Come Back With a Warrant
Episode 38: Making a Murderer Explained: False Confessions, Steven Avery & Brendan Dassey
Hosted by Brandon Dinetz and Monica Ishak
Intro
Brandon: Welcome back to Come Back With a Warrant podcast. I'm Brandon Dinetz.
Monica: And I'm Monica Ishak.
Monica: Before we kick-start this week's episode, this is your reminder that this podcast is not legal advice. It's real, unfiltered, and for entertainment purposes only. If you need to speak with a lawyer, call one. Or better yet, call us.
Brandon: Call us.
Episode
Brandon: Welcome back to Come Back With a Warrant. Today, in this episode, we dive into one of the most controversial true crime cases in modern American history. If you've heard of Making a Murderer — Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey. After spending 18 years wrongfully in prison, Avery was exonerated by DNA evidence and filed a massive lawsuit against the county that convicted him. But just two years later, he was arrested again, this time for the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach.
Brandon: The case took a shocking turn when Avery's 16-year-old nephew, Brendan Dassey, gave a confession that many people believe was coerced. Alone in an interrogation room with no lawyer or parent present, Brendan's statements became the centerpiece of a national debate. Was this justice, or a system creating a story it needed to close a case? We break down the evidence, the interrogation tactics, the legal fight over voluntariness, and why this case still raises urgent questions about false confessions, juvenile vulnerability, and how far the Constitution really goes inside the interrogation room.
Monica: So that is a summary of pretty much, you know, Making a Murderer. I mean, the Netflix documentary was huge, and there was two parts. Many people may be tuning in and thinking to themselves, well, this is not really timely, this episode —
Brandon: No.
Monica: Because this happened a while ago, and the documentary came out a while ago. True, but we were circling back and talking about different true crime things that we wanted to bring up on the podcast, and this case keeps coming up because there are a lot of different angles to take. Specifically, we're addressing what happens when a confession comes from somebody that isn't technically, you know, the most credible, and whether or not there is enough circumstance to warrant this case getting overturned, because both of these individuals were found guilty.
Brandon: Yeah, and the thing is, we were talking about this briefly before this episode —
Monica: And I think while you're talking now, it just came to my mind, there is a difference between morality and the state or the government meeting its burden. So it's like, you know, maybe the jurors thought he did it, like Steven Avery did it, but there were certain parts of the investigation, like factually, that came out that for me, if I was sitting as a juror, I'd be like, I cannot even trust the government's investigation because of this. You know what I mean?
Brandon: Fair enough.
Monica: So it's like, I could have maybe a moral pull to be like, maybe he did do it. But at the end of the day, it's based on the evidence, and that's something that — like, for us as lawyers, it's so easy for us to compartmentalize because we see it all the time and we deal with it. But, like, as people on juries and jurors, I think that that is an issue that they really struggle with. So I feel like that's something that is a part of the debate, kind of just like, not actually talked about, but that's what's, like, driving a lot of the emotion behind it, you know?
Brandon: Okay. I think that makes sense, and I think that's fair. I think, you know, a lot of people look at the case and they, especially if you only saw the documentary — the documentary leaves out certain pieces of evidence that ultimately was used to convict Steven Avery. And it takes a defense approach. It is from the lens of the defense team and the defense attorneys, and the documentary is pushing you to believe that there is a chance that these guys were wrongfully convicted.
Steven Avery's Background
Brandon: Starting at the beginning, Steven Avery, as Monica said, initially had a legal battle against the same city and municipality that ultimately comes after him again and prosecutes him for murder. He was in custody. He was ultimately exonerated and then wound up suing the municipality. Was it Manitowoc?
Monica: Yeah. So I have it here. He was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault in 1985. He served 18 years before the DNA exoneration came out in 2003, and then he filed a $36 million civil lawsuit against Manitowoc — Manitowoc is what you were trying to figure out.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: Manitowoc County and law enforcement, and that was, I think, actively going on when this happened.
Brandon: So the first big question is, what impact does that case have on the new case? And there's always people out there that think that this civil lawsuit that was in place is the basis of motive for law enforcement to have done something nefarious in this situation. And what I mean specifically, not beating around the bush, is that law enforcement allegedly planted evidence in this case against Steven Avery because Steven Avery was suing them. That's the angle that people will take and that the documentary tries to push you towards, is that there is some animosity from these investigators and the police department against Steven Avery.
