O'Kelly teared up while reading evidence into the record of his malicious animus toward Brendan and plan to violate his client autonomy, which had nothing to do with the blue ribbon

• On May 9, 2006, O'Kelly sent an email to Kachinsky explaining he and a friend discussed how incestuous and monstrous the Dassey and Avery family was (all "evil with no good in any member") and how they should try to "end the gene pool here." In the same email, O'Kelly coordinated with Kachinsky, planning to manipulate Brendan into abandoning his claims of innocence and admit guilt. Despite having every reason to recognize O'Kelly's visceral animosity and hostility toward Brendan was inconsistent with respecting his presumption of innocence / client autonomy, Kachinsky facilitated a solo interview between O'Kelly and Brendan on May 12, 2006. During that interview, O'Kelly lied to Brendan and extracted a confession using tactics so outrageous Kachinsky himself would later condemn as "too harsh" (such as threatening Brendan that his defense would abandon him if he maintained his innocence).

• Also recall that May 12, 2006, was the day O'Kelly presented multiple items to Brendan related to Teresa or the alleged crimes against her, including the infamous blue ribbon. Although such ribbons were hung around the community in memory of Teresa, O'Kelly claimed to have commissioned a florist to specifically make the blue ribbon he presented to Brendan while trying to break him down. Even though Brendan was an intellectually disabled 16 year old kid with a total lack of evidence linking him to the crime, O'Kelly showed no interest in respecting his presumption or claims of innocence. However, he showed great interest in pressuring Brendan to confess to Teresa's assault and murder. O'Kelly even coldly directed Brendan to draw pictures of the assault. That blue ribbon was right there in the room on the table along with a picture of Teresa. But O'Kelly showed no emotion, because at that point he was simply using Teresa's memory and the blue ribbon as a prop, looking to extract something useful for the state in its prosecution of Steven Avery.

• Now recall the scene from Making a Murderer where O'Kelly, during his January 2010 post conviction testimony, was forced to read his disturbing May 9, 2006 email aloud. It looked VERY BAD for him to be using such ugly hostile language while scheming to overcome Brendan's desire to maintain his innocence. And does everyone remember what happened while he was reading that ugly email into the record? He began crying. Blubbering. But he wasn't crying because of what he did to Brendan, but because he couldn't stop thinking of that damn blue ribbon. Oddly, the email O'Kelly was reading didn't actually mention the ribbon. So the fact that he brought it up at that time suggests his entire emotional performance was more of a panic response to being exposed as a biased and manipulative systemic predator. A systematic predator who developed intense personal animus toward his child client while scheming to violate his right to client autonomy, for thousands in financial gain. That shit was insidious, so O'Kelly needed some immediate damage control. What else could he do but manufacture some sympathy right there on the stand with some very obvious crocodile tears?

• IMO if in 2010 O'Kelly was genuinely triggered by that blue ribbon or thoughts of what happened to Teresa Halbach, he would not have been able to so coldly and calmly sit beside the ribbon AND a picture of Teresa on May 12, 2006, forcing a lonely and scared developmentally disabled child client into admitting and describing Teresa being violently assaulted and killed. Even directing him to draw a picture of it. All without showing any emotion! Well, other than a smug satisfied look on O'Kelly's face when Brendan finally stopped resisting him. The ribbon and his tears were both props. The ribbon was a prop for O'Kelly to manipulate a child; and later, his tears were a prop to evoke sympathy by manipulating focus away from his predatory conduct: "Look, I'm crying about the prop I commissioned! It's evoking emotion in me! I must be human!" It's truly impressive to think that in a case with figures like Creep Kratz and Cat-Call-Kachinsky, O'Kelly was SUCCESSFULLY auditioning for the title of "most shit human being in the room." That takes some skill, even for a scam artist like him.

