r/MakingaMurderer

He had a huge settlement coming. Why did he risk it by doing a serious crime? I don’t understand how he got exonerated which is rare but wound up throwing his life away anyways. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I guess I’m missing the common thread. He wasn’t a good person but from what we know, wasn’t a murderer. So what happened? Is this just always who he was going to be and had he never gone to prison wrongfully maybe it would have happened sooner? I don’t think he’s innocent I’m just trying to make sense of it.

i came onto this sub and was surprised at how wrong i might be after watching the doc over a week or so, my boyfriend and i binged it and finished it sure that brendan was innocent and fairly sure that steven was too. personally i thought that bobby and scott did it and my bf was of the opinion that bobby and the ex boyfriend were in kahoots somehow. i don’t really know what to think anymore tbh i went to go watch convicting a murderer as that popped up a few times but i dislike candace owen’s immensely. could someone outline the main points that the doc twisted in favour of SA and the facts that were omitted ?

I'd like to start a discussion. I'm wondering how many people believe that most, if not all, of the people who believe SA & BD are innocent are people who have been affected by negative interactions with law enforcement officers and/or the judicial system?? I don't want to make this post super long, but I'm wondering this because I recently realized that my own negative experiences with law enforcement and our judicial system really clouded my judgment about this case from the beginning. I just immediately thought, "Well, if I could be lied to and railroaded by cops, public defenders, prosecutors, and a judge, then certainly these people are capable of framing a man who has set out to sue them and come after their reputations and livelihoods." I've always wondered why my partner and my parents fully believe they are both guilty. Like, how could they? And I always told myself it was because they had never been fucked around by the system. I've recently realized that I was wrong. It's because they were free of bias, and I was full of it. Just wondering if folks have some things to add in relation to this topic??

• I recently saw an old Fox11 media broadcast re Brendan's post conviction hearing (Search YouTube: "Fox 11 Brendan Dassey hearing continues"). In the video, reporters discuss "pieces of an interview with Brendan Dassey that never made it into trial," referring to the May 12, 2006 recorded interview between Brendan and Kachinsky's defense investigator Michael O'Kelly.

 

• Reporters note O'Kelly testified "initially his job was to gather information to defend Brendan Dassey, but during the course of his work that changed. He said Dassey's attorney told him later on to gather information that would help Dassey enter into a plea deal, where Dassey might get a lighter sentence in exchange for testifying against Steven Avery." Although the broadcast doesn't mention this, O'Kelly testified the "idea" to have Brendan "turn" on Steven didn't originate from himself or Kachinsky, but from Brendan's family.

 

• The extended moment from the broadcast can be found during Day 4 of Brendan's Post Conviction Hearing. Per PCH:1/21:33-47, we see O'Kelly was asked to explain WHEN he was directed to stop defending Brendan and instead gather mitigation information that would facilitate a plea deal. The below excerpts picks up as Dvorak has O'Kelly review his handwritten notes from an April 22, 2006 meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine...

 

Direct Examination of O'Kelly by Attorney Dvorak, Day 4 PG 33-47:

 

> Q: I said item number four is -- what I want you to read.

> A: "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn," dash, "do it."

> Q: All right. In other words, to admit guilt, testify against the co-defendant; correct?

> A: That is correct.

> Q: Okay. And you said that that was not your -- these are not your ideas?

> A: That's correct.

> Q: These are -- ideas are Mr. Kachinsky ideas?

> A: No.

> Q: Where did these ideas come from?

> A: This information came from my client, Mr. Dassey's family.

> Q: Okay. So the family, you're saying, was suggesting that Mr. Dassey should turn State's evidence against Steven Avery?

> A: All this information, one through ten, is from the family is my recollection.

> Q: When you -- when you talk about the family, that it was the family's idea that came up with this, who -- who in the family were you talking about?

> A: Barb Janda, if I'm pronouncing her name correctly, uh, the stepfather, Scott Tadych. I spoke with Blaine, uh, the brother of -- of Brendan. And Bobby the brother of Brendan.

> Q: What instructions did you receive from Mr, Kachinsky? If you remember?

> A: I can tell you initially I was told to gather defense -- defense information for Mr. Dassey. And at some point, at one junction, it did change and it went to securing information for a plea bargain process.

> Q: Okay. Do you recall when in relation to April 27 it was that that happened? Best of your recollection.

> A: Best rec -- rec -- best of my recollection, based upon what I've seen so far, it would be before April 22. Those notes. On or about that day, I should say.

> Q: And what discussion do you recall having with Mr. Kachinsky about going in that new direction? What did he want you to do?

