Dassey Retrial Hearing Day Four

The hearing for a request for retrial of Brendan Dassey continued on 21 January, 2010. Dassey was convicted in 2007 for the 2005 rape and murder of Teresa Halbach. Dassey’s uncle, Steven Avery, was convicted for the murder of Halbach.

The star of this day was the private investigator hired by Len Kachinsky, Dassey’s second defense attorney. His testimony was an eye‑opener.

Michael O’Kelly was hired by Kachinsky to perform a lie detector test. Then Kachinsky had him assist in a bizarre exercise that was supposed to help the defendant.

Even before Kachinsky consulted with his client, he claimed that Steven Avery was preventing Dassey from pleading guilty. The local media swallowed those claims without critical evaluation. One report told of a statement from O’Kelly who said he was interviewing Dassey’s mother when she received a telephone call from her brother, Steven Avery. That was enough for the inference that Avery was orchestrating events from his jail cell. Neither Kachinsky nor O’Kelly produced any evidence that Avery was manipulating the case.

Avery might have told Dassey not to plea bargain which was good advice. Copping a plea when a person is innocent slams too many doors shut for future proceedings.

O’Kelly testified that his recollection of the results of the lie detector test was that Dassey was deceptive. Kachinsky had testified that the results were inconclusive. The Appeals Attorneys expert, Dr. Charles Honts, opined that Brendan passed the test favorably.

Early on, Kachinsky’s strategy was to endear Brendan to the public with the “uncle made him do it” claim. O’Kelly testified his initial direction was to gather evidence against Steven Avery.

The State of Wisconsin had already expended many resources for this case. At trial, Ken Kratz bragged about the amount spent and the number of items examined. The idea of a defense attorney assisting the State in investigating rather than attending to the needs of the defendant is ludicrous.

Then, the strategy became to offer Dassey to the prosecution.

O’Kelly made it clear to defense attorney Kachinsky that he didn’t like the Averys or the Dasseys. In Court, he read an email he sent to Kachinsky that heaped opprobrium on the Dasseys. O’Kelly didn’t author the sentiments but concurred with them.

On 12 May, 2006, O’Kelly performed his own interrogation at the Sheboygan County Sheriff’s Department. He falsely claimed that Dassey had failed the polygraph almost 100 percent. He badgered the sixteen‑year‑old special education student to incriminate himself. Just like the police interrogators, he ignored statements of innocence and insisted upon guilt. He obtained a written statement of which he assisted Dassey in writing. He Then called Kachinsky to arrange a police interrogation the next morning and then called Wisconsin Special Agent Tom Fassbender and offered the document he obtained as well as the video.

Fassbender and Calumet County Mark Wiegert conducted their own interrogation the following day knowing that the defense attorney was not present. The interrogation turned out to be a showcase for false confessions. Wiegert pushed Dassey to recant a statement that was factually true.

Itâ€™s as if Len Kachinsky and Michael O’Kelly were double agents.

When Assistant Attorney General Tom Fallon asked O’Kelly if he believed he had the best interests of Brendan Dassey, O’Kelly answered that he did. So after wasting time and money trying to assist the State in investigating Steven Avery and after badgering and intimidating Dassey to yet another confession, O’Kelly claimed it was for the good of the defendant.

Ray Edelstein, one of Dassey’s trial attorneys, also testified. He agreed the performance of Kachinsky was bizarre. He stated that the practice of investigators Fassbender and Wiegert of running an interrogation without an attorney present was a waste of time. Edelstein also indicated that using this confession at trial would have demonstrated the leading and badgering tactics of the interrogators.

Edelstein noted that Brendan was not engaged in his defense. Kachinsky had testified that Dassey didn’t seem interested in partaking is his defense. Apparently, this passive behavior did not alert any of the various defense attorneys that there was a competence issue. Of course, if Kachinsky, Fremgen, or Edelstein had examined the confession tapes and videos, they would have caught that Dassey fully expected to be returned to school after giving the interrogators the words they wanted. That should have been a flag that the attorneys were working with a person who didn’t understand the enormity of what he agreed to.