2.Robert H. Gordon — Cross (Part 2)

MR. KRATZ: Good morning, Dr. Gordon. Thank you, once again, for -- for coming this morning.

MR. KRATZ: First of all, I want to talk about your profession, generally. That is, the profession of psychologist. Uh, it's not unusual for psychologists, whether clinical or forensic psychologists, to appear and testify in a court proceeding; is that correct?

MR. KRATZ: Are there, however, rules of professional conduct for a practicing psychologist, similar to the rules of professional conduct that lawyers have to -- have to live by?

MR. KRATZ: All right. And I understood, at least from, uh, a last opportunity that you and I had to talk, uh, about this case, that, uh, you are vigilant in complying with those rules? In other words, and not to put too sharp a point on it, but, uh, you pride yourself in not just giving the answer that a client wants to hear, but, uh, in giving both sides, if, in fact, that is what the evidence points to; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: Do your, um, ethical rules, in fact, uh, prohibit or frown upon promising, um, what you might say in advance of being retained by a specific client?

MR. KRATZ: Do they frown upon a prediction or an advanced, um, promise of what you might say in court or in a testimony kind of setting?

MR. KRATZ: As an example, it's not proper to promise that you won't change your opinion, or you won't change your answer, as a result of what we're going to do now, which is cross-examination? That's true; isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: My question is, is it improper, uh, within your rules of professional, um, standards, to promise or predict that you will not change your opinion after being cross-examined in court?

MR. KRATZ: So, no matter what I might present to you, um, to the contrary, or what facts that I may, uh, present you, uh, do you still believe that you are open to revising the opinion that you have first, or during direct examination, furnished to this jury?

MR. KRATZ: Okay. And I -- I think that's what I was -- that I -- that's what I was talking about. You talked about your qualifications on, uh, direct examination, and uh, you have indicated that this is the first time, uh, that you've ever presented this suggestibility theory or the suggestibility findings before a jury; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: And isn't it also true, Doctor, that, to your knowledge, since you're a forensic psychologist you may know this, this is the first time ever in Wisconsin that this kind of testimony's been offered to a jury?

MR. KRATZ: If he knows, Judge. If he doesn't know, I'll --

MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz) All right. The fact is, though, Doctor, that when you talked about other psychologists that do this kind of work, and I -- and that's a quote that I wrote down --

MR. KRATZ: Okay.

MR. KRATZ: Back to my original question. When you talked about others doing this kind of work, do you know of other psychologists, uh, in the state of Wisconsin, who are going around offering suggestibility testimony to juries?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Well, you -- you've told this jury about how well, um -- how well read you are, at least how you keep up on this particular area, uh, of, uh, forensic psychology. If that was something that was commonly done, or even in Wisconsin if it was something done, you'd likely know about it, wouldn't you?

MR. KRATZ: Let's talk about the specific tests that you did perform. Uh, I interposed some objections about the Wechsler, uh, test, and how it was scored or how it was scaled. Do you remember those objections?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Now, I'm going to be skipping pretty far ahead. But your eventual, um, opinion is going to be based, in large part, on something called the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, which, as I understand, includes a consideration of an individual's IQ level. Is that true?

MR. KRATZ: The term "vulnerability to suggestibility." Does that depend upon IQ levels? Or at least that's one of the factors that you have to consider?

MR. KRATZ: To render that opinion, or to, um, have a particular subject fit within a category that is consistent with vulnerability to suggestibility, uh, is it a fair statement that, uh, that hypothesis is furthered -- or that hypothesis is supported if an individual has a borderline intellectual capability or borderline IQ rather than low average? Or am I overstating that -- that, uh, distinction between Wechsler and your original testimony?

MR. KRATZ: All right.

MR. KRATZ: All right. In your, uh, performance of the IQ tests, you mentioned that that was, um, important to you. In other words, getting a, uh -- a relatively accurate read of Brendan's current IQ level was important?

MR. KRATZ: Is that what you said? I think you mentioned that, because this was such an important case, and, um, because of the, uh, opinion that you wanted to give to this jury, uh, coming up with a, um -- a, uh -- an accurate value, or at least a, uh -- a range, uh, was important for you. That's fair, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: All right. The Wechsler, uh, Intelligence Scale, even the abbreviated version that you give, how many sub-tests are included in that particular test?

MR. KRATZ: What does that mean, either two or four can be administered? I assume one can be administered; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: Why did you administer two instead of the four sub-tests of that?

MR. KRATZ: Was this anything that prevented you from administering all four of the sub-tests for this IQ test to Mr. Dassey?

MR. KRATZ: You next talked about -- or at least in your report, you talked about the 16-PF, which I think you described as a -- called it a test, uh, that evaluates, quote, unquote, normal characteristics, at least under general circumstances. Is that a fair characterization?

MR. KRATZ: As opposed to the MMPI, or something that looks at the more deviant or -- or problematic individuals?

MR. KRATZ: Well, I -- we can get right to the -- the conclusions of the 16-PF. Did you agree with the findings of your -- or of the results from the 16-PF test?

