Brendan Dassey Conviction Overturned by a Federal Judge

TruBluCatFan

Heisman
Dec 21, 2001
19,310
10,102
113
Also, this isn't to say Avery didn't do it. It's to say the law was upheld in court therefore a guilty man by way of law could be "innocent".

This isn't a conspiracy theory proven right either.

Criminal trials never find anyone innocent. The jury has two choices, guilty or not guilty. So being acquitted never means innocent just that the state failed to meet their burden of proof.

I know it's a small distinction but the lawyer in me wants people to understand that difference.
 

specialkd24_rivals116121

All-Conference
Jan 13, 2002
16,181
2,095
0
Avery definitely could have done it. But I also feel the police were super shady in obtaining evidence to convict him. That is why people are in an uproar about it. Had he not been falsely imprisoned before, and the cops weren't shady, there is never a documentary about him and he is in jail and nobody cares.

But that being said, there is no way Dassey was convicted for what actually happened. The police tactics in getting a confession were inappropriate and they made him say what they wanted. I just feel if you are going to convict someone, you need to prove he actually did it they way you said he did (which is similar to the Adnan Syed trail - they found him guilty of something and the way they said he did it absolutely could not have happened).
 

Atrain7732

All-American
Dec 11, 2009
3,783
7,024
65
This involved a lot more than "money." Those "cops" were being deposed and stood to have their careers taken away and lives destroyed. Funny how the local cops were the only ones to ever "find" any physical evidence.

And no... They didn't have to plant a ballistically tested bullet on the property. All they had to do was find a spent slug (really difficult to find spent bullets on the property of a bunch of rednecks) and plant the DNA.

So regardless of the truth, you are jumping to conclusions with your theories and making the necessary steps to frame him more complex than they were.

So basically all you have, is that he specifically requested Hallbach. Smoking gun.

Wait so I guess since you decide to make that very logical and not "conspiracy theory" like leap that the cops planted all of the evidence--the car, her bone fragments, tools used to cut her bones, cell phone, clothes fragments, blood evidence, dna evidence, bullet, PDA, etc etc.

All of That by your logic is just assumed planted bc the cops MIGHT have been facing jail time or worse yet losing their jobs. Sorry doesn't fly IMO. I have been very respectful and said multiple times I understand why people think shady things went down, they possibly did. But, don't swoop in here and tell me that I am being illogical for my opinion when, by any reasonable means, your perspective is much more far fetched. Doesn't mean you are wrong. But it certainly doesn't mean I am wrong either.

The merely "requesting" her downplay on your part as well is a little silly. He clearly scared her by his actions and demeanor on a previous visit. She made it clear she would not go there again if he were around. Knowing this, he places multiple calls disguising his number and leaving a fake name to get her out there the day of the murder. Then after she is thought to have been already dead, he places a final call, not disguising the number this time for some strange reason.

That is a little more than just requesting her. Taken with the huge amount of additional evidence, that is very suspicious to me. Not enough on its face to convinct anyone, but very suspicious.

But I am sure it is simple enough to just proclaim it is one big conspiracy that all of the cops, forensics agents, attorneys, their wives and families are in on. That all of this blood, dna and physical evidence was just very simply planted to frame Avery. The rest of us who have taken an opposite view are just jumping the gun or not seeing the bigger "tin foil" picture.

Your theory is that because the police & attorneys who may have lost their jobs or possibly gone to prison for the original mistake decided as a group to blatantly break the law and frame a man. A sure fire way to actually land In prison themselves. Yeah gonna have to disagree there. I guess the end result will tell us who is correct. Of course, when everything is a conspiracy even when you are wrong, you aren't wrong bc everyone is in on it. I think it may have been the cop in Ferguson behind all of this. Think about it. You never know
 

Comebakatz3

Heisman
Aug 8, 2008
41,736
31,848
113
Wait so I guess since you decide to make that very logical and not "conspiracy theory" like leap that the cops planted all of the evidence--the car, her bone fragments, tools used to cut her bones, cell phone, clothes fragments, blood evidence, dna evidence, bullet, PDA, etc etc.

The merely "requesting" her downplay on your part as well is a little silly. He clearly scared her by his actions and demeanor on a previous visit. She made it clear she would not go there again if he were around. Knowing this, he places multiple calls disguising his number and leaving a fake name to get her out there the day of the murder. Then after she is thought to have been already dead, he places a final call, not disguising the number this time for some strange reason.

That is a little more than just requesting her. Taken with the huge amount of additional evidence, that is very suspicious to me. Not enough on its face to convinct anyone, but very suspicious.

I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember her telling Avery that he didn't want to go back to her property. Her boss testifies that she told him that she didn't want to go back, and that he had exposed himself to her once before, but IIRC only her boss testifies to this. Still, despite this discomfort and fear she knew she was going to the Avery property before she ever went that day. Why would she still go, or the company make ask her to, if she had said she wasn't comfortable going there?
 

Atrain7732

All-American
Dec 11, 2009
3,783
7,024
65
I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember her telling Avery that he didn't want to go back to her property. Her boss testifies that she told him that she didn't want to go back, and that he had exposed himself to her once before, but IIRC only her boss testifies to this. Still, despite this discomfort and fear she knew she was going to the Avery property before she ever went that day. Why would she still go, or the company make ask her to, if she had said she wasn't comfortable going there?

In the article I cited above, it mentions that Hallbach had said she would not go back to the Avery property if Steven was requesting it bc she was scared after the way he answered the door and acted that initial time. I do not know if Kratz is taking that from the testimony of a co-worker, but that would be my assumption. In the article he doesn't attribute it to anyone, so who knows. I took that to mean it was pretty common knowledge at Auto Trader Avery had creeped her out.