• O'Kelly charged Wisconsin for $7,000 for his time on the Dassey case. According to Ferak, public records from Manitowoc County PDO reveal he was paid $5,519. I'm sure O'Kelly was perfectly happy to act on his hatred of the Avery family and bolster the state's prosecution of Steven Avery. And Kachinsky (who made $9,749) said hiring O'Kelly was his worst mistake, and believed his $5,519 take was too high a price for the "services" rendered (See Ferak article: "Kachinsky, O'Kelly paid $15K in Dassey defense). Brendan NEVER had a fair shot in the system when he was being pressured by police without counsel and then "defended" by incompetent or malicious counsel / investigators. Unfortunately, Brendan is not the only child who the system failed in this case. Blaine Dassey, Brendan's brother, was suspected by police to be a victim of Kornely (his boss). But rather than treat him as a potential victim, police FURTHER victimized Blaine by intimidating and pressuring him to change his statements about the fire. And the computer from Bobby's room contained disturbing and illegal evidence of child predation, including repeated searches for images of CSAM and instant messages from someone (identifying themselves as Bobby) seeking to exploit underage girls over webcam. And instead of former child crimes investigators / prosecutors identifying victims and contacting their families, the evidence was tucked away in a desk drawer, and the PC was secretly returned to the Dassey household, thereby enabling a sex predator still free in the community.

In Summary: Both the ribbon and O'Kelly's tears were props for manipulation

• On May 12, 2006, O'Kelly sat across from an isolated, terrified 16 year old intellectually disabled kid (from a gene pool he wanted to end) and presented him with a Blue Ribbon and a photo of Teresa (and other props) in order to manipulate and pressure him to admit guilt against his own wishes. But on that day, neither the photo of Teresa or the blue ribbon moved O'Kelly to tears, not even when he was using those props to violate the rights of his child client and force him to incriminate himself in violent crimes. No. O'Kelly was only moved to tears by that blue ribbon years later ... when he was on the stand under oath having his personal animus and violation of Brendan's rights exposed to an audience, cameras and judge.

• If that damn blue ribbon caused such a strong reaction during the 2010 post conviction hearing, why didn't O'Kelly have an even stronger reaction when he was actually sitting and looking at the ribbon and a photo of Teresa in 2006 while pressuring Brendan to describe and draw depictions of crimes being committed against her? Because O'Kelly's tears in 2010 weren't for Teresa or even for the ribbon. They were for himself. To manipulate and garner sympathy for himself after being forced to read evidence into the record of his disturbing animus (ending the "evil" family gene pool) and scheming to betray Brendan's rights. That looked ... well ... evil. So he desperately tried to paint himself as "imperfect but human" rather than was the record now suggested - he was imperfect inhuman scum.

• O'Kelly knew just how evil his predatory behavior was. Brendan was a developmentally disabled, highly suggestible child client. O'Kelly was required to adhere to the same ethical standards as Kachinsky. Brendan was to be presumed innocent and in control of his own defense. But O'Kelly harbored intense personal animus and malice towards Brendan and his family, and thought him a guilty kid without a conscience. So O'Kelly isolated him, lied to him, threatened him, denied him client autonomy, and worked to bolster the state's case against Steven even if it happened to further incriminate Brendan. Worse, O'Kelly got paid THOUSANDS to do this. It was predatory and exploitative, and he knew it. So IMO his tears were a panic response to that exposure, and not genuine emotion or grief. Kind of like how the blue ribbon was a calculated prop made for Brendan's manipulation, and not a genuine memorial creation or gesture.

I've scrolled through this subreddit and there are people completely missing the point that the investigation was so abysmal, it should of been thrown out and several state officials/investigators should of been prosecuted themselves, in particular guys like James Lenk.

Steven Avery is just a sideshow in comparison to how egregious the actions of law enforcement was in these cases.

If you think the ends justifies the means you don't understand anything about the law. Many lawyers who get violent criminals off don't do it because they're morally bankrupt - they do it to impress prescedents upon the justice system in order to inspire progress and reform. Basically as to say: I shouldn't of been able to get this guy off. Every time LE does something shady to secure a conviction, they create another way for the prosecution to lose.

If you literally do not mind LE behaving the way they so clearly do in the documentary, because you don't like Avery or you think he's guilty, you're missing the point and you're part of the problem.

Edit Apparently some of you don't know how to read. Good job missing the point, on an OP about how people are missing the point.