MR. KRATZ: I assume you've been asked to bring your file and the results with you here to court; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: If you'd be so kind, Doctor, as to turn to your results of the 16-PF test. And as you're doing that, or as you're looking for that, I'm sure you can, um, also answer this. How was this test scored? In other words, do you score it or do you send it away to be scored by somebody else?

MR. KRATZ: I will.

MR. KRATZ: And so the jury understands what you're looking at, it is a -- a printout, a report, if you will, of the results of the, uh, administration of the examination to Brendan; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: Okay. If you'd be so kind as to turn to page, three, then, the very last category is called, uh, cognition and communication. Do you see that?

MR. KRATZ: Within this report, it suggests that, although not necessarily a measure of general intelligence, it does test one cognitive skill, namely, the ability to manipulate verbal concepts. I was curious as to what that meant. Maybe you can describe that for the jury? What is the ability to manipulate verbal concepts?

MR. KRATZ: All right.

MR. KRATZ: But this report, if believed, suggests that Brendan does function adequately in his ability to manipulate verbal concepts. Isn't that what it says?

MR. KRATZ: Okay. Do you agree with that statement?

MR. KRATZ: Really?

MR. KRATZ: Do you know what the term "cherry picking" means?

MR. KRATZ: And "cherry picking," at least in the concept of professionals who testify, is they present to juries what might support their client's position, but they keep from them, or they don't report, the things that don't, or that, uh, might undermine their opinion. That's a fair characterization of that term?

MR. KRATZ: By the way, anywhere in your report or your conclusions, did you include the 16-PF conclusion that Brendan's ability to manipulate verbal concepts, uh, was of an adequate functioning level? Did you include that anywhere in your report?

MR. KRATZ: Next test that you had Brendan perform, or the next one that you talked about, was something called the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory. You're familiar, I know, with that particular test. And, in fact, in your report, uh, dated November 15, 2006, you discuss how the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory factored into, or was considered by you, in your ultimate, uh, analysis and conclusion. That's true; isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: And, in fact, did you, uh, take the results of this particular instrument and apply it to the features that you suggest in your report? That is, anger, passivity and anxiety?

MR. KRATZ: Now, the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory, first of all, is that a test? Is that something that psychologists normally call a test or not?

MR. KRATZ: All right. The difference between inventory and tests are, uh, and -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but a test are something that have norms. That is, it's something that can be objectively scored; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Let me just ask you, then, about the State Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Um, do the results of that particular test have norms to compare it to?

MR. KRATZ: By the way, um, the term "anxiety," which you express in your report, was one characterasistic (phonetic) -- characteristic that you used this instrument to examine. Is there anything in this particular instrument that talks about anxiety at all?

MR. KRATZ: Correct.

MR. KRATZ: But it doesn't, does it?

MR. KRATZ: Why, if -- if anxiety was something that you thought was important to gauge with this young man, which I think your report indicates it is, why didn't you give the State Trait Anger -- or, excuse me, State Trait Anxiety Inventory instead of the Anger Inventory?

MR. KRATZ: A perfect segue to my next questions, Doctor. The MMPI-A, or the adolescent version, I think you cautioned before that you can't really look at any specific answer to any specific question, that that might be somehow misleading, and I was confused as to why that would be. Can you explain that again?

MR. KRATZ: I'm sure I wouldn't either. And -- and that's why I'm going to ask you some of these, uh -- some of these specific questions. Brendan, when provided these questions, or when asked questions on what's called the MMPI, uh, was asked series of 478 true/false questions. He could either say true or he could say false on the answers; isn't that right?

MR. KRATZ: Now, as you told this jury, there -- after the results are obtained, there's various scales. In other words, how he answers questions on -- particular answers or, I guess, more appropriately stated, uh, the combination of certain answers, uh, can, um, oftentimes, be, um, considered by trained professionals and some tendencies might be able to be developed regarding characteristics -- personality characteristics. That's fair, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: Did you assume that Brendan, when asked these 478 questions, gave truthful or accurate responses, at least as he believed them to be?

MR. KRATZ: All right.

MR. KRATZ: Now, in the interpretation of these answers or the profiles, um, this particular instrument allows trained psychologists to look at various scales. You talked about one that, uh, is, um -- or included shyness or social anxiety, um, or social alienation, uh, is that -- is that correct?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Social -- and social avoidance as well?

MR. KRATZ: What -- what's that scale called, by the way, when you test for those particular characteristics? Which scale are we looking at?

MR. KRATZ: Have any other name to it on the MMPI? Often referred to as the zero scale?

MR. KRATZ: All right. And so this jury understands, there were other things that you could have scored this test for? There are other, um, personality characteristics that you could have rendered opinions about in this case, but that you chose not to. Is that true?

MR. KRATZ: For what? I mean, you must have been looking for something.

MR. KRATZ: You -- you were looking for suggestibility --

MR. KRATZ: -- issues, weren't you?

MR. KRATZ: Go ahead.

MR. KRATZ: There's lot of scales. That -- that's --

MR. KRATZ: And of those over 70 scales, how many did you score for?

MR. KRATZ: Oh, good. Then I can ask you some questions about the ones we haven't heard about, I assume?

