Here's another:
Unfortunately the earliest interview was recorded on audio only, and the recording is extremely noisy. I tried to clean it up using noise reduction techniques, but nothing helped. It really seems unusable, because hardly anything said is clearly audible. The sound on the videos, however, is adequate, and despite the very annoying dropouts in the second one, there is more than enough important information that comes through loud and clear.
It's been alleged that Brendan was manipulated into implicating Steven and manipulated into confessing to his own role in the assault and murder, but I see no evidence of that. While his interrogators strike me as rather inept and their continual reassurances that they are on his side are certainly dishonest and misleading, as is their insistence that they already know what happened, which is probably untrue, it's impossible to imagine that he would have made up so many incriminating details simply because of their inept and annoying persistence. I see no evidence that they told him what to say, though they do ask leading questions. There are plenty of places where he volunteers information he obviously hasn't been fed. And much of what he says in those places is devastating to Steven Avery's defense. The notion that he'd been fed a made up story in advance strikes me as yet another example of Avery's lawyer's ludicrous attempts to base their defense on some sort of grand, wide-ranging conspiracy theory. I see no reason for the investigators to concoct such a story and certainly no reason for Brendan to go along with it if it's untrue. As for the absence of a lawyer during the interviews, he was read his Miranda rights and agreed to testify without one.
I've seen many police interviews where the interrogators loudly accuse suspects of having committed a crime and act in an extremely intimidating manner in order to break down the suspect's resistance. This does not happen here. While the interviewers are persistent, they are also respectful and patient, and speak in consistently soft tones. While their insistence that they are "on his side" is misleading, it is also true that, had he agreed to testify against his uncle, they would probably have helped him get a reduced sentence as part of a plea deal.
Brendan testifies that he was with Steven when the attack took place, that Steven invited him to join in on the rape, and that he did so, that he saw the victim's vehicle in Steven's garage, saw her dead body in the back and helped his uncle burn it. Brendan is clearly upset and frightened, which explains why it takes him so long to get things out and why he is so uncomfortable. While there may be some inconsistencies in his statements, that is understandable in the testimony of someone who sees the sword coming down over his head and can hardly be expected to be completely cooperative. We also have to realize that his whole family has come out strongly in support of Steven, so what he is now saying will certainly get him in a lot of trouble with everyone he's ever been close to.
We see similar evidence of intimidation at a later point in the film, where Brendan's cousin, a fifteen year old girl, testifies. According to a statement she provided on an earlier occasion, she saw Brendan crying and when she asked him why, he told her the whole story of helping Steven assault and murder Teresa. On the stand, she is extremely uncomfortable and begins to cry. When shown her earlier statement, she denies it, and when pressed to tell the truth, she claims she was lying -- giving no reason for why she'd lie about something like that. While technically a lawyer could probably get her earlier statement removed from the record, to anyone with any understanding of human psychology it's clear that she's under tremendous stress from a family that would see her as a traitor if she testified against Steven.
7. Possibly the most despicable episode in the film is the segment where Brendan's first lawyer is vilified because of his refusal to insist on his client's innocence. The implication being that no decent lawyer would turn on his client like that. That is simply not true. As I see it, the lawyer must have realized that Brendan had fatally implicated himself already and any attempt to defend him as some sort of innocent victim of "the system" was bound to fail -- as it certainly did down the line, for both Steven and Brendan. The lawyer obviously decided that a plea bargain was Brendan's best bet. If he had agreed to testify in Steven's trial, then he could probably have gotten off with a relatively light sentence, especially because he was both young and mildly retarded, and thus could easily have been manipulated by his uncle.
Steven's family and his legal team must have realized the implications of such a plea deal and would have done anything in their power to prevent it. So they made a huge fuss over the "incompetence" of the first lawyer, and got him replaced by a lawyer willing, essentially, to toss him to the wolves (literally) by refusing any deal and forcing a separate trial. The devastating result was entirely predictable.
You think that borderline-retarded teenager was capable of understanding Miranda? At the end of his first interview he was worried he was going to miss class! The truest statement he made was to his mother, when he wailed "I'm STUPID" on the phone.
ReplyDeleteKachinsky was a travesty. You don't make statements like his about his client's guilt to the media, especially if you're hoping to plea bargain. This guy had lost an election and volunteered to represent Dassey to re-energize his law practice. If he wasn't sanctioned, he should have been.