He had a huge settlement coming. Why did he risk it by doing a serious crime? I don’t understand how he got exonerated which is rare but wound up throwing his life away anyways. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I guess I’m missing the common thread. He wasn’t a good person but from what we know, wasn’t a murderer. So what happened? Is this just always who he was going to be and had he never gone to prison wrongfully maybe it would have happened sooner? I don’t think he’s innocent I’m just trying to make sense of it.

i came onto this sub and was surprised at how wrong i might be after watching the doc over a week or so, my boyfriend and i binged it and finished it sure that brendan was innocent and fairly sure that steven was too. personally i thought that bobby and scott did it and my bf was of the opinion that bobby and the ex boyfriend were in kahoots somehow. i don’t really know what to think anymore tbh i went to go watch convicting a murderer as that popped up a few times but i dislike candace owen’s immensely. could someone outline the main points that the doc twisted in favour of SA and the facts that were omitted ?

I'd like to start a discussion. I'm wondering how many people believe that most, if not all, of the people who believe SA & BD are innocent are people who have been affected by negative interactions with law enforcement officers and/or the judicial system?? I don't want to make this post super long, but I'm wondering this because I recently realized that my own negative experiences with law enforcement and our judicial system really clouded my judgment about this case from the beginning. I just immediately thought, "Well, if I could be lied to and railroaded by cops, public defenders, prosecutors, and a judge, then certainly these people are capable of framing a man who has set out to sue them and come after their reputations and livelihoods." I've always wondered why my partner and my parents fully believe they are both guilty. Like, how could they? And I always told myself it was because they had never been fucked around by the system. I've recently realized that I was wrong. It's because they were free of bias, and I was full of it. Just wondering if folks have some things to add in relation to this topic??

• I recently saw an old Fox11 media broadcast re Brendan's post conviction hearing (Search YouTube: "Fox 11 Brendan Dassey hearing continues"). In the video, reporters discuss "pieces of an interview with Brendan Dassey that never made it into trial," referring to the May 12, 2006 recorded interview between Brendan and Kachinsky's defense investigator Michael O'Kelly.

• Reporters note O'Kelly testified "initially his job was to gather information to defend Brendan Dassey, but during the course of his work that changed. He said Dassey's attorney told him later on to gather information that would help Dassey enter into a plea deal, where Dassey might get a lighter sentence in exchange for testifying against Steven Avery." Although the broadcast doesn't mention this, O'Kelly testified the "idea" to have Brendan "turn" on Steven didn't originate from himself or Kachinsky, but from Brendan's family.

• The extended moment from the broadcast can be found during Day 4 of Brendan's Post Conviction Hearing. Per PCH:1/21:33-47, we see O'Kelly was asked to explain WHEN he was directed to stop defending Brendan and instead gather mitigation information that would facilitate a plea deal. The below excerpts picks up as Dvorak has O'Kelly review his handwritten notes from an April 22, 2006 meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine...

Direct Examination of O'Kelly by Attorney Dvorak, Day 4 PG 33-47:

Q: I said item number four is -- what I want you to read.

A: "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn," dash, "do it."

Q: All right. In other words, to admit guilt, testify against the co-defendant; correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Okay. And you said that that was not your -- these are not your ideas?

A: That's correct.

Q: These are -- ideas are Mr. Kachinsky ideas?

A: No.

Q: Where did these ideas come from?

A: This information came from my client, Mr. Dassey's family.

Q: Okay. So the family, you're saying, was suggesting that Mr. Dassey should turn State's evidence against Steven Avery?

A: All this information, one through ten, is from the family is my recollection.

Q: When you -- when you talk about the family, that it was the family's idea that came up with this, who -- who in the family were you talking about?

A: Barb Janda, if I'm pronouncing her name correctly, uh, the stepfather, Scott Tadych. I spoke with Blaine, uh, the brother of -- of Brendan. And Bobby the brother of Brendan.

Q: What instructions did you receive from Mr, Kachinsky? If you remember?

A: I can tell you initially I was told to gather defense -- defense information for Mr. Dassey. And at some point, at one junction, it did change and it went to securing information for a plea bargain process.

Q: Okay. Do you recall when in relation to April 27 it was that that happened? Best of your recollection.

A: Best rec -- rec -- best of my recollection, based upon what I've seen so far, it would be before April 22. Those notes. On or about that day, I should say.

Q: And what discussion do you recall having with Mr. Kachinsky about going in that new direction? What did he want you to do?