MR. KRATZ: Good. By the way, um, you were asked to provide, and I assume you brought with you, the individual questions that Brendan was asked, and you have available for you individual answers that he gave. Isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: All right. But you've got the answers, then, with you at least?

MR. KRATZ: When was this test administered to Brendan?

MR. KRATZ: Who was it administered by?

MR. KRATZ: Did you record the answers that Brendan gave when you asked him specific questions?

MR. KRATZ: All right.

MR. KRATZ: Doctor --

MR. KRATZ: Is there a problem? You don't understand my question or you --

MR. KRATZ: You can't answer true or false to what his answer was?

MR. KRATZ: Oh, I see. All right.

MR. KRATZ: Well, let's talk about misleading the jury, then. The MMPI could be scored for something called anti-social personality traits. In other words, to determine whether or not somebody lacks guilt about criminal exploits that they're involved in. That's true, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: Did you score for any of those?

MR. KRATZ: Now, anti-social or --

MR. KRATZ: Oh, I'm sorry. Because he's under 18, did you want to say something about that or not?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Suffice it to say, Doctor, uh, Gordon, that that scale and those results were not included in your official written report to the Court?

MR. KRATZ: Any scale that dealt with Mr. Dassey's, um, personality characteristics takes that might show a conduct disorder or anti-social personality disorder?

MR. KRATZ: It was not included; isn't that right?

MR. KRATZ: You interviewed Brendan, you said, on the 3rd and 10th of November?

MR. KRATZ: Now, during your interview with Brendan, you described him as being sad, polite and passive. That's correct, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: Within your report to the Court, you noted that Brendan was nervous getting up in front of people; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: Do you feel that that was significant to the ultimate conclusion that you rendered in this case as to vulnerability to suggestibility?

MR. KRATZ: Oh. Lot of people get nervous standing up in front of crowds or in front of people?

MR. KRATZ: All right. And death is number two; isn't that right?

MR. KRATZ: People are more nervous about getting up in front of a crowd than they are about dying. That's the point?

MR. KRATZ: All right.

MR. KRATZ: Brendan also said that he was nervous when meeting new people; isn't that right?

MR. KRATZ: Lots of people get nervous meeting new people; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: During your interview, you also mentioned, however, that Brendan exhibited no symptoms of depression, no appetite problems, or any of those kinds of -- of issues. Is that fair?

MR. KRATZ: Poor eye con -- I'm sorry?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Now, contrary to what you saw, in other words your observations of Brendan, the MMPI suggests that Brendan has the type of personality that, uh, he might exhibit many, uh, of such or of those kinds of complaints. Is that what the MMPI report says?

MR. KRATZ: Isn't that what the MMPI report says?

MR. KRATZ: No. What I want you to do is -- does the MMPI conclusion contradict, or is it different than what you personally observed of Brendan?

MR. KRATZ: Is it different then?

MR. KRATZ: Were there any instances, whether it's in your report or not, Doctor, where the test results that you obtained from any of these instruments were in contrast to what you personally observed with Brendan?

MR. KRATZ: I'll ask that again.

MR. KRATZ: Were there any circumstances where the test results that you obtained, or the test result, um, conclusions, were in contrast or were different to what you personally observed from Brendan?

MR. KRATZ: On anything. Any of the test results. I'm just wondering if that phenomenon ever occurred?

MR. KRATZ: All right. When that happens, when the test results differ from what you see with your own eyes, um, how do you reconcile that? Which of the two do you, um, adopt, if you will?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Doctor, uh, Gordon, when you interviewed Brendan, you said that he appeared polite and was responsive to all of your questions; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: He appear hostile at all to you?

MR. KRATZ: Have you ever had a interview in your many years of being either a clinical or forensic psychologist where, uh, the subject that you were interviewing had a dislike for either you, personally, or members of your profession?

MR. KRATZ: All right.

MR. KRATZ: Tell us about when, uh -- when that happens, because I'm sure lawyers have that as well, um, what do you observe when an individual has a, uh, uh -- either a personal dislike or that of your profession?

MR. KRATZ: Let's at least start or, uh, confine ourselves to the -- the -- the -- the lower end of that scale, that at least they're not physically, uh, assaultive towards you. It's fair that it's more difficult to obtain information from them? They aren't as free to provide you with answers or with information than you otherwise might like; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: They're certainly not predisposed to cooperate with you; right?

MR. KRATZ: Well, wouldn't the same be expected if somebody had a dislike, generally, for police officers? Wouldn't you expect them to be more guarded and less free to provide inculpatory information?

MR. KRATZ: If -- let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this young man, Brendan Dassey, uh, had a predisposition or a dislike of law enforcement or police officers, generally. Wouldn't you expect Brendan to be less forthcoming instead of more forthcoming with information in the course of an interview?

MR. KRATZ: In fact, somebody who is suggestible, that is, somebody who is vulnerable to suggestibility, is just as likely to provide a true confession as they would be to provide a false confession; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: All right. So -- so this jury understands, you're not commenting on the, um, truthfulness or reliability or believability of an admission or a confession that might be provided by a suggestible person? Just that they may be more vulnerable to suggestibility?

MR. KRATZ: Doctor Gordon, do you remember, the last time we had a chance to speak, me asking you the specific question that Brendan was just as likely to provide a true confession as a false confession? Remember me asking you that?