CC
They read him his rights. And he agreed to testify without a lawyer present. What's more, his own lawyer accepted that testimony without protest. And if he'd been present would most likely not have interfered. Yes, he was not the most aggressive lawyer in the world, certainly he was no Lin Wood, but imo Wood did the Ramseys more harm than good by his aggressive tactics.
DeleteWhat you fail to take into account is the statement of Brendan's cousin, the 15 year old girl, which was extremely damaging and made it all but impossible to argue that he knew nothing about the crime. That testimony may have been thrown out eventually but if she'd stuck to her guns it would have posed a huge barrier for any lawyer arguing for Brendan's complete innocence.
Is the eye witness account of a "borderline-retarded" person to simply be ignored? What about retarded children who are abused? Does the law require that their testimony be discounted due to their disability?
Again, CC, you are seeing this situation through the eyes of a lawyer, and as I see it, your background can easily color your viewpoint, just as my background colors mine, I'm sure.
Now as far as Brendan's first lawyer is concerned, if he in fact made a public statement implicating his client then that does sound pretty bad, and I agree. However, if his client is ever going to cut a deal in return for his testimony then sooner or later the lawyer will have to concede that the client was involved. And the client will have to convince a jury that he's telling the truth when he spills the beans, no?
As in any negotiation, you're better off conceding nothing and operating from a position of strength - and silence. The prosecutor needed, or felt he needed, Brendan's testimony to convict his uncle. Kachinsky just had to sit back, shut up, and wait for an offer.
ReplyDeleteCC
I question that he in fact knew what he was agreeing to.
ReplyDeleteI do not discount the cousin, but I don't see what that has to do with Brendan's cognitive abilities in a legal situation confronted by authority figures.
And yes, some individuals do need special protection. No need to dismiss what he says wholesale, just be very careful how such information is elicited.
CC
I'd say that the great majority of suspects in a criminal investigation probably have little to no idea what Miranda means. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the law requires only the reading of their rights, not a full explanation of what that entails. I wonder if there are legal precedents that we could draw upon here. Surely Miranda has been read to many suspects who were mentally impaired. Were those testimonies tossed? You tell me.
DeleteIs every suspect required to undergo a psychological evaluation before being questioned in a case like this? Again, you tell me, I don't know.
Actually, given the rate of recidivism in this country, I'd say most offenders know exactly what Miranda means. You're correct, no explanation, just a reading. I'm too lazy to go looking in LexisNexis, but I'm going to guess LE should go way overboard if there's a question of competence, particularly with a child. So yes, perhaps call in mental health professionals, or at least a guardian ad litem.
ReplyDeleteOf course not and again of course not.
CC
I've monopolized the conversation and bored everyone witless long enough. Sorry, guys. Time for someone else take a turn.
ReplyDeleteCC
I'd like to see examples of Dassey bringing up details without significant coaching from the investigators. There's lots of things that you'd expect in a coercive interrogation present here. Having no clue how to answer a question until told what the answer is. Saying things like he "guessed" or "i wish theyd tell me what they want me to say" etc. His guesses how many times the victim was shot (and not knowing she was shot until told) is almost comical. One? Two? Five? Eleven?
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER. The guidance counselor says well before Dassey was a suspect a family member, Kayla Avery (iirc) confessed that a cousin helped his uncle move a body and he was worried about blood soaking through concrete.
It would be helpful to have a precise timeline of when each witness became known. Who came first the counselor or Kayla? When did police take Kayla's statement?
It's very helpful to the prosecution that Kayla's statement was partially corroborated by the counselor. It seems improbable to me that she would go to the guidance counselor for the first time because of something she just made up.
Without Kayla and the counselor I would give zero weight to Dassey's incoherent rambling testimony the police coach him along on. But with it, it becomes much harder to dismiss.
At certain points one might be able to argue that Brendan was coached, yes. But there are many times when he comes up with damaging observations after being asked very simple straightforward questions, such as "what happened next?" As I see it, this whole business of Brendan being manipulated by the investigators is classic misdirection. I suspect he was being manipulated all right, but by Steven Avery and his family, which also happens to be Brendan's family.
DeleteIt doesn't take a psychologist to see how conflicted he is and how frightened he is, which is why the interviewers found it so difficult to get answers from him. Without some sort of prodding he'd have said hardly anything at all.
