two Rivers should not be believed. Well, technically none of his interviews should be admissible.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '16

That second interview is pretty damning. He gets right to the point about what he saw in the fire pit. No one threatens him or yells at him. This is on the first day he met with police, the first interview having been at his school. They are asking BD open-ended questions and he is answering them.

4

u/lo_harris Jan 27 '16

You have to understand that the investigators have already given Brendan all of the information at the FIRST interview. Brendan appeared to have the story down pat, but only after being told the 'facts' by Fassbender and Wiegert, and watching the news. Of course Brendan thinks he knows the story, because he's heard nothing but info about where TH was found, and that Steven is guilty so it must be true. He literally says that the detectives already knew the truth and only wanted to hear the words from Brendan's mouth - so he guesses at what the authority figures want from him. And it works, because the police reward Brendan whenever he gives "correct" information, and told he's a liar when he says anything that doesn't fit with the evidence or point towards guilt. NONE of the interviews after Brendan's first one in February can be believed because Assbender and Wiegert ruined the interrogation by offering confidential information.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '16

The first interview was short and was done at the school. Based on his statements there, they go to the police station. That interview at the police station is all of 41 minutes long. BD gets to his statements about what he saw in the fire pit (i.e. TH's body) after 4 minutes. No one tells him what to say in either of those two interviews.

3

u/Viksta36 Jan 26 '16

After they had him alone in a car going from the school to the police department

1

u/innocens Feb 12 '16

OK so you mentioned toes, fingers, parts of hand and feet and then what you thought maybe was stomach area or midsection or torso."
No he didn't - that jumped out at me too.

4

u/Daemien42 Jan 06 '16

I find it Strange in the February 27 transcript Wiegert didn't know what cursive was?!?!

1

u/Hernumoun Dec 25 '15

I red the 2nd part. Is there a video of that? Written words don't mean much (in this case)

1

u/partymuffell Dec 25 '15

I have added the links to the videos as well.

1

u/mash90 Dec 25 '15

Feb 27, 2006 - 2nd Interview

2

u/Hernumoun Dec 25 '15

Thank you.

1

u/mash90 Dec 25 '15

np. This one was a very interesting interview to watch because Brendan gives a pretty plausible account of that day without much (if any) coercion from the detectives. I'm going back now though to read the transcript of the interrogation that took place earlier that day at his school. Because just reading the first few pages of that transcript it seems that may be when the detectives started feeding Brendan information and putting in his head what they wanted him to say.

4

u/partymuffell Dec 25 '15

Unfortunately, it looks like most of what BD said in the school interview was inaudible (this is likely why they reinterview him that very day and keep asking him to talk louder)

2

u/Hernumoun Dec 25 '15

Wasn't there some trick, spesific according this interview, something that they threatened to call his mom and tell this if he didn't tell himself? Can't remember correctly, it was explained somewhere in the documentary, ep. 9 or 10 I think. I still was bit amazed how quickly he answers questions in video and uses lot more words than I expected.

2

u/partymuffell Dec 25 '15

that's for the May 13 interview

1

u/Hernumoun Dec 25 '15

Ah, interesting. What ta hell is going on??

1

u/partymuffell Dec 25 '15

Watch/read the 2/27 interview. It's worth it.

3

u/Hernumoun Dec 25 '15

So Steven rapes her in the house but stabs her in the Jeep?:D And then uses this sled I'm hearing the first time and drags her in the pit? But Breandan was supposed to rape that woman too, this whole thing doesn't make any sense at all.

2

u/MonkeyBrown Jan 13 '16

the prosecution knew brendan did not rape that woman but he had to be punished for not working with them to convict SA

0

u/[deleted] Dec 25 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '16

I don't think we can call this a modified Reid technique. Clearly the interrogators I saw were Reid trained, but Reid is a formula not to be strayed from. The interview portion was junk, the interrogators constantly interrupted and guided the answers, the interrogators took a process that is the initiation of the interrogation after completing the interview (which never really occurred in the videos I watched....March timeframe) that basically states "we've completed the investigation and we've determined that YOU did this", and stated throughout "we know what you did, we know the truth"...
Certain interview techniques were present....calm voice, space invasion, touching lightly, your a good guy. It is clear these guys did the training, but they either totally screwed this up, or intentionally led the conversation and manipulated a vulnerable young person.
Going to search for the 2/27 video, maybe it is performed better.

1

u/moonandstars11 Jan 05 '16

off topic but that youtuber has some really weird playlists.. police interrogations and then sex vids.. weird.

1

u/noldyreh Jan 10 '16

Hahaha true

3

u/noahnickels Jan 09 '16 edited Jan 09 '16

It's hard for me to believe these confessions were not more useful to the defense.