MR. KRATZ: Remember --

MR. KRATZ: -- what your answer was then?

MR. KRATZ: I'm asking you if you remember?

MR. KRATZ: Your answer today, if I can -- if I could ask you that specific question again, is what?

MR. KRATZ: Isn't Brendan just as likely to provide a true confession as a false confession?

MR. KRATZ: Now, the concept of suggestibility is not a -- a discipline or an area that is just unique to police interrogations. It's something that we see every day with marketing, or advertising, or, uh, fields like that. Isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: I'm not asking what hypnotic suggestibility -- My -- my question is whether somebody is suggestible? And this kind of goes to the true or false confession. The suggestibility doesn't remove somebody's ability to reason? In other words, to choose one, um, answer or another? That's true, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: I'm sorry?

MR. KRATZ: Suggestibility doesn't remove somebody's decision-making ability? They still get to choose whether they're going to adopt that suggestion or not; isn't that right?

MR. KRATZ: I'm not talking about interrogation. As an example, if somebody tells you to buy a Chevy over a Ford, they may be suggesting that you buy a Chevy, but you still get to make that decision --

MR. KRATZ: If somebody tells you you should order a pizza, you get to decide if you're going to order a pizza; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: I appreciate there's those other factors. By the way, the area of suggestibility is not a recognized specialty or even a sub-specialty in the area of psychology, whether forensic or otherwise; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: I asked about suggestibility. Doesn't -- doesn't fall under those categories of specialty or sub-specialty?

MR. KRATZ: Now, you told this jury that you reviewed the videotaped interview of Brendan on the lst, and some written narrative or a transcript, I suppose, of an interview on the 27th of February; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: And that some time later you got some school records to, um, review in case you were asked about that here at trial? Or -- or -- let me ask it a different way. To, um, consider and determine whether or not it might affect your opinion of Brendan?

MR. KRATZ: By the way, how did watching that interview, and this jury got to see that, uh, interview, they got to see about -- just under three hours of what you've called the four-hour interview, but how did watching the first three hours of that interview impact or affect your, um, report? You understand my question? Or would you like me to be more specific?

MR. KRATZ: Whether you watched that interview or not, would you have been able to render these same conclusions? That is, that Brendan was, uh, vulnerable to suggestibility? Or did you need to watch that March 1 interrogation to come to that conclusion?

MR. KRATZ: You're telling the jury that it wasn't absolutely necessary to watch the interrogation that you were being asked to render an opinion about? To render an opinion about it?

MR. KRATZ: Sure.

MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz) You're telling this jury that it wasn't absolutely necessary to watch that interview to render this opinion about Brendan's suggestibility?

MR. KRATZ: I can ask it again if you'd rather. Are you telling this jury that it wasn't absolutely necessary to watch the March 1 interview in order to render this opinion about Brendan's suggestibility?

MR. KRATZ: Let's talk about what might have been helpful or omitted from your report. The report that you've rendered, that talks about Brendan's suggestibility, is devoid of any -- any examples where Brendan actually resisted attempts by officers to suggest answers; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: In watching that video, Doctor Gordon, don't you remember several instances, in fact, over a dozen instances, where a specific suggestion was presented to Brendan, and Brendan actively resisted? In other words, Brendan said, that didn't happen that way. Do you remember that?

MR. KRATZ: That's not in your report?

MR. KRATZ: Did you think that was important to include in your report?

MR. KRATZ: Go back to the very first question about including things that help versus don't help your ultimate opinion. Is this one of those circumstances? In other words, when Brendan actively says, no, it didn't happen that way, that doesn't support your opinion about vulnerability to suggestion, does it?

MR. KRATZ: You said that Brendan's school records weren't provided to you until after you rendered this opinion. Those school records, uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but they include behavioral records, and, um, progress notes, and what are called IEP reports; isn't that right?

MR. KRATZ: Those are notes from school teachers, and school psychologists, and even, on occasion, a parent or two, talking about some problems or some areas that Brendan needed to work on in a school setting; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: One of the areas that the school record specifically addressed was Brendan's memory; is that true?

MR. KRATZ: All right.

MR. KRATZ: Brendan, at least from the school records, didn't have the greatest memory in the world; is that -- is that fair?

MR. KRATZ: All right. And whether it was long-term or short-term memory, at least for Brendan, and from a school or a book learning, um, standpoint, Brendan had some challenges or deficits in that area; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: Would you expect, by the way, somebody with a, um -- not only a fourth grade reading level, but somebody with Brendan's memory deficits, to be able to, um, in great detail, uh, remember a -- let's say, facts or details of a novel that he read maybe four years ago?

MR. KRATZ: How about a novel written for adults rather than for kids?

MR. KRATZ: That just wouldn't seem reasonable to you, would it?

MR. KRATZ: The school records don't mention anywhere about suggestibility, do they? In other words, did you see any notations in the records that Brendan was, um, either highly suggestible or influenced by either classmates or other people?

MR. KRATZ: Did you read the word "influence" anywhere?

MR. KRATZ: That Brendan was easily influenced?

