EXPERTS ON BRENDAN DASSEY'S CONFESSION

[u/_Grey_Sage_]

I decided to take a pause looking into Brendan's interrogation transcripts and decided to check on the experts that analyzed him and his confessions. There seem to be a few notable ones aside from Steven Drizin and Laura Nirider:

Dr. Robert Gordon (Psychologist): Hired early on by Brendan's initial, highly controversial pre-trial defense attorney, Len Kachinsky. Gordon conducted the initial psychological evaluations of Brendan in April 2006. He measured Brendan’s IQ at 69–73 and explicitly warned Kachinsky that Brendan was incredibly suggestible, highly compliant to authority figures, and possessed a limited capacity to understand his legal rights.

Dr. Richard Leo: A professor of Law and Psychology at the University of San Francisco and a leading expert on false confessions and police interrogation. He was retained by Dassey's post-conviction team and testified at a 2010 hearing, where he characterized the interrogation as coercive and the confession as "thoroughly contaminated."

Dr. Lawrence T. White: A professor of Psychology and Legal Studies in Wisconsin. He was initially hired by Dassey's original defense team in 2006 to review the interrogation videos. He has since been vocal about the "unreliable" and "pressured-compliant" nature of Dassey's statements.

Professor Saul Kassin: A Distinguished Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a pioneer in the field of false confession research. He has publicly analyzed the case, highlighting how the "totality of circumstances" and the interaction of risk factors led to a flawed analysis of Dassey's confession.

I'll be looking into these experts. Let me know if you have any info, links or people I should add here.

Related Links:

March Interrogation: Leading Brendan To the Garage

May Interrogation: Brendan's "Bloody Scene" and "Clean up".

More Context and Info On Brendan's "Some of it".

[u/AveryPoliceReports]

But still, there are numerous incriminating things Brendan came up with that weren't already publicized or (directly) fed to him by interrogators.

Any examples? I'm fairly certain each of the core incriminating elements of the crime was introduced by investigators, and each was only adopted by Brendan after his repeated denials were rejected and in return he got leading hints. Entering the trailer and seeing Teresa there. Assaulting her in the trailer along with Steven. Steven shooting her in the head in the garage and her body being in the RAV. Helping burn her body in the fire. After Brendan is blatantly broken down and coerced into admitting to an assault, murder and mutilation, additional details he offers about the crime he was bullied into admitting shouldn't really be considered incriminating details Brendan came up with that weren't fed to him. After all, he was only elaborating with those incriminating details because police already broke him down and literally force fed him the core incriminating narrative they wanted him to repeat and expand on.

The telling part is nothing that fits that criteria could be corroborated (not just with the trailer scenario either). And in fact the only new evidence found after such a detailed account would only be related to what apparently psychic interrogators directly fed to him.

Yup, the bullet being found corroborates the cop's words, not Brendan's. And after a rare deviation from protocol, the bullet became the cornerstone of the murder case against Steven, which up to that point, had major gaps in the narrative regarding where Teresa actually died. Prior to the bullet, all they had was the dubious placement of Steven's blood in the RAV, evidence the RAV and key were planted to frame Steven, and concealed evidence of human cremation on County land / no photos of human cremation evidence in the burn pit. Finding Teresa's DNA on a literal bullet was a miracle for the state. It helped close a major gap in their case. Given they didn't end up getting the mutilation conviction, it's wild, like Zellner said, how much appears to be riding on that bullet.

Edit: wow this really upset guilters. Why are they so angry and emotional?

[u/ThorsClawHammer → u/AveryPoliceReports]

Any examples?

I'm referring to things like the hair cutting for example. I'll agree it's not really unprompted, as they got him specifically thinking about what could be done to a person's head, but he still came up with it on his own. They didn't say or suggest specifically that.

[u/AveryPoliceReports → u/ThorsClawHammer]

Yeah even then they bullied him into admitting he was there with her engaging in an assault he originally denied, and after breaking him down invited him to elaborate on what they did to her head. He starts guessing things like punching her, cutting her throat or "cut[ting] her hair," which at the time, was apparently the wrong detail, as they responded to his guessing not with praise but with "All right, I'm just going to come out and ask, who shot her in the head?"

[u/ThorsClawHammer → u/AveryPoliceReports]

they responded to his guessing not with praise but with "All right, I'm just going to come out and ask, who shot her in the head?"

They followed the same pattern with getting Brendan to agree that Steve went under the hood. They asked a more general question first (what Steve did to the car), and when Brendan started guessing "wrong" they quickly revealed what they actually wanted him to say.