The Four Confessions of Brendan Dassey ‑ Introduction

First off, I must confess that I was unaware of the two February, 2006 confessions as being fairly detailed. I was aware of the 1 March, 2006 and the 13 May, 2006 confessions of Brendan Dassey. My prior series about the Dassey Confession was about the March confession as shown in court filings by Special Agent Tom Fassbender and defense attorney Leonard Kachinsky.

But, as it turns out there were four separate confessions and at least five interviews and interrogations. The first interview was audio taped, and the quality of this recording is poor. This concluded with a written confession. This was recorded at the Mishicot, Wisconsin High School on 27 February, 2006.

The second interview took place at the Two Rivers, Wisconsin Police Department after the Mishicot confession. This interview was video taped and included statements by Dassey that involved him in the burning of Halbach’s body.

The third interview (or possible a series if interviews) took place at the Fox Hills Resort in Mishicot, WI. Investigators claimed equipment malfunction for the lack of recording those sessions. This session included a violent confrontation by Tom Fassbender. Investigators testified that they placed, Brendan Dassey, Blaine Dassey, and Barb Janda at the Fox Hills Resort for their protection, but the placement was for further interrogations. The three left the next morning with no further concerns for their safety from investigators.

The complaint dated 2 March, 2006 and filed by Wisconsin Special Agent Tom Fassbender accusing Brendan Dassey made no reference to 27 February confessions. The only statement that Fassbender included from those several hours of interrogations is that Brendan said he got home at around 3:45 P.M. on 31 October, 2005 and he (Dassey) saw Halbach’s vehicle. Fassbender made no mention of the placement of the Dassey brothers and their mother at the Fox Hills Resort and the subsequent confrontations and interrogations. These are sins of omission.

When Brendan’s then attorney, Len Kachinsky, filed to have the March confession suppressed, he made no reference to the two February confessions as confessions either, calling one a statement. His only reference to content was that Brendan had seen “female clothes burning” at 9:30 at night. Kachinsky neglected the problems with that statement such as how to tell burning female jeans or shirt from male jeans or shirt. It has been a long time since girl’s and woman’s jeans had a zipper in the side to help identify the sex of the jeans. Dassey said the clothes were in a bag. How does one identify the sex of clothing that is in a bag, burning, and late at night?

Kachinsky was unaware of or overlooked the facts that investigators started mentioning female clothes early in that first interview and were very specific with their guidance. And, Dassey consistently got the color of the top wrong. In the February, 2006 confessions he stated the Halbach shirt was blue. In the March, 2006 confession he stated that Halbach was wearing a black shirt over a white t‑shirt. In his May, 2006 confession, Dassey again stated the shirt was blue. On the day Teresa Halbach was last seen, she was wearing a white shirt or blouse.

Kachinsky’s efforts to suppress the March confession were half‑hearted. He preferred to offer Dassey up as a plea bargain victim.

These first two confessions yielded no arrest or scurrilous press conference although they could be considered incriminating on their face. At no time did Dassey appear to be conflicted of his alleged role although investigators claimed that his reported internal conflicts (from family members) were what lead them to extract the confessions.

The third confession resulted in that grandstanding and histrionic news conference by Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz on 2 March, 2006.

The fourth confession was pretty much ignored due to the problems it caused with the bent of the police investigation. One statement from this confession led to a claim by Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz that Avery had committed the crime because he wanted to return to prison. The Kratz forensic expert for this claim was Brendan Dassey.

Brendan started with what appeared to be a rehearsed confession, but typically, he didn’t get it the way investigators wanted. In fact, this contradicted the events they hoped it would verify. In the end, this session was such a problem for investigators that they pretended it didn’t exist although the legal implications for Leonard Kachinsky were unpleasant.

It was this May, 2006 confession that attorney Len Kachinsky left his client undefended except by his investigator. Kachinsky was sanctioned by the State Public Defenders Office and removed from the case by Judge Jerome Fox.

This also indicates the depths of unethical behavior by the two investigators since they took advantage of Brendan Dassey via the absence of Kachinsky.