MR. KRATZ: If a school psychologist, Chris Schoenenberger- Gross, who, um, the testimony established, uh, knew Brendan, administered tests directly to Brendan, and did review all of those records, uh, testified that there were no such entries, you wouldn't quarrel with that conclusion, would you?

MR. KRATZ: And school psychologists and teachers and those that meet with Brendan on a more regular or daily basis, at least from a historical standpoint, are probably in a better position to gauge those kinds of things than you, after meeting with him twice; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: So you don't -- I'm sorry you. You don't know --

MR. KRATZ: You don't know if those teachers administered IQ tests, do you?

MR. KRATZ: I'm sorry. The school psychologists. Don't know if she administered IQ tests? I misspoke.

MR. KRATZ: Well, maybe -- I'm going to go on to -- to another question. It isn't -- do you know if the Mishicot School District characterized or categorized Brendan as having any cognitive disability?

MR. KRATZ: And do you know what that result was?

MR. KRATZ: That he did have a cognitive disability?

MR. KRATZ: Why don't you look at his 2005 IEP report? There will be some boxes checked there about whether he has a cognitive disability or not. That should be easy to find.

MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz) Probably late --

MR. KRATZ: (Attorney Kratz) While Mr. Fallon is looking for that, I can go on to a another series of questions. Did you ever talk to this school psychologist, Chris Schoenenberger-Gross?

MR. KRATZ: Why not?

MR. KRATZ: I'm sorry?

MR. KRATZ: Did you ever talk to any of Brendan's teachers?

MR. KRATZ: No. I'm asking for whether or not the school believed Brendan to have a cognitive disability? That was my question.

MR. KRATZ: You didn't talk to Chris -- I'm sorry to interrupt you. You didn't talk to Chris Schoenenberger-Gross, or any of his teachers, because you didn't think you needed to. Is that your answer?

MR. KRATZ: All right. How about Brendan's parent or parents? Did you talk to Brendan's mother?

MR. KRATZ: How come?

MR. KRATZ: All right. You didn't think you needed, uh, family opinions as to Brendan's suggestibility, or that -- whether or not he was easily influenced, to render this opinion?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Let's talk about other statements that Brendan made. You said that you reviewed the February 27 interview of officers. You interviewed a May 1, uh, videotape to officers. Were you also made aware, several months before February 27, of statements Brendan made to other family members? Specifically, to one of his cousins, Kayla Avery?

MR. KRATZ: Were you aware that in late December, Brendan Dassey told one of his cousins that he saw Teresa Pinned up in Steven Avery's house?

MR. KRATZ: You were?

MR. KRATZ: Did you consider that statement, and the fact that it's three months before the, uh, March 1 statement? The one where suggestibility is commented upon? The fact that that statement was made three months before, you find that significant or did you include that in your report?

MR. KRATZ: Did you find that significant as to your ultimate opinion as to Brendan's suggestibility?

MR. KRATZ: Okay. Well, setting Mr. Lindbergh aside, if you can talk about this case --

MR. KRATZ: -- did you not think that Brendan Dassey's cousin, re -- telling a school counselor and telling the police that Brendan Dassey said that he saw Teresa tied up or pinned up in a house, was relevant as to the March 1 statement, wherein you commented as to his suggestibility? It's a yes or no question.

MR. KRATZ: Did you believe that Brendan's statement to his cousin that he saw body parts in a fire at the same time was relevant as to your opinion as to suggestibility?

MR. KRATZ: The fact that Brendan Dassey said, in late December, that he heard Teresa screaming before he went into that house, you believe that's relevant to your opinion as to suggestibility of the March 1 statement?

MR. KRATZ: Those are statements that are several months -- or at least they're alleged to have been made several months -- before this March 1 statement. Do you understand that?

MR. KRATZ: Are you also aware of, and did you include, statements that Brendan Dassey made, admissions that Brendan Dassey made, uh, a couple of months after the March 1 statement?

MR. KRATZ: You were aware of statements he made to his mother about the confession? Uh, that is, um, "Why didn't you tell me?" Brendan answered, "I was scared." Do you remember, and did you review that statement made from Brendan to his --

MR. KRATZ: -- mother?

MR. KRATZ: That Brendan's mother told him, "If you would have told me, Teresa would have still been alive." And Brendan said, "Yeah." Do you remember reviewing that particular telephone call?

MR. KRATZ: Do you remember Brendan being asked by his mother, "Did you do all of that stuff to her?" And Brendan replying, "Some of it." Do you remember reviewing that particular statement?

MR. KRATZ: By the way, are any of those statements, made months after the March 1 statement, do you believe to be relevant to your conclusion as to suggestibility, at least as it relates to the March 1 statement?

MR. KRATZ: It would be relevant if Brendan Dassey apologized to the victim's family, in his words, "for what I did to her." Would that be a relevant statement as to suggestibility of the March 1 statement?

MR. KRATZ: Did you consider it?

MR. KRATZ: And despite all of those statements, despite the statements months before and months after, consistent with what he told the police, you still believe that Brendan was vulnerable to suggestibility; is that true?

MR. KRATZ: Doctor, my client -- or my colleague -- Mr. Fallon's going to show you Exhibit 219. First of all, tell us what that is and what the date on the top of that report is?