> A: We were to gather mitigation information. We were to gather anything that would further the State's case against Steven Avery. We were to gather whatever we could to put Brendan Dassey in the best light we could. The goal was to preserve as much of Brendan Dassey's freedom as we could. And that's --

> Q: And were you aware that Brendan Dassey at this point was maintaining that he was not involved in the homicide of Teresa Halbach?

> A: Yes.

> Q: And would you read the next paragraph [from Exhibit 64] "I'm not concerned."

> A: "I am not concerned with finding connecting evidence placing Brendan inside the crime scene as Brendan will be State's primary witness."

> Q: Okay. Can you stop there? I have a question just to clarify the meaning of that? In other words, you're not concerned whether or not, at this point, what's happening is if you find evidence that would tend to inculpate Brendan; correct?

> A: That is correct.

> Q: All right. Go ahead and read.

> A: "This will only serve to bolster the prosecution. Period. It will actually benefit the State if there is evidence attributed to Brendan. Period. It will corroborate his testimony and color him truthful."

> Q: Okay. So your goal is not only to get Brendan to confess, but to also go out and gather evidence to help the State in its prosecution; correct?

> A: That is correct.

> Q: Even if that evidence tends to inculpate Brendan Dassey?

> A: That is correct.

 

Closing thoughts...

 

• In summary, O'Kelly claims Kachinsky initially hired him to defend Brendan, but on or shortly before April 22, 2006, there was a meeting with Brendan's family that resulted in a shift in Kachinsky's strategy where he no longer was trying to defend Brendan, but instead began gathering information that would further the State's case against Steven Avery, even if that info further inculpated Brendan. O'Kelly claims the idea to have Brendan turn on Steven originated from Brendan's family, specifically Barb and Scott (he also mentions Bobby and Blaine). He referenced an April 22 note take after a meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine that said - "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn - do it."

 

• I personally can't accept O'Kelly's claim that Kachinsky's pre April 22 plan was to actually defend Brendan. After all, Kachinsky's first statement to the media (March 7) involved him declaring Brendan guilty, something Kachinsky later admitted he "should definitely not" have said. Even after meeting Brendan and learning he had recanted his confession and was maintaining his innocence, Kachinsky continued making similar comments implying Brendan was guilty with "no defense." Kachinsky made NO PUBLIC STATEMENTS wherein he relayed Brendan's claims of innocence. He never admonished the state for its treatment of Brendan. And he began mentioning a plea deal long before April 22, 2006.

 

• Further, although O'Kelly's invoice does indicate a meeting occurred with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine on April 22, 2006, I question O'Kelly's claim that statements from Barb were the source of O'Kelly's handwritten April 22, 2006 note that: "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn - do it." I initially considered Barb may have been under pressure during this April 22, 2006 meeting due to the April 21, 2006 seizure of the PC from Bobby's room. Was she concerned about what might come out and agreed it was best for Brendan to flip on Steven to keep the focus on him? That is a plausible scenario, I thought. But still, if Barb had genuinely agreed on April 22 that Brendan should turn on Steven, it makes little sense for her to later repeatedly advise Brendan not to plead guilty and to actively seek Kachinsky's removal for having suggested exactly that.

 

• Frankly, I don't know how to explain O'Kelly contemporaneous note from an April 22, 2006 meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine. Something isn't adding up, and O'Kelly isn't truthworthy. Did Barb actually agree to this? Was she momentarily panicked about what might happen after Fassbender seized her computer only a day earlier? Did O'Kelly pressure, mislead, or misreport what Barb said? Or was O'Kelly lying? Was that handwritten note not referencing discussion with Barb at all, but discussion with Scott and Bobby, or Kachinsky and LE? ... "ALL agreed that if WE can get defendant to turn - DO IT."

 

• Either way, it seems undisputed the April 22, 2006 handwritten note indicating a desire to have Brendan flip on Steven was not based on contact with Brendan, but reflects contact with some other party advocating for Brendan's counsel to work towards Brendan flipping. Whether that other party was Kachinsky, law enforcement, or Barb and Scott, the strategy to turn Brendan against Steven was clearly imposed on him, not chosen by him or even designed for his best interest. Brendan recanted his coerced confession. He told Kachinsky he didn't do it. He told O'Kelly he didn't do it. And instead of investigating that claim, instead of defending him, they decided he was guilty and (without his input) worked to incriminate him and get him to confess again before feeding him back to police without any counsel present or any plea deal actually on the table. That's despicable. Not good defense work.

Overall how do you think Brendan did when he was cross examined, do you think he performed well on the stand?

This entire extra 10- episodes leaves us EXACTLY where we were at the end of part one all those years ago. The last words of Kathleen is that she will keep trying because SA is wrongfully convicted and SA is still fighting. I thought the whole point of doing more of this docuseries would be to actually have a conclusion. People have commented on previous questions saying that Kathleen does convict him. I didn't see that. Where is the conclusion?