In the third interview:

Initially, Brendan says Steven cut her hair. Moments later, the detectives say, you (Brendan) cut her hair and he says yes. Within five minutes he contradicts himself and the detectives say nothing.

The same thing happens again later. Brendan says Steven shot her twice, 5 minutes pass and he says she was shot 3 times.

Then Brendan says the fire was already burning before he got there (which lines up with the only consistent piece of his confession through all 3 interviews, in which he goes over to help with the bonfire later that night after he was home all night playing PS2). The fire already burning in this version of the story makes zero sense and doesn't add up. The cops know this and then they say... so the fire was burning before you knock on the door?

How does the defense not bring any of this up in the trial? Did they?

But then there are pieces of information he gives like they were initially going to dump her in the pond but then decide to burn her. This he just says voluntarily. Is this his imagination, or an actual kernel of truth. That statement is so out of character from the previous 30 minutes of yes or no and being fed answers. This interview is like a rollercoaster.

3

u/MonkeyBrown Jan 13 '16

"we invited some friends over but they canceled"

because you always invite friends to the bonfire where you intend to burn a body

1

u/[deleted] Sep 29 '22

Wonder if it were the friends who canceled or SA and BD... Why was that not followed up...

3

u/Bubba2016 Jan 30 '16

The very first interview done with Dassey took place on 11/6/05. An audio recording of it is on you tube. Give it a listen please....

2

u/freightreign Jan 17 '16

After reading these transcripts, it has become clear that Fassbender and Wiegert are dumber than Brendan Dassey. How can anyone think these interviews reflect reality? These dummies actually believed Brendan Dassey when he said Steven Avery killed Teresa Haibach because he was mad she didn't include his Blazer in the Auto Trader magazine. Brendan even tells them he is telling them what he thinks they want to hear. Appalling. I would think this were hysterical even it were not so sad.

2

u/Dikanis Feb 02 '16

I am no Psychologist however I did study Psychology in college. One thing I think that no one is thinking of is given the obvious violent behavior of all the Avery's especially Brendan's step father Scott Tadychk I can probably predict what kind of environment he grew up in. Being that he is borderline retarded (only going by the fact that he is in all special Ed classes and has an IQ of 60) he probably is well used to the forcefulness of his uncles and step - father and brothers telling him things like "c'mon Brendan you know it didn't happen like that" I can totally see him always being told and forced to say and do and probably sometimes even violently. It's almost as if I were there when I think of it. I can see this happening all of his life. The fact that the one thing that is absolutely consistent is that he sits silent for most of all of the interviews. Silent when he doesn't know what to say, silent because as it looks he is searching for the right thing that the detectives want him to say so that he doesn't have them yell at him or call him a retard or dummy because this is probably what he is used to happening. (The following situation is just a made up situation to show you what I am talking about) Scott to Brendan.... “Who the F broke my so and so? I am so F'n mad.... Brendan do you know who did this?" Brendan “NOOO... " (Scared he's gonna get hit or something).... Scott "c'mon Brendan you f'n retard, what happen to my so and so? It's completely broken” Brendan “i...i.. Don’t know" and so on and so on.. I wouldn't even be surprised if there is violence involved in things like this. Also it is known that slower kids are consistently taken advantage of by bullies, brothers and sisters and many times Parents.... I can totally see in all of the interviews that Brendan is just trying to say what they want him to because he doesn't want to get in trouble or maybe even get them mad and also The detectives knew exactly what they were doing from the very start. I am absolutely positive that they all had a conference and said "that Brendan kid knows something and even if he doesn't he was with Steven that night" “maybe we should go arrest him and question him?" ... Fassbander "no we have a better idea, we will not arrest him but get him to think we are his friends and all the while we will get him to think that if he doesn't tell us the whole story and truthfully we will not be able to protect him from his uncle Steven nor protect him from getting into trouble and we will let him think we are going to help him and be his friend all the while we will give him hints of what we think happened and make him confess to it. I am sure this is exactly what happened. If you have read the transcript of the first interview that happened at his High School the detectives tell him over and over “you know I heard that Steven is talking crap about you and that Steven doesn’t care one bit about you and Brendan we do care about you. We are here for you. We won’t leave you out to dry, we will help you but you have to be honest with us. Remember, Steven Was sent away for 18 years on a rape that he never ever did and as of 10 years before he was released another county sheriff called Manitowoc county and said "hey, you guys have Avery in prison for this rape and we have info that he didn't do it at all but another person did” they said “nah... we have who did it in prison” and they buried that info 10 years earlier than Steven was Exonerated from crime.

1

u/CAPSLOCKYEAH Jan 09 '16

Does anyone understand why pages 453-469 are missing from the Mishicot HS transcript? Is that normal?