Monica: Well, yeah. If it's an individual that was personally liable potentially in the civil lawsuit and is now involved in the investigation when they shouldn't have been. They were conflicted off — it was not supposed to be —
Brandon: I think that would've made it a much cleaner case for the government if that officer was not involved in both cases.
Monica: 100%. That fact in itself is one of the main reasons people draw any opinion that Steven Avery may be innocent. For sure. And there was also — another thing is that Brendan Dassey's confession, which we will talk about, but he claims that she was murdered in the garage. Like, she was raped in the trailer and then murdered in the garage. And Teresa Halbach's DNA was not found in the garage. And so they were like, oh, well, it was because he had, like, bleached it and cleaned it. But if that was the case, then they wouldn't have found Steven Avery's DNA in the garage. They found his and not hers. So there are certain things that are just not making sense. You know what I mean?
Brandon: Right.
Monica: So, and then that, on top of that, makes me feel like, okay, maybe Brendan Dassey's — on top of obviously all the other reasons — his confession is maybe probably not reliable.
Brandon: Right. And just, 'cause I think we jumped into it quick — Teresa Halbach is the victim of a homicide in the second case. The case that, still standing today, Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery have been found guilty of her murder. Teresa Halbach allegedly went out to Steven Avery's property. She was a photographer for a car magazine and was gonna be taking photos of different cars at Avery's family salvage yard, and was gonna be putting them into different magazines so that they could sell off the cars. That's the reason why she was there on the property. What happens is, by virtue of her being there, one of the things that law enforcement later find is her car is at the scene, obviously at the Avery property. So this is one of the things that start to tie Teresa Halbach to Avery and starts leading down the road of whether or not Avery is a suspect in the murder.
Brendan Dassey & the Confession
Monica: So Brendan Dassey was, at the time, 16 years old. He's Steven Avery's nephew, lived next door to them. He was in the public school system, in special ed.
Brandon: Extremely low IQ.
Monica: Yeah. I think he had —
Brandon: Low 70s.
Monica: Yeah. I don't know if he was on the autism spectrum, but it was very clear he had learning disabilities.
Brandon: For sure. And that's not debated by anybody. He gives a confession to law enforcement —
Monica: All — that confession —
Brandon: Yeah. That confession we're gonna get into, but that confession is then one of the main things used to prosecute both Brendan and Steven in their cases.
Monica: Yeah. Well, the thing is, Brendan didn't have, there was no forensic evidence really against him, other —
Brandon: Tying him to the murder scene or to the murder itself, correct. Nothing.
Monica: Except for — though he was convicted based on this confession, which is why his case is, like, a bigger deal than Steven Avery's. 'Cause Steven Avery's is, like, there's controversy over the reliability of the evidence, but the evidence claims to exist, right? Like, there's a difference.
Brandon: Right. That's a very good point that you just made. There is physical evidence to corroborate what Brendan says happened, and that physical evidence is against Steven Avery. And there is really no physical evidence that ties Brendan Dassey to this crime at all. But in his confession, which is highly problematic and is the focus of much of the appellate issues — really why this case gained so much notoriety — for Steven Avery there was plenty of physical evidence. And whether or not you wanna believe that that evidence was legitimately there or was planted, that's where a question arises for Steven Avery. But for Brendan Dassey, there was no physical evidence that tied him to the scene.
Monica: Correct.
Brandon: The only thing that ties him to the scene is his confession, and in his confession there are consistencies with physical evidence that's later found. For example, the fact that her body was burned, and they found human remains that were burned on the Avery property — that fact matched. There were certain things that Brendan said happened that matched what the physical evidence later showed.
Monica: Yeah, but the way the confession goes down is really what's important because — aside obviously from the things we just discussed about Brendan and who he is and, like, he's 16 and all those things — he was brought into a room with two prosecutors, which I thought was very odd, and they were prosecutors from different offices, not from the same office.
Brandon: Prosecutors or police officers?
Monica: I watched something that said it was a prosecutor.
Brandon: Okay, I'm pretty sure they were police officers. I don't think the prosecutors went to the school.
Monica: They said it was prosecutors. I was like, oh, okay. But maybe that's not accurate.
Brandon: Well, okay. But keep going.