For the most part, I don't see them putting words into his mouth. I don't see them manipulating him either, simply prodding him to provide more information, which obviously he is reluctant to do. Because he is scared as Hell. And not of them but his own family.
Brendan's lawyers made a big fuss because they had no choice. If Brendan's testimony had been accepted in Steven's trial there'd have been no hope of acquittal. As it stands there was really very little hope anyhow, and the lawyers should have realized that and urged him to confess in return for a reduction of his sentence. As I see it, it's Avery's lawyers who are the villains in this case, not law enforcement.
Well I don't know what interrogation clips you watched.
DeleteWhat did he do with her head?
Cut her?
No what did he do to her head, try to remember?
Cut her hair?
No what he did he do with the head? This is very important?
Punch her maybe?
Ok I'm going to just come out and say it, did he shoot her?
Yes.
I stand by my view that the interrogation is crap and revealed nothing but I admit I have not watched every second. I would like to see points where he actually generates information completely unassisted that's also consistent with the forensic evidence.
And keep in mind I am 99% sure Steven Avery is guilty. But this interrogation is just bad. I suppose it's good from a police generating guilt and incriminating statements point of view, but in terms of generating truthful information it doesn't seem to accomplish that at all. If the interrogation was the only piece of evidence they had, and had nothing else, I think the prosecution would be in trouble. But that wasn't the case obviously.
You're quoting from the portion of the interview the defense wanted you to see, where they very awkwardly and unnecessarily prompt him. These guys were inept for sure, and their constant patronizing reminders that "it's OK," or "we know what happened" become very irritating. In spite of all that, however, Brendan offers information in other segments of these videos that is not a response to prompting and it becomes very clear that he could only have said what he said if he'd actually been there and participated.
DeleteOne example of many where prompting isn't important would be the part from 32 minutes on in the first video. He mentions them lifting the body onto a "creeper," and confirms that Steven told him he raped her. There is some prompting but it's not significant. For example they offer the term "creeper" when he doesn't know what to call the device she was placed on after they lifted her body from the bed. And they sometimes repeat what he's already told them.
It's important to remember that they originally interviewed him on audio tape but thanks to their ineptness the tape was too noisy to use, so they had to go over everything again on the video. That's why they sometimes prompt him, because they already know what he said earlier and want him to repeat it. As a result, due to their general ineptness and impatience, they sometimes prompt him, which was certainly a mistake. But as I've said, important things are revealed in these interviews that are not the result of prompting. Obviously. NOwhere does Brendan say he was not there at the time or that he was told what to say. And as far as I can tell, the tapes are unedited.
Whether his statements are consistent with the forensic evidence or not I don't know. But in view of the pressure he was under, not only from the interviewers but his own family, it wouldn't be surprising if there were some inconcistencies.
I'm curious what you think of the policeman who called in the car two days before they "found it". Agree that this case is much more complicated than on first viewing of the netflix piece
ReplyDeleteWhat we know about this incident is what the creators of this "documentary" wanted us to know. Which is essentially what Avery's lawyers wanted us to know. In my dictionary this sort of thing is what is called a "red herring." Take any part of the case that doesn't seem to fit or can't easily be explained and turn it into reasonable doubt. When you dig more deeply you discover it's much ado about nothing. This is what happened in the Ramsey case and that's how it looks to me in this one.
DeleteHow is the police calling in her plates as if he is looking right at them & then not being able to provide any sort of explanation or "memory" of the incident that makes sense much ado about nothing? Of course the filmmakers wanted us to know about this... because it is one of many things the police did that they can't provide a reasonable explanation for... and you can't either.
DeleteAgreed. That cop on the stand was utterly speechless when asked for an explanation about the license plate. Another sticky wicket for your case theory, Doc.
DeleteCC
The explanation I've heard that sounds most plausible is that the cop wandered around the lot for a while and spotted Teresa's vehicle, identifying it by the license plate number. So he called in with that info. That could not be made official, however, because they had not yet obtained a search warrant, so they didn't officially report it and continued denying it for fear of getting their case tossed out on a technicality. Later that day or perhaps the next, Steven got worried and, not realizing the car had already been identified, removed the license plate and hid it elsewhere on the lot.
DeleteRegardless of how one might explain the cops behavior, I can't see this as part of some conspiracy. If the police brought the vehicle onto the lot themselves, the last thing they'd have wanted to do is report its presence before doing an official search, based on an officially approved warrant. You plant the evidence and then wait for it to be discovered. Conspiracy 101.