As to why they may have forced her to go, I don't think that is the case at all. It was confirmed that Avery had placed calls to the office using his sisters name and number requesting that girl from last time, or something to that effect. Can't be positive but I believe she thought she was going there at the behest of Averys sister and was not in fear for her life.
 

Comebakatz3

Heisman
Aug 8, 2008
41,736
31,848
113
In the article I cited above, it mentions that Hallbach had said she would not go back to the Avery property if Steven was requesting it bc she was scared after the way he answered the door and acted that initial time. I do not know if Kratz is taking that from the testimony of a co-worker, but that would be my assumption. In the article he doesn't attribute it to anyone, so who knows. I took that to mean it was pretty common knowledge at Auto Trader Avery had creeped her out.

As to why they may have forced her to go, I don't think that is the case at all. It was confirmed that Avery had placed calls to the office using his sisters name and number requesting that girl from last time, or something to that effect. Can't be positive but I believe she thought she was going there at the behest of Averys sister and was not in fear for her life.

From doing a bit more research to refresh my recollection, I think a lot of the creeped out stuff actually comes from Kratz. I think the only person who testifies about an incident between Teresa and Avery is a receptionist. She only states that Teresa once told her that Avery answered the door in a towel. She testifies that Teresa laughed about it and said 'Ew', but there was no mention of being creeped out or afraid. I can't actually find anything to say that she was actually afraid of Avery, except from Kratz himself.

I'm also not sure where I got the idea that her boss had made those statements... it's been a while since I've looked at a lot of this evidence.

I suppose my thinking on the phone calls is that Avery calls and requests the same girl as last time. Apparently she had been there like 6 times in one month. So, she was there frequently and would be familiar with the property, and probably the people. Avery calls on behalf of his sister, who is the owner of the van and because she is the owner Avery leaves her name and number as a call back. Teresa then calls Barb's number and requests the address. It's not clear when she gets the address, but when she does it has to be obvious that she knows where she is going and that there is a high likelihood that she'll at least see Avery. Avery does call her from *67 several times, but that could also be a practice that he used frequently. What I find somewhat interesting is, how did he get her cell phone number? Did he already have it? Why didn't he call her on her cell to begin with?

Also interesting, and I said it before, is that Teresa calls AT to tell them she will be at the Avery property, so she knows she is going beforehand, and that she'd be there in 10 minutes. This was at 2:30. So, she gets there at roughly 2:40... why is she still there taking pictures an hour later? Just weird.
 

Comebakatz3

Heisman
Aug 8, 2008
41,736
31,848
113
Looking at it further, it was Teresa's friend, Tom Pence, who testified that Teresa told him that Avery came to the door in only a towel, and that they kind of laughed about it being gross. However, Kratz is the one who claims that Halbach told Pence that she was creeped out by Avery. Pence himself, to my knowledge, never says this in testimony or any interview.
 

Atrain7732

All-American
Dec 11, 2009
3,783
7,024
65
Looking at it further, it was Teresa's friend, Tom Pence, who testified that Teresa told him that Avery came to the door in only a towel, and that they kind of laughed about it being gross. However, Kratz is the one who claims that Halbach told Pence that she was creeped out by Avery. Pence himself, to my knowledge, never says this in testimony or any interview.

That is interesting. And I will be the first to admit I did not follow the trial extremely closely initially and only here and there afterward. I certainly can appreciate where you are coming from in regard to the calls. My view is different but I see what you mean.

I take the view that, in conjunction with all of the other evidence, the phone calls look shady. Not enough by itself but as a small part of a huge amount of evidence. I do not subscribe to the viewpoint that the police all colluded to frame this guy bc they MAY have lost their jobs over the previous false conviction. They would be putting themselves potentially in major harm if they were caught framing him. Much more so IMO than they were potentially facing beforehand. Just doesn't make sense to me.

It is interesting about the time frame tho. The bus driver seems adamant on the time and there is def a gap there that is curious. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable so since I think Avery guilty, that is where my mind goes. But honestly who knows. You are right this case is a Rorschach test for how individuals perceive guilt or innocence. And neither side is right or wrong necessarily. It is perception.
 

Comebakatz3

Heisman
Aug 8, 2008
41,736
31,848
113
I honestly don't know what is true. What we have gotten is a slanted documentary that paints Avery in a pretty positive light, and then we've gotten some snippets from other people. However, I myself have not watched all the video from the trial or read the entire transcript. So, I can't really say what was actual evidence and what may just be slanted evidence or even rumors. Still, it is kind of fun and interesting to look at what has been presented to us and try for ourselves to decipher what happened and to even speculate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atrain7732

Atrain7732

All-American
Dec 11, 2009
3,783
7,024
65
I honestly don't know what is true. What we have gotten is a slanted documentary that paints Avery in a pretty positive light, and then we've gotten some snippets from other people. However, I myself have not watched all the video from the trial or read the entire transcript. So, I can't really say what was actual evidence and what may just be slanted evidence or even rumors. Still, it is kind of fun and interesting to look at what has been presented to us and try for ourselves to decipher what happened and to even speculate.

I honestly thing we are better off not having been biased by the documentary or the other sides propaganda. But it is def one of those cases where people get pretty riled up on both sides. Gonna be interesting to see how everything plays out eventually.
 

ukbrian

All-Conference
Dec 17, 2008
22,957
1,714
113
The one thing that makes me go hmmm...

When the one deputy calls in to confirm that plate number.

He was looking at that vehicle. He was straight lying. You could tell it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Mehico