Monica: Okay. Two law enforcement officers walk into the school. They pull Brendan out of class. They tell him to come, ask him to speak to them, and basically ask what he knows. And he's like, I don't know what you're talking about. He denies any involvement or knowing anything about it. And then they're like, well, we know you were involved, so you might as well just tell us. And so this is what basically his defense team in Making a Murderer really focused on — kind of, like, their tactics and their strategy in extracting a confession. They were saying, like, this is what you use on people who are grown adults who have, like, fully formed brains and are not a 16-year-old who has no parent present or way to protect themselves. And on top of that, he already had a low IQ and other disabilities.
Monica: So that is what really the issue is here, like the two combined together because that's what creates the totality of the circumstance, which is kind of the standard when the court evaluates, is this confession voluntary or not.
Monica: So back to the confession itself. The other part that created kind of, like, a debate between the prosecution and defense sides of the internet or the world when they're watching this case is the fact that he said things that were not correct. Like, he was saying he punched — he said Steven Avery punched her, and then they were like, no, that's not what happened, because they had some information already. So they gave him the answer.
Brandon: Well, they were feeding him. Yeah, that's part of the major issue — is they were feeding him answers.
Monica: How she was actually killed.
Brandon: They were directing — the officers that were in that room with him during that interrogation, which is difficult to watch because what you're watching is a very uncomfortable child that has got significant learning disabilities talking to two professionals who are trying to extract a confession out of him. And they're not doing it — the way that they're doing it is they're feeding him information. They're forcing the narrative that he's going to tell, and they're trying to get him to say exactly what they want that already fits the case that they're building. They're not just collecting information. They're trying to collect a specific confession.
Monica: Yeah. And there's the other part where, you know, this is actually the law where law enforcement are allowed to use certain tactics. Like, they are allowed to tell you that they have certain pieces of evidence against you that they don't have. They're allowed to lie to you. They're allowed to do that to gain a confession. And they did that with him, and that's like, it's crazy because it's, like, on top of all of that they're using these strategies to build a case against kind of the wrong person here. And that's what the issue is because, like we said, it's not like he had any other forensic or DNA or anything connecting him to the scene.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: And this interrogation lasted hours long. It wasn't like a 30-minute thing. Finally, Brendan Dassey's mom shows up. The investigators step outside. They give them a moment in the room, and she's basically talking to him. And she's like, did you do this? And he's like, no, I didn't do this. And she's like, so did you tell them that? And he's like, no. And she's like, why not? And he's like, I didn't — like, I didn't think of it.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: Like, it's like he was like — and then part of the argument is that if that was his state after just making a confession to something like that, that shows that he doesn't understand the gravity of what he just said. Like, he doesn't understand the effect or the consequences of the confession itself.
Brandon: Right, which are factors to be considered when judging whether or not a confession is voluntary and given under the proper set of circumstances.
Monica: Correct, yeah. Because then it's like, was this under some sort of, like, duress in a way? Or that automatically I guess makes it involuntary when the circumstance is created.
Monica: And the other part is, they did tell him his Miranda rights, which, you know, is kind of, like — I feel like when you are assessing if something is, like — the first thing you do when it comes to Miranda or the Fifth Amendment is, did they get Miranda before they said anything if they needed to hear it. And obviously, he was in custody. So you're only required, we talked about this before, but you're only required to hear your Miranda rights if you are in custody and being interrogated together. He, this is, like, the classic custodial interrogation situation where they pull you out. You're not able to leave.
Monica: Well, this is the defense's argument I should say. Because what the state or the government would say is that he was told his Miranda rights and was told that he has the right to remain silent. And he chose not to.
Brandon: Voluntarily waived his rights.
Monica: Exactly. Right. So that is a part of the argument. So sometimes even though Miranda's read, there's still an argument to be made that despite Miranda being read, it doesn't matter because this person was not in the proper state of mind or head space or in the proper maybe life circumstance to be able to say, yes, I do want to speak to you.
Brandon: To understand it. He couldn't understand exactly what was being said.
Monica: Exactly. And he gave back — he just acknowledged it. He acknowledged what was being said. It doesn't mean that he understood what was being said and that he was waiving those rights by speaking with them.
Brandon: Yeah. And, you know, what's sad when you watch the interrogation is it's very much a teenager that just wants to be done and just wants to be over with and wants to be out of there already. And the police are there with the specific goal of leaving with a very specific confession, and they get it.
Monica: Yeah. So I just found in my notes it was conducted by two detectives and not prosecutors.
Brandon: That's good because that's what I was pretty sure it was, so. That makes sense.
