The Dassey Confession – Part Three – The Suppression Hearing
On 4 May, 2006, a hearing was held to determine whether the Dassey confession should be allowed to stand. Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Jerome Fox presided. The defense argued that the confession should be suppressed because investigators lied to Dassey about helping him and because experienced investigators took advantage of a teenager with learning problems.
Deputy Mark Weigert, one of the investigators involved with Dassey’s
Dassey’s mother, stated that Brendan was quiet, shy, and a bad student. She admitted that she signed papers saying that Brendan was bright enough to take drivers education classes. Brendan also used a computer to socialize via email. Janda stated that Brendan tells the truth to authorities.
Yet, the picture is that Dassey’s account of the Halbach murder changed. There were the two interviews in Marinette County that changed a small amount. There were the interviews in Manitowoc County that shifted substantially from start to finish and were a big change from the Marinette County interviews.
And, according to investigators, Dassey needed to be prodded for them to get the desired confession.
The psychologist testified that Dassey was below average in intelligence. He could remember events and recount them. He followed school rules which according to the psychologist meant he knew the difference between right and wrong.
There is a difference between compliance and knowing right from wrong. Most three-year-olds (and many adults) comply with instruction without understanding why the instruction is right and noncompliance is wrong. If the knowing were such a magic event, we would not need rules and regulations to channel behaviors. No one would knowingly do wrong if that is such a great standard and legal intervention would be needed only for those who are “right from wrong” incompetent.
Murder is a grievous offense, at least as defined within a society or community. People do murder while they recognize that it is a wrong act but will justify the crime by considering it the lessor of evils. Or, it is sanctioned by the rules and regulations or the will of the people. Innocent noncombatants killed during a military attack are merely collateral damage. The killing of the innocent via the death penalty is some else’s tough luck. Here, there was no threat to compel the murder nor was there state supplied justification. Presumably, a person knowing right from wrong would not commit the crime.
The Deputy Weigert testified that Dassey always waived his rights after being given the Miranda Warning. The Investigator also emphasized the process was an interview rather than an interrogation. He stated that the interview at the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s department was conducted in a soft room; that is a more relaxed environment than a hard room. Yet, no matter how gentle, an interrogation is still an interrogation. Investigators considered Dassey a suspect based upon statements made by relatives.
Weigert testified that Dassey supplied unpublicized details and corrected the investigators on when they fed him incorrect information.
Repeated questions can be answered in a way that satisfies investigators. In sex hysteria investigations, continual questioning would inevitably bring out the desired answers from children. But, it turns out even young children could eventually guess what the investigators wanted for answers and supply them. Here, the repeated calls for honesty can be interpreted as hints to change the story. Were any prompts for honesty provided for facts that were known to be true? Such a technique could be useful to see whether a story changes from a known fact to a guess.
The overnight lodging of Dassey and his mother at the Fox Hills Resort in Mishicot was defended by Weigert as due to fear that the Avery family would harm Dassey for his cooperation. However, the pair left the resort the next morning without any concern of the investigators. The real intent remains unknown. Unanswered about this curious reward is what materials was Dassey exposed to in his room? Did the investigators arrange for anyone to contact either party during this stay? Did they not yet have enough information for an arrest?
The idea that the Avery family has some sinister influence is a thread that moves through this case. No evidence has been provided that the family is coercive or gives advice any more than any other family.
I know in a case like this; I would advise family members to only confide in their attorney. If there is a distrust for the attorney, then find another. I don’t believe that either piece of advice is sinister or coercive.
And, Weigert also testified that Dassey’s relatives had told him that Dassey was losing weight and crying a lot. Hardly the behavior of a family trying to intimidate a witness.
The investigators went out of their way to make sure Dassey had no advice about getting an attorney from anyone. He was told not to tell family members. His mother was available, but clearly she had no concept of protecting her son during the interrogation.
The idea that this a witness interview is fiction, perhaps an accepted legal fiction. But, it walked like an interrogation. It talked like an interrogation.
The judgment was delivered on 12 May, 2006. Judge Jerome Fox found that Dassey was capable of understanding his rights and had freely relinquished them, and thus the confession was admissible evidence. The opinion of Judge Fox was that the investigators appealed to Dassey to be honest and thus only reminding Dassey of his “moral duty to tell the truth.”
Now the legislators of Wisconsin in their wisdom have decided that
And, in yet another motion, the Special Prosecutor requested on 2 June, 2006, an increase in the bail amount for Dassey. This was based on the claim that Dassey had confessed to a jailer or deputies that he and Avery had planned the crime in advance. Aside from the lack of ability of Dassey to plan much, this claim goes against the concept that Dassey always tells the truth and the prior confession was truthful. Even though this would undermine the prior confessions, Prosecutor Ken Kratz is willing to amend the earlier confession and make yet another direction change in the prosecution of this case.
So it appears that the confession business is not over. Maybe Kratz’s claim of a new additional confession was a sound shot. Or perhaps it was another attempt to manipulate the jury pool. But, it represents an escalation in the prosecution effort. How much of the changing confession is Dassey and how much is someone else?
by Brian McCorkle
in category Brendan Dassey