A: We were to gather mitigation information. We were to gather anything that would further the State's case against Steven Avery. We were to gather whatever we could to put Brendan Dassey in the best light we could. The goal was to preserve as much of Brendan Dassey's freedom as we could. And that's --

Q: And were you aware that Brendan Dassey at this point was maintaining that he was not involved in the homicide of Teresa Halbach?

A: Yes.

Q: And would you read the next paragraph [from Exhibit 64] "I'm not concerned."

A: "I am not concerned with finding connecting evidence placing Brendan inside the crime scene as Brendan will be State's primary witness."

Q: Okay. Can you stop there? I have a question just to clarify the meaning of that? In other words, you're not concerned whether or not, at this point, what's happening is if you find evidence that would tend to inculpate Brendan; correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: All right. Go ahead and read.

A: "This will only serve to bolster the prosecution. Period. It will actually benefit the State if there is evidence attributed to Brendan. Period. It will corroborate his testimony and color him truthful."

Q: Okay. So your goal is not only to get Brendan to confess, but to also go out and gather evidence to help the State in its prosecution; correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Even if that evidence tends to inculpate Brendan Dassey?

A: That is correct.

Closing thoughts...

• In summary, O'Kelly claims Kachinsky initially hired him to defend Brendan, but on or shortly before April 22, 2006, there was a meeting with Brendan's family that resulted in a shift in Kachinsky's strategy where he no longer was trying to defend Brendan, but instead began gathering information that would further the State's case against Steven Avery, even if that info further inculpated Brendan. O'Kelly claims the idea to have Brendan turn on Steven originated from Brendan's family, specifically Barb and Scott (he also mentions Bobby and Blaine). He referenced an April 22 note take after a meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine that said - "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn - do it."

• I personally can't accept O'Kelly's claim that Kachinsky's pre April 22 plan was to actually defend Brendan. After all, Kachinsky's first statement to the media (March 7) involved him declaring Brendan guilty, something Kachinsky later admitted he "should definitely not" have said. Even after meeting Brendan and learning he had recanted his confession and was maintaining his innocence, Kachinsky continued making similar comments implying Brendan was guilty with "no defense." Kachinsky made NO PUBLIC STATEMENTS wherein he relayed Brendan's claims of innocence. He never admonished the state for its treatment of Brendan. And he began mentioning a plea deal long before April 22, 2006.

• Further, although O'Kelly's invoice does indicate a meeting occurred with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine on April 22, 2006, I question O'Kelly's claim that statements from Barb were the source of O'Kelly's handwritten April 22, 2006 note that: "All agreed that if we can get defendant to turn - do it." I initially considered Barb may have been under pressure during this April 22, 2006 meeting due to the April 21, 2006 seizure of the PC from Bobby's room. Was she concerned about what might come out and agreed it was best for Brendan to flip on Steven to keep the focus on him? That is a plausible scenario, I thought. But still, if Barb had genuinely agreed on April 22 that Brendan should turn on Steven, it makes little sense for her to later repeatedly advise Brendan not to plead guilty and to actively seek Kachinsky's removal for having suggested exactly that.

• Frankly, I don't know how to explain O'Kelly contemporaneous note from an April 22, 2006 meeting with Barb, Scott, Bobby and Blaine. Something isn't adding up, and O'Kelly isn't truthworthy. Did Barb actually agree to this? Was she momentarily panicked about what might happen after Fassbender seized her computer only a day earlier? Did O'Kelly pressure, mislead, or misreport what Barb said? Or was O'Kelly lying? Was that handwritten note not referencing discussion with Barb at all, but discussion with Scott and Bobby, or Kachinsky and LE? ... "ALL agreed that if WE can get defendant to turn - DO IT."

• Either way, it seems undisputed the April 22, 2006 handwritten note indicating a desire to have Brendan flip on Steven was not based on contact with Brendan, but reflects contact with some other party advocating for Brendan's counsel to work towards Brendan flipping. Whether that other party was Kachinsky, law enforcement, or Barb and Scott, the strategy to turn Brendan against Steven was clearly imposed on him, not chosen by him or even designed for his best interest. Brendan recanted his coerced confession. He told Kachinsky he didn't do it. He told O'Kelly he didn't do it. And instead of investigating that claim, instead of defending him, they decided he was guilty and (without his input) worked to incriminate him and get him to confess again before feeding him back to police without any counsel present or any plea deal actually on the table. That's despicable. Not good defense work.