MR. KRATZ: Does that particular form have a check box or a place where the school can determine whether or not, in their opinion, Brendan has a cognitive disability?

MR. KRATZ: And is that box checked on Brendan's form?

MR. KRATZ: Some speech and language issues --

MR. KRATZ: Now, Brendan's statement to his cousin about seeing Teresa tied up or pinned up in the house, seeing body parts in the fire, and hearing Teresa screaming, and Brendan's statements, uh, months afterwards to his mother, did those impact or did you consider those statements when Brendan told you he was scared he was going to be arrested?

MR. KRATZ: A couple of the preeminent authors in this area are two individuals in California named, uh, Mr. -- is it Drezin or Drizin, and Leo; is that correct?

MR. KRATZ: And another is a person by the name of Brett Trowbridge. You're familiar with their work?

MR. KRATZ: Is it fair --

MR. KRATZ: I -- I'll limit my inquiry, then, to what you are familiar with. Would be the Drizin -- is it Drizin or Drezin?

MR. KRATZ: Drizin and Leo. D-r-i-z-i-n. You understand?

MR. KRATZ: You read that name at least? And in their study, which is, uh, in fact, one of the preeminent works in false confession, you'd agree with that, wouldn't you?

MR. KRATZ: Mr. Drizin and Leo indicate, and do you agree with this statement, that most false confessions -- now, we're getting into the area of false confessions versus suggestibility -- are the result of, um, tactics by police which are so impermissible, most of which include physical violence, like beatings, is that what you find?

MR. KRATZ: How about we do this, if you can't answer yes or no, then you can let me know, all right? If -- if you can, Doctor, I'd appreciate it. Are you familiar with Mr. Drizin and Leo's proposition that most false confessions are the result of such extreme police conduct, impermissible conduct, that can, and often does, include physical violence or beatings of suspects?

MR. KRATZ: Familiar that their studies indicate that most false confessions are the result of very long, sometimes, uh, interrogations that last into the days, rather than just, uh, an hour, two or even three hours. You're familiar with that?

MR. KRATZ: Now, in our case, that is, in the March 1, um, videotape of Mr., um, Dassey -- Mr. Fallon will take care of that for you.

MR. KRATZ: Brendan's first admissions, that is, his first admissions of criminal involvement in this case, don't happen at the three-hour or the four-hour mark, but they happen, really, within and right around the one-hour mark. Is that a fair, uh, recollection of --

MR. KRATZ: -- your review?

MR. KRATZ: So that, at least as it relates to false confessions, is extremely inconsistent with Mr. Drizin and Leo's findings. Uh, that is, it being within an hour or two, rather than six, eight hours, twelve hours, days of confession. That's fair, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: You told this jury that you were not familiar with the works of, uh, Brett Trowbridge when he deals with the three different types of false confessions?

MR. KRATZ: If I asked you questions about that, might that refresh your -- your -- your memory?

MR. KRATZ: The second is something Mr. Trowbridge calls coerced compliant. That is, that an individual confesses to a crime for a perceived gain. Whether it's real or just perceived, that's why they confess to a crime that may not be true. You agree with that?

MR. KRATZ: All right. But they do it for a gain? That is, uh, something, um -- something that they perceive as of benefit to them? You'd agree with that second component, wouldn't you?

MR. KRATZ: And the third that Mr. Trowbridge, uh, talks about, and maybe Dr. Trowbridge, uh, is something called, coerced internalized. That is, that they are convinced, or they, in fact, convince themselves, that their memory is so bad, uh, that either due to intoxication, mental illness, or something else, uh, that they actually did it. They believe at the end of the interview that they did it?

MR. KRATZ: Okay. Now, with that backdrop, or with that understanding of the three kinds -- or recognized kinds of false confessions, are you familiar with any category of false confession where an individual confesses just to get themselves into trouble? Are you familiar with -- with that asa recognized area of false confession?

MR. KRATZ: Doctor, I'm going to try to -- actually, I'm going to skip over some things.

MR. KRATZ: And, Judge, with the indulgence of the Court, if I promise to be done by 12:15, then can I finish my -- my cross? Uh, promise, Judge.

MR. KRATZ: Thank you. Then I don't have to come back after -- after the lunch hour.

MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz) You said, uh, Dr. Gordon, that the -- one of the areas that you considered in forming your opinion was the circumstances, themselves, that surrounded this interrogation; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: Now, you're not an expert, and I think on a previous occasion you admitted you were not an expert, in interrogation strategy or, uh, in circumstances that surround the interrogative process; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: Well, that's good. Then, I can ask you, isn't it true that most confessions, at least when a confession is obtained, uh, has stages to it? In other words, uh, suspects typically, and almost universally, start with a denial? They start as denying their involvement in any crime? That's true, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: They move towards some version of events that substantially minimize their involvement. There's a minimization component, uh, at least as they move towards confession?

MR. KRATZ: True? And third, then, there is details, or at least some, um, degree of detail, that is, ultimately, provided or given, again, assuming the truthfulness, uh, of the confession. We're not talking about false confessions. We're talking about those that actually happen. Is that all true?