Monica: Also parts of the confession, like in the video you hear them say, be honest, things will be okay. And, you know, we already know what happened, so you might as well just tell us, and things like that. It's, like, that on top of all the other things they were saying and doing. It's like making him feel like, okay, if I tell them what they wanna hear, I will get out of here, you know.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: So that goes to your point. If he wants to get out, if he knows what he needs to give them to go, he's gonna do it, and that's what he did.
The Physical Evidence Debate
Brandon: Right. But ultimately, what this comes down to is, well, what was the information that he did give? What did he acknowledge happened? What did he say to the officers?
Monica: But does it matter at the end if they're the ones coaching him, you know?
Brandon: It depends. It depends on how he was being coached. It depends on whether or not he gave any details that were not readily available to the public, whether or not there were things that he knew and said or alluded to that the police didn't say to him and didn't push him in a certain direction. The police were very coercive, but the information that they got from him still hit and checked boxes for what the physical evidence was showing happened. And he is laying out what happened that night, and does hit certain events that the physical evidence matches, whether or not it's the rape, whether or not it's the burning of the body. These are things that he's mentioning and they can say, okay, well, yeah, that checks out. But there were certain things that he said that didn't.
Monica: Totally.
Brandon: And that's why you have to take the entirety of his statement and see whether or not it's reliable. And at this point, the courts have been split on whether or not it was reliable, but he's still in custody. He's not going anywhere. The Supreme Court rejected this case. They're not taking it up.
Monica: Yeah. So it's over.
Brandon: Yeah. He's —
Monica: Unless he gets pardoned.
Brandon: Yeah. And it doesn't seem very likely.
Monica: No, they already sought it, I think. And I don't know if there's like a cap or something. I don't know the laws over there. I was watching — so he was, like, on a podcast with his legal team, had the podcast guy come into their office, and then, like, did a legal call. And then they had him on the phone, so they were interviewing him, and he was saying that he gets letters from all over the world, like showing support.
Brandon: I'm sure he does.
Monica: It's like that's so crazy.
Brandon: I'm sure he does. Now he's having a whole fan club. But you know who's probably not getting all the letters for support? Steven Avery. His uncle.
Monica: Yeah, he's getting all the hate.
Brandon: Well, no, actually his uncle does probably — I'm sure his — actually, he probably does. Yeah, he probably gets some good fans. He had a loyal wifey.
Monica: Yeah, that's right. She was with him till —
Brandon: I also think that — I think the majority of people that deep dive into this case think Steven Avery did it.
Monica: Why? Why do you think so?
Brandon: Because I think it's just a bit of a leap to say that —
Monica: That he was wrongfully charged.
Brandon: The cops planted everything, and that he twice was wrongfully —
Monica: Two times was wrongfully — so wrongfully charged and convicted. That's the part for me that I'm like —
Brandon: Okay, okay.
Monica: It's just — but that is speculation, though.
Brandon: Of course it is. But that's what I'm here to do. I'm here to sit here. But I wasn't there that night.
Monica: Yeah, that's true. You don't know.
Brandon: But I think that the physical evidence tends to show that Steven Avery did it.
Monica: Yeah, but yes, if we take it at its face. But then when you start to learn more about chain of custody, things that law enforcement procedure that they should follow in order to protect the investigation, you want to show that this is a good investigation, especially when it comes to, like, DNA forensics, things like that. So —
Brandon: I just, it's such a leap to think.
Monica: All right, let's build it backward. Build it as the cop — that cop, the dirty cop built it. He got a sample of Avery's blood and just went to Teresa's car and put it all over her car, and then went to her keys and put it on her keys, then went to the room. They put it in the garage. This man was a part of the sheriff's office, was not supposed to be inside this house even helping investigate. This was, like, their fifth search of the property, and suddenly this key pops up, and where they find it is kind of in plain sight. It's like there's the bed, and then the side table, and then it's like sitting on the ground right there, and then they find blood on it. He's the one that finds it, and he's like, wow, look at this.
Brandon: Okay, let's give you the key. Let's say that that key is planted. What about everything in her car?
Monica: Well, there was — there were vials of blood that were found with like, they had, like, holes in them, and they weren't, like, covered with tape with the way that they were supposed to take it to test it. So when they took his blood, it was not transported properly. It was not contained properly. So like that for me, I'm like, what happened? What happened here? I need an explanation. Like if I were on the jury, that's how I would feel if I heard that.
Brandon: What about the burn pit at his house?
Monica: That is sketchy to me, I will admit that.