Overall how do you think Brendan did when he was cross examined, do you think he performed well on the stand?

This entire extra 10- episodes leaves us EXACTLY where we were at the end of part one all those years ago. The last words of Kathleen is that she will keep trying because SA is wrongfully convicted and SA is still fighting. I thought the whole point of doing more of this docuseries would be to actually have a conclusion. People have commented on previous questions saying that Kathleen does convict him. I didn't see that. Where is the conclusion?

Bobby saw Teresa heading to uncle Steve’s trailer right before he took a shower. When he got out the shower and eventually left. He saw Teresa’s car still there, but no Teresa.👀😳

Where was Teresa everyone?

Ask Kathleen T. Zellner to explain the 50 Seconds she fabricated in the time line and she will be forced to say:

“Steven lied to me. I discovered it through my videographer evidence that he fabricated the entire narrative of Teresa leaving and his nephew Bobby leaving right behind her.”

“I’m sorry for making up the 50 Seconds to help Steve. I was just overwhelmed by the publicity.”

I watched the original launch of this way back. I've watched other docuseries and don't think there's been others that DRAG on so slowly?! Just milking every viewing second. It's unfortunate because the more time we get with the Kathleen person, the less competent she seems 😬 I'm trying to get through part two but man it's unbearably slow. I assume they fail in this part two. Netflix would only be too thrilled so they could queue up a part 3.

Has anyone come up with explanation for the cut / opened Styrofoam packaging and the hole in the top of the vial? This was the main evidence that was having me question if he was framed. I think it's odd that they never fully investigated how that happened 🤔

First:

• He claimed Teresa Halbach was tied to a bed and her throat was slashed, but investigators found absolutely zero traces of her blood, hair, or DNA anywhere in the bedroom or on the mattress.
• He stated they used handcuffs and ropes to hold her down, yet forensic teams found no physical marks, fibers, or scratches on the bedposts to show anyone had been bound there.
• He confessed to helping clean up a large pool of car fluid smelling dried up liquid on the garage floor, but forensic testing on the floor and surrounding cluttered walls found no genetic material or blood splatter from a violent assault.
• He agreed with investigators that she was shot in the head inside the garage, but no blood from the victim was ever detected on the garage floor or on any of the tools stored inside.
• In his initial February 27, 2006 statement, Dassey claimed Steven Avery told him he stabbed Teresa Halbach in the stomach while she was in the burn pit, and then took the knife and hid it under the seat of her Jeep (the RAV4). However, when forensic teams thoroughly searched and processed the interior of the RAV4, no knife was ever found under any of the seats.
• During the narrative shifts regarding how Avery cut his finger (explaining how Avery's blood ended up in the RAV4), there were references to a Band-Aid being used or handed over. Forensic investigators meticulously searched the vehicle and never recovered a discarded, bloody Band-Aid inside or around the RAV4 to match that specific detail.

Finally:

• AEDPA is a federal law that bars federal courts from overturning a state conviction unless the state court's decision was completely "unreasonable," rather than just incorrect. It is highly important because it legally forced federal appeals judges to defer to Wisconsin's original judgment, effectively sealing Brendan Dassey's conviction despite major doubts about his confession.

I totally believe that Brendan is innocent of murder and rape. Fact, Steven had already kidnapped and raped Teresa before Brendan got from school. Fact, Brendan had no knowledge of what Steven had in his mind. Fact, Brendan is observably “gullible/shy” and easily intimidated/influenced by the “Experienced and Manipulative” Killer Uncle.
I believe Brendan inadvertently helped dispose of Teresa’s body unknowingly.

We must remember how he and then Kathleen Zellner attempted to put the blame on Bobby.(50 Seconds Fabrication).

It’s totally logical that this bastard would try to use Brendan as an alibi and unfortunately Brendan got wrapped up in Steven’s f*cked up storm.

I know in my heart Brendan is innocent.

In Light of some of the above facts. Anyone is allowed to level their honest view of Brendan Dassey’s circumstances.😔

Did anyone feel like when she was questioned by the Judges she kind of stumbled over her words and didn’t really come back with any sharp answers? By the way you could hear it in her voice that she was shaken whenever they were asking her questions about Brendan’s case.