MR. KRATZ: You're aware, uh, Dr. Gordon, that in the interrogative process, it's important for law enforcement officers to not only consider the spoken word, that is, the, um, information or the amount of information that's obtained, um, but they've got a responsibility to look at the quality of the statement? That is, is it something that can be or ought to be believed? Would you agree with that statement?

MR. KRATZ: Again, that process law enforcement officers often look at whether or not there's physical evidence that would corroborate what it is that the suspect is telling them? That you understand, don't you?

MR. KRATZ: That there's physical evidence available during the investigation that corroborates what the suspect is saying? That that's a factor that they consider when deciding the quality of what it is that the person says?

MR. KRATZ: They also consider information that the general public doesn't know yet? That is, that's purposely withheld from the general public. That you agree with?

MR. KRATZ: And, lastly, and, perhaps, most importantly, law enforcement officers consider what they don't even know yet? In other words, when a suspect tells them something, and that suspect gives sufficient detail that they can later corroborate, the fact that they -- that the cops didn't even know it yet, goes a long way towards considering the quality of what they're being told. That's fair, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: Let me talk about this Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. You are going to need to pull out the, uh, Gudjonsson test, because I have some questions for you, which was developed, you said, by a gentleman by the name of Gudjonsson, who started in Iceland, moved to England, and, in fact, did most of his, uh, study and most of his work continuous to, as I understand, in Great Britain; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Now the purpose of this test, as I understand, is, although you tell the suspect, in this case you told Brendan, it was a memory test, this isn't a memory test at all, is it?

MR. KRATZ: You've got the -- the test in front of you, as well as the scoring sheet?

MR. KRATZ: Thank you. So the jury understands the basic premise of this test, as you read them a story, you read Brendan a story, and you first asked if they can recall, something called immediate recall, if they can recall the facts that was read to them; is that correct?

MR. KRATZ: The test, itself, was developed, uh, you said, by this person from Iceland, later going to England. Um, the test that you provided to us, that is, to the defense, was this, the very story, the very test that was administered to Brendan?

MR. KRATZ: Was it on the 3rd or the 10th of November?

MR. KRATZ: That's fine. If you'd, uh, be so kind, uh, Doctor, to read -- I'm not going to have you read the whole story. But I want you to read the first sentence of that story to the jury so they can get a flavor for how, uh, Brendan was read this particular story. Think you'd be able to do that for us?

MR. KRATZ: You say what? Fifty dollars?

MR. KRATZ: What do you mean you say 50 dollars?

MR. KRATZ: Well, that -- my first series of questions, first of all, was whether or not Brendan even understood what it meant to be on holiday? Do you know if Brendan knew what being on holiday meant?

MR. KRATZ: Now, the memory portion that he repeated back to you, are you reading from something?

MR. KRATZ: What is that?

MR. KRATZ: Did you send that to -- to me? To the defense?

MR. KRATZ: Wasn't that asked for, Doctor?

MR. KRATZ: So we asked for your file. You're reading from that now, and that's something you didn't provide the State.

MR. KRATZ: All right. I'll move on.

MR. KRATZ: Uh, Judge, I would at least note I'd like to make a record at the end of this, but I'll move on at this point.

MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz) Doctor, the -- the issues of "on holiday," uh, you said that, uh, you didn't know whether or not Brendan even understood that. When it indicates that this Anna Thompson woman from South Croydon -- by the way, where is South Croydon?

MR. KRATZ: Do you think Brendan knows where South Croydon is?

MR. KRATZ: Doesn't say Cincinnati or it doesn't say something where somebody from the upper midwest might actually understand this? Doesn't say that, does it?

MR. KRATZ: I'll -- I'll move on.

MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz) When it says that "contained 50 pounds worth of traveler's checks," is it your testimony in this case that, kind of on your own, you just changed the, uh -- the story?

MR. KRATZ: Okay. Do you know how the changing of the -- that one word, uh, affects the results or affects the norms that you're later going to ask this jury to believe?

MR. KRATZ: How do you know that?

MR. KRATZ: And isn't the whole point of norms and administration of these kind of tests, do it the same way every time and with every suspect?

MR. KRATZ: After reading this story about this Anna Thompson woman from England, um, Brendan is then asked to recall the story and to provide you with, um, the details that he can remember; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: Now, is there a -- a scoring system for that? In other words, is he given a particular score or is that available, even, in this test?

MR. KRATZ: The bottom of the first page where it says, immediate recall, on the test, it looks like a score. Memory recall, maximum of 40. Can you tell us what that means?

MR. KRATZ: All right. So whether Brendan even knew what the heck you were talking about with this lady from England, could have been scored by you; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Could have been scored? You didn't do it?

MR. KRATZ: After reading this story, Brendan is then provided what are called leading questions. That is, questions not only leading, but, also, have false information within them. That's true, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: In fact, the information is what's known as false alternatives. I'll give an example. It's not in here, but it's a good example. Uh, if this Anna Thompson woman wasn't wearing a hat, one of the questions might be, Brendan, was she wearing a red or a blue hat? That's what's called a false alternative question that presupposes false information. That's true, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: And, then, if Brendan says, she was wearing a red hat -- he guesses, if he says she was wearing a red hat -- he'd get a point or either a checkmark on something called "yield." That is that he would be yielding to that false suggestion; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: All right. Importantly, Doctor, tell this jury, if Brendan gives you the right answer the second time, the correct answer, if Brendan, the second question, when you say, I'm disappointed, you gave the wrong answer, and Brendan tells you, you know what, Doctor, she wasn't wearing a hat. How would you score that?