Brandon: And her DNA is found in his burn pit, isn't it? Isn't something of hers found in the burn pit?
Monica: I don't know if it was — hold on. I think it was. I'm like, should I look this up? I just don't know.
Brandon: It's like, look — is it possible that the police planted all of this evidence against him to frame this murder on Steven Avery? Is it possible? Sure. Is it reasonable? Is it likely? They went through all this trouble just to frame, because they didn't get him the first time in the '80s, so now they're like, we gotta double down and get this guy?
Monica: It's not so much the '80s situation, it's more so the active lawsuit situation.
Brandon: Because he was suing them for being wrongfully —
Monica: Convicted the first time.
Brandon: And because of that, these people are willing to risk their entire —
Monica: Well, for me, that plus, like, if you're told not to go there, why are you there? As an officer, why are you so interested in this? If you know the stakes of going to the Avery property to investigate and be a part of this criminal investigation because of your civil lawsuit, just if you actually just want to, like, stay out of the way and mind your business and do your job, keep your head down, do that. But why the fuck are you showing up to his house and searching for shit?
Brandon: Yeah, no, I get it. I get that there are some sketchy parts and ties here. It just, you know, I always think about it, like, you gonna risk — they're gonna risk their entire career over that one case? Like, that's — I mean, my mentality is you're gonna risk your whole career to plant, frame this one guy? I'm not saying it's not possible that he did it. Listen, if he did it, probably, maybe, sure. But for me, if I was —
Monica: That's what I was saying, like, if I'm on the jury and there is any sort of —
Brandon: They wouldn't let your ass — fuck up.
Monica: Yes, true. I would not make it.
Brandon: They would not let me on a jury. I would not make it. They're not gonna elect two criminal defense attorneys on a fucking jury.
Monica: But, like, I feel like that is a reasonable way to think. If there is a botched investigation in any aspect or there's not sort of, like, proper procedure followed because it's there for a reason.
Brandon: I get it. You're seeing a forensic issue and a chain of custody issue, and you're saying all forensics —
Monica: No, all evidence that goes through —
Brandon: Plus the —
Monica: Plus the chain of custody, I'm out. No. Plus his bias, plus the blood vial, plus the fact that they did, like, four or five searches, and they suddenly come up with this key that's, like, in plain sight, and this is the guy that finds it. Like, there's just some sort of disconnect for me. You know what I mean?
Brandon: I agree. There is some sketchiness there for sure.
Monica: Yeah. So, but is the sketchiness enough — and then the whole bleach situation was weird. That the allegation was that Steven Avery cleaned up the — was it the garage?
Brandon: Yeah, or the bedroom?
Monica: So actually there was, I guess, a piece of forensic — I should say, for Brendan Dassey was his pants from the day that he was interrogated. He had a bleach stain on his pants, and they were saying, like, that was from when they cleaned up Teresa's DNA in the garage. But Steven Avery's DNA is in the garage.
Brandon: Well, Steven Avery's DNA would be in the garage. It's his house.
Monica: Yeah, but if they killed her in the garage and then bleached it, then Steven Avery's DNA would not be in the garage.
Brandon: If he didn't clean well.
Monica: Well, if they didn't clean well, then there would be blood and DNA everywhere. So just make it make sense to me. There's just too many gaps.
Brandon: Yeah. There are. And the state has the burden. The government has the burden.
Monica: That's why I'm like, no, I'm not.
Brandon: But, you know, I understand that a lot of these major issues have been highlighted after the first trial that was done against Steven Avery, but at that trial, it's not like he had no defense team.
Monica: Yeah. They were like, oh, no. I think they did.
Brandon: So a jury still came back and said, he did this.
Monica: Yeah. It's true.
Brendan's Lawyer & Juvenile Protections
Monica: I did see, like, a video online of them, like, talking so much shit on Brendan Dassey's court-appointed lawyer. I don't know if it was a public defender. They just said it was court-appointed. 'Cause that could not be a public defender. But because he had missed some sort of hearing because he chose not to be there or something. Like, he was like, bye, I'm out. And then he was being interviewed on it later, and he's like, yeah, probably, like, looking back, I probably shouldn't have done that, but I was doing what I thought was best at the time, you know?
Brandon: Brendan, I think no matter what, Brendan Dassey got the short end of the stick here.
Monica: Short end of the stick, for sure.