Sergeant Colborn made that call on 11/3, the day Teresa was reported missing. The car was not "found" until 11/5. Why the time lapse, if not to set up a plausible find by a disinterested party - though in fact the PI who found the car after 15 minutes on a 40-acre property containing 4,000 vehicles was a Halbach relative. Sorry, Doc, but there was a police conspiracy, at least with regard to the car, and probably with regard to the key. It took seven searches to find that key? I don't think so.
DeleteCC
The policeman wandered around the lot on the first day of the investigation and found something significant that could not be officially reported because a warrant had not yet been issued. If that's what you mean by a "conspiracy" then I suppose it was a conspiracy, yes. I would call it good police work. Do you expect the police to appear on a crime scene wearing blindfolds until a warrant is issued? C'mon CC, you know the drill. Anything a defense lawyer can use to blow smoke is acceptable. You as a lawyer can argue whatever you please. I as a juror have the responsibility to take everything with a grain of salt.
DeleteAs for the key, if they'd decided to plant it they'd have planted it as soon as possible, and made sure to discover it as soon as possible. What was gained by waiting until after seven searches? Same with the bullet, which took even more. As I understand it, someone jiggled the bookcase a bit and the key fell on the floor. To me that makes more sense than some "conspiracy" involving its discovery after seven attempts.
I havn't watched the programme I've only read about it. Although it is thought the nephew was coerced and was somewhat retarded, are we not giving too much credit to this and the fact that Avery was considered to be of lower than average intelligence. It's possible that they just didn't think anything out about the car or bones being discovered in a messy salvage yard. We're not looking at a JR here are we. As of the first victim of attack, although Penny wasn't shown a pic of Gregory, she did pick Avery from a line up. Seems like she was convinced Avery did it, then when told DNA doesn't lie, she was confused. Now she hears of second attack she is even more confused. After her apology to him, before the second crime, he asked Penny to buy him a house. Then came the civil suit.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think it possible Avery just assumed they wouldn't find her car among the hundreds of others on that lot. And possibly didn't realize the charred remains could be identified. Driving the car off the property to some other location would have been very risky, as would moving the charred remains.
DeleteIt's also possible he'd convinced himself that his previous conviction made him invulnerable, since he could always accuse the police of trying to set him up -- which as we know, he did.
I don't know what to think of that earlier conviction. I don't think the other guy looks much like Avery at all, but the woman might have just gotten confused.
Doc, thank you for taking the time to delve into yet another murder case. In my earlier post I did not state my opinion of the case. I wanted to see what you thought first, and I must confess I was secretly hoping you would confirm everything I already felt: that Steve Avery is guilty.
ReplyDeleteI cannot take the time now to comment on all the points you have raised, nor do I really feel the need to because I believe you once again spot on in your analysis and I agree totally with what you have said. But I did want to mention a couple things in the documentary that sealed the deal for me.
There is an episode where Brendan has been told by the investigators that they are going to tell his mom what he has confessed to. Later, when Brendan is talking to his mom on the phone, he asks if they have talked to her yet and she responds that they have not. She then asks him what they are going to talk to her about and he basically says he is afraid to tell her because she will be mad at him and she asks him why. At his point he says something like, 'because of what we did to that girl."
Brendan is the key in this case. If he were indeed innocent and coerced into making up that huge story, he would NOT have made that comment to his mom. He is not a bright young man by any means and I don't think he has the capability of making up a story like that. Also, in that same conversation with his mom, he expresses how disappointed he is that he won't be released from jail in time to see some wrestling mania show on TV. He is clearly very upset about this. Now why on earth would a guy like that make up a story that would land him in jail if he main concern seems to be being at home to watch wrestling? He may not be bright, but he certainly knows right from wrong and he certainly knew if he told that story, he would not be going home anytime soon. In other words, I find it unbelievable that he would make up that story if it weren't really true. I actually think that he may have felt he would be released if he told the truth. And then he could go home.