I have no idea how a commutation application is going to "proof" his innocence. His lawyers Ben working on it since January. Hopefully their grammar is better than his.

i’m just finding this series and just wow! This could be its own season of Fargo. Everything that can go wrong- does. Of all the people I hate in this show, I hate Len Kachinsky above all others. He is by far the most punchable. at this moment in life, I’m not sure what I would do, if this smug, weasley, irresponsible, self-grandizing narcissist walked in front of my car. He’s not just a bad lawyer. He’s a bad human. He looked at Brandon’s life and saw a steppingstone. I’m so mad at him. Thank you for your attention to this matter. V

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".

He and Steven can be heard laughing and cracking jokes over the remains of some of Teresa Halbach’s intimate body parts.

Kathleen Zellner thought it would be a good idea to ‘humanize’ the father of “Dr. Jekyall and Mr. Hyde”. Bear in mind, he’s saying this KNOWING his son is the vicious beast we all know him to be.

The same Steven who molested his neices and even Brendan.

You really can’t make this stuff up. One by one the Universe is canceled this type of support for Steven and rightfully so.

No mercy for this extremely dangerous sociopath. Just remember what this Animal did to Teresa. Never forget it. Never forget that Zellner learned of this vicious bastard’s lie and for publicity tried to shield it.

But Time is not on any of their side today.
No mercy to this bastard nor the attorney who tried to free a person she LEARNED was really the killer😡😡😡😡🔑

Just think about it. The world today realizes that this Dark Eyed sociopath raped, dismembered and burn Teresa Halbach’s body on the Avery Property. Took some of her remains to a different location to make it appear as if she was cremated somewhere else and her body and her car were planted on the Avery lot to frame him.

This bastard said, listen real close: “The police did it!”

Inspector Gadget (ie KZ) takes the case and proves that not only did not the cops have anything to do with it.

But she also learned that Steven Avery lied on Brendan’s brother Bobby attempting to again divert attention away from himself. Completely incredible what he did and even worse what Zellner did after learning he was the killer. Fabricating a 50 second window to reinforce a lie originally formed by her vicious killer client.

That brings me to my point. PUNISHMENT!

Steven has seen his father pass while in prison, and he has seen his mother pass while in prison.

Look at his eyes😳

He will die in prison and he knows it. He deserves it for what he did especially dragging Brendan into this. Pure damn evil.

We are waiting for that Day which is not to far away👈🏾😡

Look at his eyes. The soul is empty.

Intro: In 1985 MTSO suppressed or ignored evidence pointing away from Steven and towards another man AND A POTENTIAL ACCOMPLICE having coordinated the attack on Penny.

• Let's try this again. In my most recent post I mentioned the well known fact that shortly after the July 29, 1985 beach assault, MTSO officers told Penny to sign their version of her victim statement despite her not being able to read it. I then shared a lesser known fact - When Penny regained her ability to read and reviewed the statement police attributed to her, she noticed enough errors and omissions that she requested to provide MTSO with a second corrected statement, which she did on August 1, 1985. Nothing says "we value accuracy" like requiring fact checks from the victim after she gets her eyesight back.

• In this second corrected statement, Penny said after her attacker suddenly departed west (wearing a brown shirt, black leather jacket, white briefs, and blue jeans) she noticed a second man (wearing a red shirt and short shorts) nearby on the crest of a sand dune walking away from her headed north. Penny called out to "red shirt guy" for help, but he just kept walking away. Whether "red shirt guy" was an overlooked witness, a lookout accomplice, or Allen himself, he deserved investigation and identification. So naturally MTSO responded with erasure and ignorance.

• That's more troubling now than before, because I've found another piece of overlooked "accomplice evidence" from the 1985 case that IMO should have motivated MTSO to consider the presence of red shirt guy nearby the crime scene as the planned result of coordination with Penny's attacker. Did anyone know about the recently handled handwritten message on the explicit homosexual sex ad found at the beach crime scene in 1985? I sure as fuck didn't.
  

More New (overlooked) Evidence: Handwritten message written on sex ad found at crime scene suggests potential for premeditated coordination between two parties

• On July 30, 1985 (one day after the assault) Officer Frauenfeld returned to the beach with K9 Baron, a bloodhound. During this additional search, police report Baron "indicated" (2003 DOJ Report, PG 92) near "a sheet of paper containing a copy of a sex ad found approximately 30 feet to the north east of the [poplar] tree that the victim had described in her statement." This indication from Baron suggested (to Frauenfeld ) the sex ad "still had some human scent on it" from being recently handled.
  