Brandon: Because if he would have had his parents prevent that interview from happening, I think absent the interview, absent that confession, they still probably could have convicted Steven Avery with just the physical evidence alone. I don't think the confession was the nail in the coffin for Steven Avery. I think the physical evidence was.
Monica: That's if you believe he did it.
Brandon: Correct. Which I do. But for Brendan Dassey, all they're going on is that confession, and those tapes are brutal to watch. I mean, it really looks like the type of example that you would see somebody give to show a confession that's not good.
Monica: Yeah. Well, this is also another part of, like, legal principle is that children are not treated the same as adults in the legal system. There's a reason we have a juvenile justice system and an adult system. There's a reason why there's that protection of being able to have your parent present during an interrogation. You don't have that if you're a kid — if you're being interrogated and you want your parent there, you can have your parent there. If you're an adult, obviously you don't have that type of protection. And that's because you are a child, you know? So you're more susceptible to pressure. You're more likely to comply. You're less likely to say, no, I don't wanna speak to you.
Monica: And on top of that, if you have a disability, which we already said, the courts have ruled that age is something to consider when you're talking about whether they're in custody or voluntariness or if they waived Miranda or not. And this is kind of, like, the textbook example of it in my opinion. But it's just crazy because it's technically not because the courts ruled otherwise.
Brandon: I think that goes back to kind of what I was saying — that some of the information that Brendan provided corroborated with information that was either not previously known or matched the physical evidence without the investigators shoving it down his throat.
Monica: Which was what?
Brandon: Talking about Teresa getting shot, and then them actually finding a bullet.
Monica: Yeah, but the shooting part — he was guessing. He said she got punched first.
Brandon: Okay. And then they were like, no. They ultimately find a bullet with Teresa's DNA on it.
Monica: Well, they found that, and then I think they coached him to say that that's what happened.
Brandon: Yes.
Monica: Okay.
Brandon: But they still found a bullet with her DNA on it.
Monica: Yeah. But how does that tie Brendan Dassey — but I'm saying, no, well, Brendan Dassey may have not known, may have told them and explained that to the officers without the officers explaining that, telling him exactly what happened. They said no to the punching part.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: But that's not them saying no to the shooting. They basically — I think they basically told him that she got shot, or he, like, guessed that next.
Brandon: No, I think he's volunteering that information.
Monica: But that was, like, a guess. Like, he was like, she got punched, and then okay, like she got — 'cause they had told him that this was about this woman.
Brandon: Right. But the reason it's a big deal is the bullet not only has her DNA on it, but it is from Avery's rifle. So the physical evidence is linking. They're able to link back the physical evidence with his confession. So the combination there, that locking in, whether or not he was completely fed that answer or not, now you're starting to say, okay, here's physical evidence. Here's what his confession is. Things are starting to match. I understand the argument is, yes, he's being fed a lot of this information. But he's saying things that are not either known to the public at the time —
Monica: Right. There's no way —
Brandon: Or are consistent with the physical evidence that you would only know if you knew about the situation. It's one of two things. Either he's guessing or he was involved.
Monica: Yeah. Right.
Brandon: So that's the basis of the debate. And I don't think — I think his involvement was at the direction of his uncle, and his uncle telling him.
Monica: No, I do. I think his uncle was telling him what to do while he was there.
Brandon: Oh, yeah. I don't think this kid was any type of mastermind or had any planning to do with this at all. I don't think any of that about him.
Monica: Or that he's even violent, to begin with.
Brandon: It's just — you think he helped him?
Monica: I don't think he helped him. I think he was there. I don't think Brendan Dassey helped Steven Avery. But I think he may have been there.
Brandon: Interesting. I think that's something that I can maybe get on board. That he may have been there.
Monica: See? You see? After all that.
Brandon: No, only because I've had that thought before. Because the burning, the fire pit situation — there's just a few things that I was like, maybe he was around. Because there are certain things that he did say, but the way they present the interrogation videos is, like, clipped off, so it's so hard to come to your own conclusion. I think if I saw all the discovery, I maybe have a different view, you know, as just maybe an attorney or a person or whatever. But from what — it's hard because when you're watching things, they present it in such a way.
Monica: Well, of course, they made a very good two-part documentary, but Making a Murderer I and Making a Murderer II — they put these out for the purpose of the public coming out and saying, you know, with an outcry that there's no way these two guys did this.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: Like swaying the public.
Brandon: Right.
Monica: And they leave out the shit that's really strong against Steven Avery. And the things that are strong against Brendan.