Investigators claimed that the confessions gave them information that someone (Namely Steven Avery) had opened the hood of the Halbach vehicle. And, this was one item that proved the veracity of the confessions. But, that is a very troublesome claim.(1)

Investigators also testified that Dassey told them Halbach had no tattoo on her stomach after they said there was a tattoo. That is a false claim.(2)

I intend to examine the various confessions to examine

Who was the first to mention incriminating items? This includes evidence statements that originated with the interrogators rather Dassey.
The gang banging technique in which the two investigators alternated in a string of accusations and statements without any opportunity for the accused to answer or are used to suppress answers that oppose the intent of the interrogation.
Techniques used, such as, when an investigator makes a lengthy statement mentioning evidence that they want from the confession and then conclude with an unrelated innocuous question.
What changes were made in Dassey’s statements and sketches at the direction of the interrogators.
How often were alternatives given to Dassey as a multiple‑choice and if he habitually favored the first or the second choice. Or with yes or no variations, how times did Dassey pick the first choice.
How many times investigators actually told Dassey what they wanted.
Consistent statements by Dassey. For example, in all four confessions, he stated that Steven Avery had placed a knife under the seat in the Halbach SUV.

And more. This project will take a while, however, I feel that it is worth the effort. And, I want to be accurate.

There is a lack of evidence to corroborate this confession.

The investigators claimed that the crime scene was of a person who’s throat was cut, who was stabbed, who was shot was cleaned so thoroughly that biological evidence was unobtainable. The investigators also intimated that their budget for evidence collection was depleted so they could not do such things as examine the crawler for evidence although such devices have crevices that are very difficult to clean. These crevices are excellent traps for biological matter.

Repeat after me. No evidence does not equal evidence. No evidence does not equal evidence.

And note that Special Prosecutor Tom Fallon undermined the confession presented during the trial in his closing. Fallon had Dassey returning home for quite a while, and then returning to Avery’s home to complete the actions described in the March, 2006 confession. So when Dassey said it didn’t happen that way, Fallon labels him a liar. When Fallon says it didn’t happen that way ….

I hope this series will help all of us understand what occurred during these confession sessions and consider the validity of the results.

And, also consider that we generally have a greatly inflated opinion of ourselves and how we will do the “right thing.” But at least twenty‑five percent of exonerated death row inmates were convicted because of a false confession they made. Consider how easily the majority of German Citizens accepted the National Socialists after their rise to power (using the governing bodies to do so).

Take a look at the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment to see how quickly educated people fell into the role of prisoner and stopped resisting.

Finally, I would like to thank Jerome Buting of Buting & Williams, S.C. for supplying me with the transcripts, tapes, and videos of the four confession sessions. This is the same set that was supplied to news organizations.

1. Investigator Mark Weigert, and Special Agent Tom Fassbender testified that Dassey gave them information about Avery opening the hood of the SUV that was new information for them. That statement allowed them to find Avery DNA in some unidentified fluid from the hood latch.

Crime lab technicians discovered that the hood had been opened in November, 2005 so that was not new.

And, this was first mentioned by and repeated by Tom Fassbender during the March, 2006 session before Dassey gave any such information. Fassbender became more specific as he repeated the claim that Avery did “something important to the RAV.” Dassey made a few guesses and then was silent. After prodding by Fassbender, “He did something under the hood.” Dassey finally said, “he did something under the hood but I don’t know what.”

Thus, Dassey did not give them that information.

2. A second item that the interrogators testified to was a claim the Dassey properly disputed that Halbach did not have a tattoo on her stomach. Given the photograph of Halbach that was in common circulation, I am sure that the great majority of persons would guess at no tattoo (and if shown a photograph of a goth, the majority would guess a tattoo).

But the question was not stated that way.

Fassbender: OK. (pause) We know that Teresa had a tattoo on her stomach, do you remember that? (emphasis added)
Brendan: (shakes head “no”) uh uh
Fassbender: Do you disagree with me when I say that?
Brendan: No but I don’t know where it is?

Hardly proof positive that Dassey was emphatic about the lack of a tattoo.

A better way to question this is to use Fassbender’s leading statement methodology such as “We know that the victim had a tattoo on her stomach. Can you tell us about it? Like was it a dragon or a butterfly? What colors? Anything like that? Perhaps a butterfly?”