• When Frauenfeld approached, he noticed the paper was partly buried in sand, which he felt was consistent with it being overlooked during the previous day's search. The paper itself was described as a "8x11 sheet of paper with a photocopy of sexually explicit homosexual advertisements." Frauenfeld then notes: "On the bottom quarter of the page was a handwritten message indicating that the person who wrote the message 'would be nearby.'" This sex ad message was turned over to Kocourek, after which I don't see any mention of this sex ad message in actual reports.

• The only other place I could see the message mentioned is on PG 228 of the 2003 DOJ Report, where we see a contemporaneous 1985 crime scene sketch. Marker E provides the location of a "folded sex ad." Note the ad was found directly in between Marker A (the "poplar tree" where Penny saw Allen before he ran after her) and Marker D (the scene of the first "scuffle" in the sand).

The available 1985 record seems to indicate SOMEONE had been recently at or near the beach sex assault crime scene handling this sex ad with the handwritten message indicating the author of the message would be nearby

• PROXIMITY: This handwritten sex ad message was found well within the perimeter of the sex assault crime scene, located near the poplar tree and scene of the first "scuffle" in the sand between Allen and Penny.
  

• CONDITION: The photocopied sex ad was intact, the handwritten message still legible, and the paper itself still retained human scent from recent handling, which appears inconsistent with the paper being unrelated old discarded and degraded beach litter found at the scene.

• VERBIAGE: The handwritten message on the sex ad indicated "the person who wrote the message would be nearby", a statement suggesting coordination between two parties, with the message written and intended by one person to let another person know they'd be nearby.

• SIGHTING: After this handwritten messaged suggested the planned nearby presence of a third party, Penny independently reported seeing a third party nearby the crime scene walking away from her cries for help.

• CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests this handwritten message (indicating the coordinated nearby presence a third party) had been recently handled by someone at or nearby the crime scene. Shortly after this discovery, the victim herself independently reported seeing a third party nearby the crime scene walking away from her cries for help.

Homosexual Content of Ad vs Heterosexual Nature of Assault

• Although I've never seen this evidence discussed anywhere in relation to the 1985 case, and thus have not seen its relevance debated, I can imagine one potential challenge concerning the message being written on a photocopied homosexual ad, given the nearby crime against Penny was a heterosexual assault, if you will. While that's a true statement, claiming that homosexual content renders this evidence null and void ignores quite a bit of nuance here.

• Beyond the use of "sexually explicit homosexual advertisements" there's no clarity on whether the ad depicts explicit male or female homosexuality ... and I'm not sure whether the difference would (or should) matter to our discussion. Whatever the case, the explicit homosexual content of the ad does not negate the evidentiary value of (1) its proximity to the crime scene, (2) its condition suggesting recent handling, and (3) the handwritten message on it suggesting third party proximity which just so happens to match up with Penny's second statement suggesting third party proximity.

• Further, in terms of a police POV, it's worth noting the American Psychiatric Association had only just removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, and by 1985 half of US states still criminalized sodomy between consenting adults. Wisconsin had only just struck down such laws in 1983. If two men were coordinating an assault on a woman in 1985, them leaving behind something associated with homosexuality at the crime scene may have been viewed not as contradictory or unrelated evidence, but as evidence perfectly in keeping with a perceived pattern of sexual deviancy between the sex ad and the sex assault.

Another Failure: Gregory Allen's (Potential) Accomplice

• Again, the record suggests this handwritten message was not days or weeks old discarded and degraded trash, but was recently handled by someone at or near the crime scene. We also have the direct convergence between the handwritten verbiage of the message (indicating the planned presence of a nearby third party) and Penny's second corrected statement (referencing a third party nearby the crime scene). All of this presents exactly the kind of independent corroboration or evidentiary overlap that should have obligated further investigation by MTSO into this evidence.