MR. KRATZ: So you're telling this jury that even when Brendan corrects himself, even when he gives you the right answer the second time, he gets marked off, or something as to your scale then gets added against him as a shift?

MR. KRATZ: What happens, by the way, and how is this scored if Brendan was provided with a true answer? In other words, if Brendan was asked, did the lady have a hat or not? And Brendan said, no, I didn't have a hat, are there questions like that in this test?

MR. KRATZ: If Brendan was asked a question that contained a true answer, something that was really part of this story, and asked a question like, did the woman have a hat on or not? How is that scored? How is that kind of question scored on --

MR. KRATZ: I am puzzled, because if he answers it correctly, and you fold your arms and you tell this person to change his answer, and he does, how does that have anything to do with this jury as to whether or not he's suggestible?

MR. KRATZ: He responds to his psychologist folding his arms and saying, I'm disappointed in you, Brendan, you should change your answer. Wouldn't you expect Brendan to change his answers?

MR. KRATZ: But you didn't consider, during this interrogation, what this jury has to consider, that Brendan was able to resist suggestibility? You used this test instead; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: Irrespective of whether he actually, in real life, was able to resist suggestibility? Is that what you're telling this jury?

MR. KRATZ: But in real life he wasn't provided false alternatives. He was asked, did you kill her or didn't you? And he said, yeah, I killed her. That's different than this Gudjonsson test, isn't it? Because this presupposes false alternatives.

MR. KRATZ: Isn't that true, Doctor?

MR. KRATZ: (By Attorney Kratz) When provided with a true answer, and Brendan given an opportunity to adopt that answer, isn't that different than the Gudjonsson test? That's my question, Doctor.

MR. KRATZ: Only a what?

MR. KRATZ: A small -- 15 out of 20 are false alternative questions.

MR. KRATZ: Okay. How many -- how many out of 20 are false alternatives?

MR. KRATZ: You said that this test -- or at least one of the things it tests for is memory; is that right?

MR. KRATZ: Now, Doctor, you're aware of different kinds of memory? Uh, that is, how individuals remember things? How they process and remember information?

MR. KRATZ: You're aware of something that is called, uh, semantic memory? Or what my teachers used to call book learning? Uh, that they can remember things that are read to them or things they see in a classroom?

MR. KRATZ: And that's different than something called event memory or autobiographical memory? Things that people actually live through. You understand that people remember those things differently; isn't that right?

MR. KRATZ: Now, reading a story about some lady from England, what kind of memory is involved there? Is it the book learning kind of memory? Or something that Brendan actually lived through?

MR. KRATZ: All right. You're familiar, Doctor, with studies that show that individuals, especially, uh, with low average IQ's, do significantly better with event memory? That is, with things they've actually lived through, rather than parroting back or recalling things that are read to them? You're aware of that?

MR. KRATZ: Well, importantly, police interrogations have everything to do with event memory, things that people have actually lived through, when asked about, uh, whether or not they were involved in something. Uh, they can use that kind of memory; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: Event memory? And people with -- or at least that are asked to call upon their event memory of higher accuracy, less tendency to acquiesce, which is called yield, uh, and are more resistive to suggestion, less chance of shifting, you'd agree with those propositions, wouldn't you?

MR. KRATZ: I'm sorry?

MR. KRATZ: People with low -- Brendan would be better at event memory than with semantic or book learning kinds of memory. Would you agree with that?

MR. KRATZ: Since I have two minutes I have to complete my examination with this doctor, would you agree that the norms, that is, uh, who the Gudjonsson test is compared against, um, do not necessarily reflect the population of -- of people like Brendan Dassey? In other words, uh, they aren't compared against other people who are currently being charged with homicide; is that true?

MR. KRATZ: And, so, whether these are some students in England at Oxford, or something, who took this particular test, uh, they -- when told to change their answers, they may be more reluctant to do that, than somebody whose expert, whose doctor told him, Brendan, I want you to change your answer, that's fair, isn't it?

MR. KRATZ: Finally, the more suggestible a person is, the less detail they're able to provide? That is, the less, um, recall they may have about a particular event; is that true?

MR. KRATZ: Conversely, then, the amount or the quality of information, the quality of detail that Brendan could provide, in fact, doesn't support the proposition that this statement was the product of suggestibility, does it?

MR. KRATZ: Sure. The quality, that is, the detail, that Brendan was able to provide, in fact, does not support your conclusion. Is inconsistent with your conclusion as to suggestibility; isn't that true?

MR. KRATZ: I appreciate it very much. Thank you.

MR. KRATZ: Thank you, Judge.

MR. KRATZ: Judge, could I just put that one thing on the record that I wanted to --

MR. KRATZ: As we know, Dr., uh, Gordon referred to some of his notes that I had specifically --