Another point regards the Rav 4 vehicle that was barely hidden under bramble and shrubs. The defense claims that Steve had a vehicle crusher readily available to completely crush the vehicle and, in fact, he had used it just that day or the day before and it was in good working order. They suggest that if he really wanted to hide Teresa's car, he could have crushed it. Steve Avery is a man who made his money off of junk cars, selling any salvageable parts, then crushing them. I believe that is the nature of this type of business. He most likely felt he could pull all the good parts out of her car, then crush the vehicle, and then have perfectly good parts to sell. Why waste a perfectly good vehicle, eh?? He just never figured they would find the vehicle so quickly.
bb
Thanks, bb, for the kind words. Thanks also for your very astute take on this case. From some dribs and drabs of information I've been finding online, I understand that you can't just crush a car as is. You first need to remove some things, including, of course, the fuel, which could catch fire or make a huge mess. All that would take time, so it makes more sense just to hide it. And yes, he might have gotten greedy and decided he could make some money by removing valuable parts at a later date.
DeleteAnd I completely agree about his call to his mother. That's the clincher for sure. He admits to being with Steven during the assault. I can't imagine him making up a story like that to tell his mother, I don't care how much he's been manipulated. The mother's reaction is also very convincing. She is genuinely alarmed, as would be expected.
DeleteWhy consider Brendan's testimony at all? It was certainly cajoled, if not downright coerced, as ably demonstrated by Anonymous yesterday at 10:49, and he's clearly mentally challenged, which calls the entire thing into question.
ReplyDeleteYou're clinging to it because it bolsters your attack in the trailer hypothesis, Doc. In fact, it has no probative value, and a case can be made without it.
CC
What does Anonymous have to do with anything? They are some sort of ultimate authority on this case? Can you be more specific?
DeleteSorry but I don't see any reason to discount someone's testimony because he is mentally challenged. If you watch the two interviews you'll find a great many details that destroy Avery's defense. Even if you discount 90% of that, there are still things he said that make Avery's involvement clear. Unless you can come up with some reason for Brendan also being "in on it," which I strongly doubt.
I don't have a hypothesis about the trailer. But I do accept Brendan's account of what happened and where, as I see no reason for him to lie about that. The lack of blood evidence is another matter. If Steven had prepared this assault in advance, which seems likely, he would certainly have been prepared to deal with the blood. The notion that blood would have been "everywhere" is naive. Every crime is different, there is no blueprint for committing this sort of atrocity.
Now is it possible for a lawyer to convince a judge to toss it on the basis of some things that might seem improper? Yes, of course. But that carries no weight with me. Now, CC, you can claim you know more about such things because you're a lawyer -- but I represent a higher authority: the jury. If I were a juror, having reviewed those tapes, I would certainly not agree that they should be discounted. And I see no reason why I should be "protected" from seeing any of that, as though I were some sort of fool who couldn't make a reasoned judgement based on the evidence, however "tainted."
Anonymous accurately recited the portion of Brendan's testimony regarding Teresa's head; see above I don't believe he claimed to be an authority on anything.
DeleteI make no claims whatsoever that a law degree helps me in a review of what little evidence is available. I started my discussion with a comment about potential damage to the legal system. I stand by that, and I can now refer you to articles by law professors who agree. Based on a few years' experience as a prosecutor, I feel LE could have, and should have, done a better job eliciting his stories.
Otherwise, my comments are those of a private person, no more or less credentialed than Anonymous, or than you.
CC
Oh, sorry. I thought you were referring to the organization called Anonymous, which has also weighed in on this case, apparently. I really wish people would routinely identify themselves with some sort of moniker because these conversations can get very confusing.
DeleteYes, I'm very well aware of that segment of the interview,and yes, it does seem as though they are leading him on. But as I said, that's only one fraction of the interviews and that's an exception. Again, a good defense lawyer looks for anything he can find to blow smoke and produce a foul smelling red herring to fake us off the scent.
As far as the legal system is concerned, I agree that there are aspects of this case that could be looked at as examples of loose practice. But I see NO evidence of any conspiracy or any attempt to plant evidence. While there are aspects of the case that might seem suspicious, that's not enough. Just because evidence was found after a delay does not mean it was planted. In fact, as I've already argued, planted evidence is more likely to have been "found" right away.
I don't see how anyone can view the interviews with Dassey as appropriate or believable, or feel that he was represented by his lawyer properly. I do think it is likely that Avery & Dassey are guilty but I didn't see/read one thing that Dassey said on his own that made it clear he was telling the truth. Why did he make up slitting her throat, cutting her hair, stabbing her in the car, shooting her in the car, the kind of knife used? He lies about things that make little sense for him to lie about - lies that neither help him nor offer the truth. If he can make up those details, it is not beyond possibility that he could have made up similar details. The only thing he seems to say that never changes is that he was at the "bonfire".