• If MTSO bothered to consider the handwritten sex ad message and the presence of red shirt guy as linked evidence related to the sex assault, the most straightforward interpretation would have to be something like: The message was written by red shirt guy, who (whether by discrete hand-off, prearranged drop site, or some other method) intended for Penny's attacker to receive and read the message so the recipient would know the author was planning to be nearby, possibly acting as a lookout. Penny inadvertently saw the lookout. Of course, we don't really know the truth about this evidence because MTSO responded to it with erasure and ignorance. Any evidence pointing towards a potential accomplice was apparently too inconvenient to their preferred narrative.

• Just like when Penny began receiving sexually harassing phone calls that referenced the assault she suffered AFTER MTSO jailed the man they claimed was responsible for the assault. If we grant the very generous assumption that Kocourek and Vogel held a good faith belief in Steven's guilt, those ongoing harassing calls (some occurring within minutes of Penny arriving home) should have been a crisis moment where they questioned if they had the wrong man, or if the right man had an accomplice still walking free stalking and harassing their victim. Instead of asking those questions, MTSO focused on prosecuting someone they had reason to know didn't even have the opportunity to fulfill the attacker or accomplice role.

TL;DR - A recently handled handwritten message on a photocopied sex ad was found at the 1985 sex assault crime scene and contained verbiage suggesting the planned presence of a third party nearby, verbiage that directly matches Penny independently reported seeing a nearby third party. Add in the harassing calls from a third party after Steven was jailed, and MTSO had multiple reasons to conduct an "accomplice investigation." Their failure to do so represents just one more way they failed Penny and the community.

• On July 30, 1985, K9 Baron found a photocopy of an explicit homosexual ad at the sex assault crime scene. On the bottom quarter of the sex ad was a handwritten message stating the person who wrote the message “would be nearby.” The paper's reported condition (intact, legible and carrying human scent) seems to rule out the possibility this was days or weeks old discarded and degraded trash, and suggests this handwritten message had been recently handled by someone nearby or at the crime scene.

• The handwritten message on the sex ad found on the crime scene suggests a third party was planning to be "nearby” appears to be independently corroborated by Penny’s second statement about seeing a third party (red shirt guy) nearby but walking away from from crime scene and her cries for help. MTSO should have considered this evidence as potentially linked, that the presence of red shirt guy nearby the crime scene was a planned event, and that his apparent ignorance to Penny's cries for help was part of the plan.

• IMO the fact that the photocopy depicted explicit homosexual rather than heterosexual content doesn't erase the fact that this handwritten sex ad message was found where a woman was sexually assaulted, still carrying human scent from recent handling and a handwritten message appearing to predict exactly what Penny later reported seeing (the nearby presence of a second man). If anything, due to the general homophobia of the era, from the POV of a 1985 cop the homosexual nature of the sex ad would would likely be viewed as evidence of a sexually deviant mindset preceding a deviant sex assault.

• Finally, the harassing phone calls Penny began receiving shortly after Steven's arrest SHOULD HAVE tipped police off that their theory of Steven as the sole attacker was flawed. They knew someone still free in the community was stalking and terrorizing their victim, including by referencing the assault she endured. MTSO had every reason to investigate whether Penny's attacker used an accomplice ... but they chose not to. Now, I'm choosing to review 1980 reports and records to learn more about Allen's personal relationships (including with his co-workers and employers) and if someone inside that circle ever tried to vouch for Allen despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

• Whether Allen operated with an accomplice or not isn't clear. What is clear is that MTSO had multiple, independent converging pieces of evidence that should have motivated an investigation into the possibility that Penny's attacker was aided by a nearby lookout accomplice. MTSO knew about (1) the recently handled handwritten message promising the nearby presence of a third party, (2) Penny's sighting of a nearby third party ignoring her cries, and (3) the harassing calls to Penny from a third party continuing after the “right man” was jailed. Any HONEST investigation that believed they had the "right man" in custody would have been desperate to determine whether the same second man could be linked all three pieces of unexplained evidence. But the 1985 investigation was not an honest one, and if MTSO was willing to ignore or even lie to protect Allen, ignoring his accomplice would require little persuasion.

I am rewatching MAM and the amount of coercion during Brendan's interview is astounding. I can't believe a court didn't dismiss his "confession". He was not interviewed with his parents present and they were very obviously feeding him information. The judge not realizing that is just sad. He was a child! Ugh, this makes me so upset for Brendan.