Brandon: They're leaving that out of the documentary intentionally. It's not like this documentary came out and it's, let's present you with all the facts from both sides and let the viewer at home decide. They're pushing it.
Monica: If the documentary was the trials, I think the world may see a different perspective.
Brandon: Yeah. But unfortunately, even at the trials themselves, certain pieces of evidence and certain information is gonna be excluded just based on the rules of evidence or based on pretrial rulings. Whereas, like you were saying, if I was able to sit down and review all of the discovery from start to finish, and really make a decision on what I think happened — I mean, you know.
Monica: Yeah. There's just a lot of evidence.
Monica: Well, I feel like the discovery tells actually the real story.
Brandon: Right. But 15, 20 minutes ago we were sitting here and you were saying that —
Monica: No, but I do believe that half that discovery is planted by the cops.
Brandon: Yeah.
Monica: But this is a part of discovery — is discovering that this officer was a part of this lawsuit.
Brandon: Correct.
Monica: So it's not that. You just have to put the puzzle pieces together, which, you know, is kind of the part they do for trial. But all that to say, I'm not a fan of Brendan Dassey's conviction. It makes me kind of uncomfy.
Brandon: I agree.
Monica: Based — that it was based on his confession, whether he was there, whether he wasn't, whether he was involved. The whole thing is just icky to me.
Brandon: Yeah. If he was an adult and he was of more sound mind, maybe we would all think differently about it.
Monica: For sure.
Brandon: But ultimately, the reason that the courts have bounced this back is because they've wound up saying that the accuracy of his information outweighs the concern that he was coerced or pressured by the cops. That what he specifically said is consistent with the physical evidence and information that was not publicly known.
Monica: Right. Which is the debate we're having right now. 'Cause I'm like, that's the only thing I can say is, I won't know until I see the whole entire thing. Which we probably will never see.
Brandon: We'll never see, right.
Monica: So, but this is honestly, like, a really — I mean, it's a constitutional issue. It's a big deal because it comes up all the time in criminal cases, whether the confession is reliable or not. We still have to make that assessment as attorneys. But it's cool when, like, it's publicized and on the media, and we watch it, and we're like, oh, shit, you know? But obviously, whenever I watch things, I'm like, I definitely know that this was made by, you know, whatever production team they have going for their defense PR. You know what I mean?
Brandon: Right.
Monica: Ten out of ten, because this really had people, like, debating on the internet. 'Cause people do believe it.
Brandon: Yeah. As two defense attorneys and a former prosecutor, I look at the case from the bird's eye view, looking at it as a whole. And it's one of those things where at the end of the day, you follow the evidence.
Monica: Yeah, yeah.
Brandon: And the evidence is what has led to these convictions. It's not the other shit on the sides.
Monica: Yeah. The thing is, like, I would love to believe that the system always gets it right.
Brandon: It doesn't.
Monica: Unfortunately, it doesn't. So it's hard to just kinda make that leap of faith when you know that certain investigations you've seen yourself, the integrity was compromised. So when you hear a story about it, it's not so far-fetched anymore. Like, it becomes kinda more real, so especially on top of that when it's, like, being painted as such.
Wrap-Up
Monica: So all that to say, maybe we'll do more true crime episodes.
Brandon: I think we should be doing more true crime, and we will mix it up with current and less current stuff. Because we talked about Casey Anthony before. We've now talked about Making a Murderer. We've talked about Diddy a little bit. So we've talked about some true crime stuff.
Monica: Yeah. But I think this is a great area of debate, and I think we'll get a lot of good feedback from people that listen on what they think happened.
Brandon: For sure. And there are a lot of people out there that do truly believe that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are innocent.
Monica: That is very true.
Brandon: They're not sitting in this room. But there are people out there that believe that.
Monica: Well, I could get on board Brendan Dassey being innocent. I don't think — free my boy Brendan.
Brandon: I don't think he did it.
Monica: Yeah, I got you.
Brandon: You're like, he's not completely innocent. He may have been there.
Monica: Yeah, which kinda makes me complicit. He may have been there, which makes you a little bit complicit. I mean — but not, like, he was gonna tell Steven to stop doing what he was doing, you know.
Monica: Well, all that to say, if you liked listening, make sure you like, comment, and subscribe. We are on all platforms. ComeBackWithaWarrant.pod, and give us a 5-star review. And if you didn't like listening to us —
Brandon: Come back with a warrant.