ReplyDeleteWhy do you assume he lied? You know what happened from some other source? He's on record as confessing the crime to his cousin and incriminating Avery. She is on record as reporting that to a school counselor. He's on record as informing his mother of what he and Avery did. What more do you need? You're claiming he was in on some sort of conspiracy to nail Avery? Why?
DeleteAs for inconsistencies, sure why wouldn't there be? He's obviously under tremendous pressure from his own family to lie about what happened, so why wouldn't we expect him to mislead the interviewers about certain details?
This is not the sort of case, as with Amanda Knox, where the subject is berated, intimidated and basically told what to say.
C'mon your own self, Doc. You know as well as I that prosecutorial overzealousness is a fact, and that "loose practice"by LE is just another term for police misconduct, and that both occur all too often. We don't yet have enough information to judge, but I submit that LE had a $36M motive to play fast and loose with the law.
ReplyDeleteLet's agree to disagree, and see what the transcripts tell us. Personally, I hope you're right. LE in this country doesn't need to be tarnished further.
CC
So long as I've got your attention, CC, I have a question for you as a lawyer. It looks to me as though Avery's lawyers were motivated more by their eagerness to "expose" some sort of police conspiracy than properly defend their client. At some point they must have realized that Avery was guilty as hell and that the jury would see through all the bluster and nail him to the wall. Seems to me as though they were playing more to the media than the jury, to make a case for official corruption, inspired by what happened to Avery on the previous charge.
DeleteTheir one chance to actually prove their theory was with the testing of Avery's blood as found in the car. And that test failed. At that point, they should have realized there was no hope of a "not guilty" verdict, as none of their other allegations were backed by actual evidence, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelming, even if we discount Dassey's testimony.
As I see it, responsible lawyers would at that point, or even earlier, have advised their client to admit his guilt and cut a deal with the prosecution. As I've already mentioned, if they could get him off with a reduced sentence, the 18 years he'd already spent in prison could have been counted against that, so his sentence would have been reduced even more. Do you agree, or do you think they did the right thing in persisting, against all odds, in claiming their client was being framed and was innocent. The result of their decision was a lifetime sentence with no hope of parole. Was that so difficult to anticipate?
I don't see that the defense had much to work with after the judge prohibited third party culpability, other than a frame. I've never played for that team, so I can't speak with authority, but I agree - it seems it would have been in Avery's best interests to fold after the EDTA and try to cut a deal. Perhaps the client wouldn't permit it?
ReplyDeleteBoth sides played to the media. The pre-trial "Children, cover your ears" press conference by the prosecutor was unduly inflammatory, and poisoned the jury pool irreparably.
CC
Well- I have spent over 4 hours on this diversion from the Ramsey case.--- Not enough to say anything more than they are both guilty
ReplyDeleteGot so bogged down in the case I forgot what the reason was that we are looking at it in depth . robert
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI remember a true-life-story on TV where the cops kept after the nineteen y/o to "tell the truth" about the girl he raped and killed at the side of the road. Eventually he confessed and went into greater and greater details about the crime and they arrested him etc.
ReplyDeleteIt turned out that records showed his family had spent the whole summer in Brazil, and cops had fed him all the intricate details of the crime. The kid was just big and dumb, and bully-bait for the cops. I wish I knew where I could see that interogation video again. Anyone know the case?
There have been many cases of false confessions for sure. But this case is very different. First of all, Dassey initially confessed to his cousin, who reported his confession to her school counselor. No sign of coercion there. Second, as we can see on the videos, the detectives are not coercing a confession out of Brendan as is so often the case with false confessions. They barely raise their voices. Nor do they accuse him. It's true that from time to time their questions could be seen as leading questions, and at one point at least they do seem to be prompting him. Most of the time, however, there is no prompting and no leading. He needs to be prodded from time to time as he's clearly reluctant to talk. But when he does talk he very clearly implicates both his uncle and himself. This is more than just a confession, it is an eye witness account.
DeleteIt's important to realize that Dassey was not even a suspect in this crime until he told his story to his cousin. False confessions are drawn from people the police have reason to suspect. No one suspected Dassey until he spoke up.