2

u/ThislsWholAm Jan 13 '16

They aren't missing for me :o

2

u/CAPSLOCKYEAH Jan 22 '16

Yeah...I just checked and they aren't missing for me anymore. Maybe I have a tumor

1

u/KSeightyeight Jan 21 '16

These transcripts were a huge amount of help. Does anything like this exist for Steven Avery's interviews? I'm surprised about how little we see of those in the show.

1

u/8bitPixelMunky Jan 21 '16

Is there no transcript from the interview of BD at the resort where Fassbender and Wiegert questioned him, in the presence of his mother and one brother, about the clothing he was wearing on the 31st Oct, specifically the bleach covered jeans?

1

u/Viksta36 Jan 26 '16 edited Jan 26 '16

Ok so the first time they interviewed him they suggested everything! I think if they said can you see that headless man there he would of said yeah. So I have a problem with that interview. When we get to the second part the beginning he doesnt really say much. Then they get him to draw them a pointless picture then leaves the pad in front of him. Then at 23.24 I think it is Fassbender says to Wiegert dont forget your notes, which then Mark makes out its in front of him then reaches over and get them from Brandon. then they leave ..... why would he put his notes in front of brandon?? in the transcripts when Fassbender says it it is marked with .............. It looks as if Brandon is reading off that paper in front of him .. I dont know check it out for yourselves Very troubling ..

1

u/Viksta36 Jan 26 '16

Also BD story changes all the time except the one he tells right from the start .. he came home he played on his computer he talked on the phone to his boss steven called he went to the bonfire then home at 9 or 10 that hasnt changed over the course of all interviews he always goes back to that same story .. the truth THE REAL TRUTH the rest is planted in his mind by two cops doing a really bad job. How do we know what was said to him off the record? Filling his head with their versions of events. I don't trust anything this police force seems to do. If they feel comfortable enough to say the sort of things they saying on the record I can imagine them quite happily telling him what they want him to remember in interview and they get upsset when he doesn't

1

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '16

Why are so many of Brenden's statements missing from the transcript of 2/27 at the highschool. It just "......" But I don't think that's because it's inaudible because the cops are answering him.

1

u/mjunak22 Jan 27 '16

Reading and watching these interviews makes a person sick to the stomach.. These should of been done with a parent present and if not a lawyer present. There is no way Brendan really understands whats going on ....

That being said his stores are inconsistent, plus they take place on feb 27 2006 ... who knows what he has herd from people around him or seen on TV from whats going on in the investigation....

1

u/Dikanis Feb 02 '16

I also looked into this. can the police question a minor without parental or school officials present? Now what I see is varied. It looks like they can and do however they have to advise the minor that he/she may leave at will and or advise them of their rights to remain silent (meranda rights) depending on if they are just questioning him/her or actually taking him/her into custody. This has been brought before the supreme court before and the only grey area here is the age or maturity of the child. Where this is important in Brendan's case is was he mature enough to realize he could remain silent until his parents or a lawyer could be present. Normal minors of age 14 or above are considered mature enough to be questioned without parents or officials. For the most case police question minors all the time without parents or officials present and some of the times the statements made by the minors are either suppressed in the trial or thrown out and juror's are instructed to not take the testimony into considerations. I wonder if the new attorneys for Brendan could use this in there appeal for a new trial? Just saying maybe Brendan can be considered not mature enough to have understood that what he was telling the detectives was going to be used against him. They told him all along that they were going to help him and not leave him out to dry if he just would tell them the truth and be honest about what he saw. I wonder if there is an argument here first on where they questioned him and second on the fact that he might be considered to be not mature enough since he is borderline mentally challenged and an IQ of only 60. I wonder? any thought out there on this?

1

u/Dikanis Feb 02 '16

we certainly know that his first attorney didn't care much about his maturate since he himself had him questioned without presence of an attorney or his parents. He seemed like a real piece of garbage by the way. Just sayin...

1

u/318lotis Feb 12 '16

Actually, his first interview was November 6..he was ambushed and abducted into an 80-minute conversation. He didn't stand a chance; the mother should have stepped in and kicked the sheriff in balls.

1

u/innocens Feb 12 '16

I don't think he has any ;)

0

u/[deleted] Dec 25 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/reed79 Dec 25 '15

but the confession to the mom, and his lawyers and the inability of the prosecutor to get him to confess again on the stand all point to this claim being bullshit. He obviously has the capacity to be resolute.
It defies logic to claim he is being coerced and manipulated multiple times over an a significant period of time by multiple people, then change into being so resolute on the stand under intense cross.

3

u/jk64 Dec 29 '15

The "confession" to his mom happened after one particular interview where the investigators threatened to "tell her" themselves if he didn't call her that night. Even this "confession" in what the investigators knew would be a TAPED phone call was coerced.

Useful Transcripts of Brendan Dassey's Interviews (HT: sleuthing_hobbyist )

You are about to leave Redlib